...I'm pretty sure most of the readers of slashdot (and most other people living in the real world) don't have to worry too much about...
If you're implying we should wait until "most people" are affected by this before sitting up and taking notice, I'd say you're a good patriotic American.
Rule #1) The RIAA are f**kers and are only trying to figure out how they can continue being f**kers. Rule #2) I know it was intended as intelligent commentary (and it was even mostly taken as such), but absolutely no defending or apologizing for the RIAA or their members. They have plenty of lawyers for that, so let 'em continue doing their jobs. Rule #3) There's no Rule #3. Just read on...
The recording industry probably served a purpose back in the stone ages when all the current music people could know of on their own was in their immediate vicinity - local. The recording industry (rather, its future members) could easily bring in recordings from everywhere they had a scout listening for good, new music. That was a good deal.
Then when radio came along a millenia or two later the recording industry put up a hissy (like today), but ultimately coopted the radio broadcasting industry. Welcome to Schlock Radio. As the DJ's went on to pasture, the recording industry was taking over.
Today the recording industry is simply an outmoded institution that didn't have a sunset clause to kick in once their usefulness had been exceeded. (Hint: We need these on pretty much all non-privately owned businesses. Not a bad idea for your private business either, IMO.) As it stands, they seem to me like a zombie industry. No life in it, but it just won't die.
Non-holistic management...
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Maybe it's just natural, but to me there is a dichotomy between business and operations in most companies today and fosters ignorance in both directions. Managers in most companies haven't a clue how things are done in the operational side, and to some extent the same is true in reverse for the operational people.
My theory is that this is almost solely attributable to the general lack of ownership in business today. Almost everything is corporate now - even the managers don't own the place. When the owners leave, so does the clue-train. The tech's may still know how to operate things so the customers still remain happy, but its a long shot if the non-owning managers will ever have a clue beyond who they're trying (this week) to sell out to. They just pray that sales or ops (or both) doesn't melt down before they sell out.
+5 Insightful for "I'm not an Apple fan because of their tendency to use proprietary standards...".
Sigh.
It's a standard Intel platform. It's been this way for years now. Even when they were running PowerPC's it was 99% a standard PC platform and that goes back to the mid 90's. Even back then the only "proprietary' bits were the keyboard and mouse ports. Video was not VGA, but adapters were always included for free with monitors (KDS was my brand back then - cheap and good).
You're flogging a horse that was never alive friend.
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
IANAL, but my impression was slightly different than your +5 Insightful comment would indicate.
I'm no DRM fan (not that this story really has anything to do with DRM) but I gotta break in on this little mutual admration society you've got going.
First, my main bitch is with the blog being pimped. The dude hot-linked the authors image (New Scientist) in the posting. To me, that's bigger news than this Smart Clothing patent. Comedically it looks like the author from NS showed up in comments to give a smackdown.
Second, if you read the actual article or maybe even the patent app. itself, instead of the POS submission, this is pretty much a lot of hand waving and acronym throwing over nothing.
They want to make a sensor and clothing combo that can tell if the sensor is in the right place. To me that's pretty simple and even seems patentable compared to a lot of things I've read.
Last, for this to be "bad", shouldn't this harm the "shoe sensor market" or "smart clothing market' if there even were such things? I don't see how this is going to stop anyone from making other systems or other sensors. Patent licensing is another opening for competition even if someone else produce from Apple's patent.
Lame story. Now go harass that guy for hot-linking New Scientist's image. It's 2008 for crying out loud!:-)
First, I love Cringley. However the article can be summed up as "Dilbert is true!". News?
Second, I think it's funny how as soon as you talk about IT somehow that means you're talking about programmers.
No offense (really!) but F**K programmers!
I've spent more than 10 years in IT, with hundreds perhaps thousands of coworkers and neither they nor I have ever (professionally) touched a line of code.
Perhaps it could be said that the real problem is too narrow a focus?
...is all it is. Not to say I disagree with attention like this being given to any and all platforms.
Oddly to me though this kinda takes the focus off of Microsoft who has done the same thing only worse on their main platform with both their Vista kill switch (black screen cum nag) and WGA.
"+5: Interesting" for stating you think people "believe" the Get A Mac ad's? I'd me more concerned with people "believing" the MSFT-bots that will be floating around Best Buy and Circuit City trying to pimp Vista.
Are you aware of the laugh/cry factor on taking part in making a monopoly out of Microsoft?
Are you aware these are comedic videos?
Do you not think that it's easier now than at times in the past to switch from using a PC to using a Mac. Really?
Do you and your +5-modders really think that a PC comes from a pizza box?
Do you think that if you bring your PC into an Apple Store, then buy a new Mac that they won't have someone transfer all your data to the Mac for free?
Are you implying that Vista has no problems worth pointing out?
The list could go on, but I'd suggest just watching the ads which I linked above if you haven't already. They're informative and usually funny.
MattSparkes writes
"Apple has all but admitted that a British man invented the iPod..."
Are you f***ing serious?
Can we leave the cheesy hack headline generation to Computerworld and its ilk??
In this case, it's not just more anti-Apple FUD, it's bad practice. A literary bait-and-switch.
Forget the fact that the point was not "an admission" of any kind from Apple -- Apple is the one that brought this guy forward. He was "happy to" (his own words) testify for them. So obviously the happiness went both ways.
Now get over yourself, stick to the story and you may yet do something useful.
Anti-Apple FUD....been with 'em from day one and seems it'll never die off.
CLUE: The same way Apple ships Samsung LCDs that are cleaner than what you'll find retail (even tho many other vendors also ship Samsung LCD's) is how you see higher quality in Foxconn at Apple than retail.
There's no miracle - and no surprise. Further, Consumer Reports sampled almost 70,000 computer owners - the result shows that in the real world Apple's computers break significantly less that other brands.
-Matt
P.S. I don't even know for sure Foxconn is involved - you could both just be completely full of it. The proof, however, is in the pudding....Apple's computers are higher quality.
P.P.S. Don't go around blaming other people just because you bought a Zune.
As expected, not everyone is 'ok' with Google automatically recognizing you in pictures.
Unless Google have turned into the Internet morons that Microsoft were in the 90's, surely they knew this would be the case.
Facial recognition in photography has to be the #1 feature that NOBODY asked for...why in heck is it being pimped on consumers so hard?? (Both in hardware and software.)
You'll never hear about 90+% of the shutdowns because the takedown order will come with a legal threat (from the FBI) against even talking about it. A gag order.
...I don't think many western governments will be doing what this desperate Thai government is doing, not until there is rioting through the streets and they are fearful of their power.
It may be arguable if there was direct cause and effect between those riots (just the highlights) and all the political/social assassinations of that era, but I think anyone would find a hard time arguing they were purely coincidental. Our "elite" were (sadly) scared shitless during that time.
Short term memory can be dangerous if that's all you have...don't pretend it can't happen here. (Again.)
Incorrect. If that's really how it works in your region/locality that's great, but that's as rare as a four-leaf clover - something like the telecoms would put on a TV ad.
More realstically and generally, I'd say 90% of that determination is based on what company they work for, the other 10 on the tech involved.
To name names, Verzion (nee NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, C&P Telco, SNET, etc) is and always has been the worst of the worst. *If* they show up in the first place to a service call, which if it's 1pm or later you have a FAT CHANCE, they will leave you hanging with a busted T1 without a second thought. And trust them you're OK with being down all night and all the next morning until another tech decides to show up. Didn't you spend extra on a backup line???? Heh.:-|
Three cheers for monopoly businesses!
In fairness, if we were talking about Bell South or the old Southwestern Bell (but no so much the new SBC) the numbers work out much more favorably - perhaps even flipped to 10/90. Except in the most extreme circumstances where it was much more understandable for the repair time to be extended (e.g. major flood), we'd never have something down more than the 4hr MTTR.
In either case, it's possible to get a tech that just likes doing their job even if they work for an ass company - that always rocks, but like playing the lottery is a little hard to count on.
The Bush Admin (composed significantly of several former Iran-Contra Reaganites) tried orchestrating something likethis here in the U.S. while the Government (but seeming not the citizens) apparently were still in a panic after 9/11.
Riddle me this if it's not a "lurch" toward Big Brother (as if there's more than a step to get there in the U.K. anyway): 1) Is there anything (past or present) that prevents every ordinary citizen from reporting suspicious going on? (Without the "benefit" of a program like this.) 2) Has there been some deficiency noted in the current system of reporting suspicious things that's proven unresolvable? What's been tried? 2) Whatever opinion you have of your local police, they are highly trained to do what they do. Will the same be true for these folks? 3) What exactly is it that you see as standing in between (I'll call it) civility and abuse of such a system? Historically, it seems to take almost nothing for a system to go from benign to malignant.
Pricewatch: $180 for CORE2 1.86GHz mobo+CPU+RAM $ 40 for a mid-tower case w/600w $ 45 for a decent but very small HD $ 25 for a DVD-combo drive --- $290 - This is from Pricewatch, four vendors involved.
Dell $279 for a Inspirion 530, dumbed down with a Celeron 2GHz pre-infected with Vista, but with a bigger HD and double the RAM (2GB).
Apple I'll get running OSX on a $230 AppleTV, or Linux for that matter, out of the way first. Only brought up because we're talking about doing it the geek way and breaking though the fear of doing so. This is almost a no-OS situation like with Pricewatch, but the box is at least useful as an AppleTV when you get it.
For the "normal" comparison, their bottom-end machine is the $600 Mac mini. Core2 1.83GHz, 1GB RAM, and a decent small HD. OS X comes with it. As does iLife*.
--- So, all that to point out that $290, $280 and $230 are not very far apart and all come with significant limitations or hassles, especially if something goes wrong later where vendor support is required. If that's your cup of tea it is all well and good.
$600 will get you a similar system in terms of hardware, but with a much better software load, higher quality components (Consumer Reports, nearly 70,000 in the sample size), and a verifiably better user experience all around. Assuming you're looking for something in this performance range, there are no limitations and maximum flexibility with this system, as well as access to the most software.
-Matt
*If you haven't used it, OS X and iLife are a stark contrast to the bloatware on any other OEM PC....akin to waking up from a bad dream. So is K|X|Ubuntu Desktop for that matter.
FYI, you're talking only of the post-State Religion phase of Christianity.
Forget not that pre-State Religion Christianity was one of many sects of Judaism (could be said there were "many Christianities" at the time) that were nearly all eliminated with prejudice by Rome. This changed marginally when Constantine couldn't deny the popularity of the movement anymore and co-opted it. Maybe the first instance of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in recorded history.
If there's a NAP in the neighborhood they're trying to serve, that will work, but as you may have noticed, there are far fewer NAP's (regional level) than telco CO's (local level).
Every neighborhood (e.g.) Comcast serves has to be uplinked to a backbone with internet access. It's possible (even likely given the size of their subscriber base) that Comcast has built some metro networks in major cities to connect up their 'hoods to the backbone without telco infrastucture being used. It's also likely that most local markets are not big or saturated enough to justify this expense. In all those cases a carrier (99% are monopoly telcos) will be involved.
I'd say you're dead-on re: the scheming and capitalism parts.
Funny: routers and switches don't get buried ordinarily Not funny: the vast majority of this infrastructure is already paid for by their TV business. Uncorrection: No, I meant to say that they're looking for ways to pass more of these costs on to customers - I see no reason to be an apologist or use PR language in my terminology. Fact: They will not gain any customers (or other business) by capping download rates. Who do you think they could get to sign up for their hobbled package when their competition all have better offers?
(I already covered most of this more completely in another post on this thread if you care to click and take a look.)
Sounds like an unreasonable estimate to me. If people were that vindicative and dishonest then IT (and similar) systems wouldn't ever keep working.
Why is Parent comment not modded "Funny"?
A) I don't know if I would have guessed these numbers exactly, but it certainly shouldn't be a totaly surprise to anyone who's worked in IT for any length of time. B) 300 is not even close to a statistically relevant sample size.
That said, the part that I think is interesting is that this corruption is more intense the higher you go in the corporate ladder. What makes that funny upon interesting is that I think the C-level folks may think they're the only ones who do this - this article might actually be news to them. Now that is funny!
Layoffs, by the same token, in practice are generally every bit as corrupt, vindictive (in who gets selected to go) and dishonest (they're usually to boost quarterly profits). Businesses still work (relatively speaking anyway) in spite of that as well.
I'd say this article and the study itself are slanted against workers.
-Matt
P.S. This is another POS Computerworld article - Computerworld UK this time. IMHO, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
...I'm pretty sure most of the readers of slashdot (and most other people living in the real world) don't have to worry too much about...
If you're implying we should wait until "most people" are affected by this before sitting up and taking notice, I'd say you're a good patriotic American.
Now everyone return to shopping.
-Matt
Rule #1) The RIAA are f**kers and are only trying to figure out how they can continue being f**kers.
Rule #2) I know it was intended as intelligent commentary (and it was even mostly taken as such), but absolutely no defending or apologizing for the RIAA or their members. They have plenty of lawyers for that, so let 'em continue doing their jobs.
Rule #3) There's no Rule #3. Just read on...
The recording industry probably served a purpose back in the stone ages when all the current music people could know of on their own was in their immediate vicinity - local. The recording industry (rather, its future members) could easily bring in recordings from everywhere they had a scout listening for good, new music. That was a good deal.
Then when radio came along a millenia or two later the recording industry put up a hissy (like today), but ultimately coopted the radio broadcasting industry. Welcome to Schlock Radio. As the DJ's went on to pasture, the recording industry was taking over.
Today the recording industry is simply an outmoded institution that didn't have a sunset clause to kick in once their usefulness had been exceeded. (Hint: We need these on pretty much all non-privately owned businesses. Not a bad idea for your private business either, IMO.) As it stands, they seem to me like a zombie industry. No life in it, but it just won't die.
Oh my, the irony in the #10 Way To Kill A Zombie.
-Matt
Maybe it's just natural, but to me there is a dichotomy between business and operations in most companies today and fosters ignorance in both directions. Managers in most companies haven't a clue how things are done in the operational side, and to some extent the same is true in reverse for the operational people.
My theory is that this is almost solely attributable to the general lack of ownership in business today. Almost everything is corporate now - even the managers don't own the place. When the owners leave, so does the clue-train. The tech's may still know how to operate things so the customers still remain happy, but its a long shot if the non-owning managers will ever have a clue beyond who they're trying (this week) to sell out to. They just pray that sales or ops (or both) doesn't melt down before they sell out.
-Matt
+5 Insightful for "I'm not an Apple fan because of their tendency to use proprietary standards...".
Sigh.
It's a standard Intel platform. It's been this way for years now. Even when they were running PowerPC's it was 99% a standard PC platform and that goes back to the mid 90's. Even back then the only "proprietary' bits were the keyboard and mouse ports. Video was not VGA, but adapters were always included for free with monitors (KDS was my brand back then - cheap and good).
You're flogging a horse that was never alive friend.
-Matt
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
IANAL, but my impression was slightly different than your +5 Insightful comment would indicate.
Links?
-Matt
I'm no DRM fan (not that this story really has anything to do with DRM) but I gotta break in on this little mutual admration society you've got going.
First, my main bitch is with the blog being pimped. The dude hot-linked the authors image (New Scientist) in the posting. To me, that's bigger news than this Smart Clothing patent. Comedically it looks like the author from NS showed up in comments to give a smackdown.
Second, if you read the actual article or maybe even the patent app. itself, instead of the POS submission, this is pretty much a lot of hand waving and acronym throwing over nothing.
They want to make a sensor and clothing combo that can tell if the sensor is in the right place. To me that's pretty simple and even seems patentable compared to a lot of things I've read.
Last, for this to be "bad", shouldn't this harm the "shoe sensor market" or "smart clothing market' if there even were such things? I don't see how this is going to stop anyone from making other systems or other sensors. Patent licensing is another opening for competition even if someone else produce from Apple's patent.
Lame story. Now go harass that guy for hot-linking New Scientist's image. It's 2008 for crying out loud! :-)
-Matt
First, I love Cringley. However the article can be summed up as "Dilbert is true!". News?
Second, I think it's funny how as soon as you talk about IT somehow that means you're talking about programmers.
No offense (really!) but F**K programmers!
I've spent more than 10 years in IT, with hundreds perhaps thousands of coworkers and neither they nor I have ever (professionally) touched a line of code.
Perhaps it could be said that the real problem is too narrow a focus?
-Matt
...is all it is. Not to say I disagree with attention like this being given to any and all platforms.
Oddly to me though this kinda takes the focus off of Microsoft who has done the same thing only worse on their main platform with both their Vista kill switch (black screen cum nag) and WGA.
-Matt
"+5: Interesting" for stating you think people "believe" the Get A Mac ad's? I'd me more concerned with people "believing" the MSFT-bots that will be floating around Best Buy and Circuit City trying to pimp Vista.
The list could go on, but I'd suggest just watching the ads which I linked above if you haven't already. They're informative and usually funny.
-Matt
MattSparkes writes "Apple has all but admitted that a British man invented the iPod..."
Are you f***ing serious?
Can we leave the cheesy hack headline generation to Computerworld and its ilk??
In this case, it's not just more anti-Apple FUD, it's bad practice. A literary bait-and-switch.
Forget the fact that the point was not "an admission" of any kind from Apple -- Apple is the one that brought this guy forward. He was "happy to" (his own words) testify for them. So obviously the happiness went both ways.
Now get over yourself, stick to the story and you may yet do something useful.
-Matt
Anti-Apple FUD....been with 'em from day one and seems it'll never die off.
CLUE: The same way Apple ships Samsung LCDs that are cleaner than what you'll find retail (even tho many other vendors also ship Samsung LCD's) is how you see higher quality in Foxconn at Apple than retail.
There's no miracle - and no surprise. Further, Consumer Reports sampled almost 70,000 computer owners - the result shows that in the real world Apple's computers break significantly less that other brands.
-Matt
P.S. I don't even know for sure Foxconn is involved - you could both just be completely full of it. The proof, however, is in the pudding....Apple's computers are higher quality.
P.P.S. Don't go around blaming other people just because you bought a Zune.
As expected, not everyone is 'ok' with Google automatically recognizing you in pictures.
Unless Google have turned into the Internet morons that Microsoft were in the 90's, surely they knew this would be the case.
Facial recognition in photography has to be the #1 feature that NOBODY asked for...why in heck is it being pimped on consumers so hard?? (Both in hardware and software.)
-Matt
COINTELPRO is possibly (but not definitely) the most egregious example known in the U.S.
Yup. Here's how we do it in the States.
You'll never hear about 90+% of the shutdowns because the takedown order will come with a legal threat (from the FBI) against even talking about it. A gag order.
-Matt
...I don't think many western governments will be doing what this desperate Thai government is doing, not until there is rioting through the streets and they are fearful of their power.
What about this, or this or this?
It may be arguable if there was direct cause and effect between those riots (just the highlights) and all the political/social assassinations of that era, but I think anyone would find a hard time arguing they were purely coincidental. Our "elite" were (sadly) scared shitless during that time.
Short term memory can be dangerous if that's all you have...don't pretend it can't happen here. (Again.)
-Matt
Incorrect. If that's really how it works in your region/locality that's great, but that's as rare as a four-leaf clover - something like the telecoms would put on a TV ad.
:-|
More realstically and generally, I'd say 90% of that determination is based on what company they work for, the other 10 on the tech involved.
To name names, Verzion (nee NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, C&P Telco, SNET, etc) is and always has been the worst of the worst. *If* they show up in the first place to a service call, which if it's 1pm or later you have a FAT CHANCE, they will leave you hanging with a busted T1 without a second thought. And trust them you're OK with being down all night and all the next morning until another tech decides to show up. Didn't you spend extra on a backup line???? Heh.
Three cheers for monopoly businesses!
In fairness, if we were talking about Bell South or the old Southwestern Bell (but no so much the new SBC) the numbers work out much more favorably - perhaps even flipped to 10/90. Except in the most extreme circumstances where it was much more understandable for the repair time to be extended (e.g. major flood), we'd never have something down more than the 4hr MTTR.
In either case, it's possible to get a tech that just likes doing their job even if they work for an ass company - that always rocks, but like playing the lottery is a little hard to count on.
-Matt
The Bush Admin (composed significantly of several former Iran-Contra Reaganites) tried orchestrating something like this here in the U.S. while the Government (but seeming not the citizens) apparently were still in a panic after 9/11.
Riddle me this if it's not a "lurch" toward Big Brother (as if there's more than a step to get there in the U.K. anyway):
1) Is there anything (past or present) that prevents every ordinary citizen from reporting suspicious going on? (Without the "benefit" of a program like this.)
2) Has there been some deficiency noted in the current system of reporting suspicious things that's proven unresolvable? What's been tried?
2) Whatever opinion you have of your local police, they are highly trained to do what they do. Will the same be true for these folks?
3) What exactly is it that you see as standing in between (I'll call it) civility and abuse of such a system? Historically, it seems to take almost nothing for a system to go from benign to malignant.
-Matt
No offense, but why the assumption that he's "not smarter"?
The job?
The porn?
Just cuz he wasn't acting maliciously?
All I was saying is the job requirements are not steep. Anyone should be able to get that job. ;-)
-Matt
Pricewatch:
$180 for CORE2 1.86GHz mobo+CPU+RAM
$ 40 for a mid-tower case w/600w
$ 45 for a decent but very small HD
$ 25 for a DVD-combo drive
---
$290 - This is from Pricewatch, four vendors involved.
Dell
$279 for a Inspirion 530, dumbed down with a Celeron 2GHz pre-infected with Vista, but with a bigger HD and double the RAM (2GB).
Apple
I'll get running OSX on a $230 AppleTV, or Linux for that matter, out of the way first. Only brought up because we're talking about doing it the geek way and breaking though the fear of doing so. This is almost a no-OS situation like with Pricewatch, but the box is at least useful as an AppleTV when you get it.
For the "normal" comparison, their bottom-end machine is the $600 Mac mini. Core2 1.83GHz, 1GB RAM, and a decent small HD. OS X comes with it. As does iLife*.
---
So, all that to point out that $290, $280 and $230 are not very far apart and all come with significant limitations or hassles, especially if something goes wrong later where vendor support is required. If that's your cup of tea it is all well and good.
$600 will get you a similar system in terms of hardware, but with a much better software load, higher quality components (Consumer Reports, nearly 70,000 in the sample size), and a verifiably better user experience all around. Assuming you're looking for something in this performance range, there are no limitations and maximum flexibility with this system, as well as access to the most software.
-Matt
*If you haven't used it, OS X and iLife are a stark contrast to the bloatware on any other OEM PC....akin to waking up from a bad dream. So is K|X|Ubuntu Desktop for that matter.
I prefer for him to be referred to as "the Quayle-monster".
-Matt
FYI, you're talking only of the post-State Religion phase of Christianity.
Forget not that pre-State Religion Christianity was one of many sects of Judaism (could be said there were "many Christianities" at the time) that were nearly all eliminated with prejudice by Rome. This changed marginally when Constantine couldn't deny the popularity of the movement anymore and co-opted it. Maybe the first instance of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in recorded history.
-Matt
If there's a NAP in the neighborhood they're trying to serve, that will work, but as you may have noticed, there are far fewer NAP's (regional level) than telco CO's (local level).
Every neighborhood (e.g.) Comcast serves has to be uplinked to a backbone with internet access. It's possible (even likely given the size of their subscriber base) that Comcast has built some metro networks in major cities to connect up their 'hoods to the backbone without telco infrastucture being used. It's also likely that most local markets are not big or saturated enough to justify this expense. In all those cases a carrier (99% are monopoly telcos) will be involved.
I'd say you're dead-on re: the scheming and capitalism parts.
-Matt
Um,no.
Funny: routers and switches don't get buried ordinarily
Not funny: the vast majority of this infrastructure is already paid for by their TV business.
Uncorrection: No, I meant to say that they're looking for ways to pass more of these costs on to customers - I see no reason to be an apologist or use PR language in my terminology.
Fact: They will not gain any customers (or other business) by capping download rates. Who do you think they could get to sign up for their hobbled package when their competition all have better offers?
(I already covered most of this more completely in another post on this thread if you care to click and take a look.)
-Matt
I know you're just being funny, but to put a point on your post - you're still subject to the cleaning staff.
Any idea what it takes to get hired on as a janitor? Not much I suspect.
-Matt
Sounds like an unreasonable estimate to me. If people were that vindicative and dishonest then IT (and similar) systems wouldn't ever keep working.
Why is Parent comment not modded "Funny"?
A) I don't know if I would have guessed these numbers exactly, but it certainly shouldn't be a totaly surprise to anyone who's worked in IT for any length of time. B) 300 is not even close to a statistically relevant sample size.
That said, the part that I think is interesting is that this corruption is more intense the higher you go in the corporate ladder. What makes that funny upon interesting is that I think the C-level folks may think they're the only ones who do this - this article might actually be news to them. Now that is funny!
Layoffs, by the same token, in practice are generally every bit as corrupt, vindictive (in who gets selected to go) and dishonest (they're usually to boost quarterly profits). Businesses still work (relatively speaking anyway) in spite of that as well.
I'd say this article and the study itself are slanted against workers.
-Matt
P.S. This is another POS Computerworld article - Computerworld UK this time. IMHO, anyway.