I have a friend who's an Uber Tech Lead (I am not making that up) at Google and he told me how it works in practice:
Everyone gets their 1 day a week to work on whatever they want, *however*, in reality at Google you're slammed working on your project like anywhere else. Therefore, on Friday, you really need to finish patching that security hole in Gmail, so you 'bank' your time. Once your project lets up a bit, you withdraw your time and take n days to work on your personal project.
It seems like this is a fairly practical system for software development, which goes in waves of heavy work and then light times of regrouping and gathering requirements. The 20% gets used during those times when you'd otherwise be waiting for the next big thing to hit.
The interesting thing about Google is that people work to gather other 20%ers onto your 20% project, thereby increasing your project and hopefully eventually presenting it to mgmt for work as a real project (Orkut and Gmail started this way). If you can't gather others onto your 20% project, you're encouraged to find another project...:)
Anyway, I wish I could implement this system at my work, but my PHBs think it's "wasted time" and given our quarter-to-quarter existence, spending that 20% on customer issues is probably a better use of time, at least for the short-term.
Most companies that are engaged in marketing consider personal data to have an "age", and after several years it is discarded as being no longer relevant. People move, sell their cars, get new jobs, go up and down in salary, etc. So the Genie is out of the bottle for at least the next few years, but then its value fades.
Social Security numbers, on the other hand, never change (unless you specifically request it at the SSA office; little tidbit I don't know if most slashdotters know...), so I'm more concerned about people having my social security number.
With a social security number and a name, it's relatively easy to order a credit report on someone...
Rich "Sure, my social security number is 123-45-6789! Really!":-)
After reading this posting on today's Slashdot, I followed up with that throwback to yesteryear, the letter to the editor. What I got was a truly bewildered editor who had just been slashdotted into a tight spot. Rather than get angry, she got smart, and asked several people who had written in (fellow slashdotters?) if they could comment on a follow-up article. I won't disclose what it said, but it was not much better, and still only had the one source from CIO.com. The follow up clearly did not cover the issues in an even-handed manner, and the technical side was seriously inadequate. I suggested contacting some heavy hitters in comp security to get a rebuttal, or ask Slashdot. I guess we must have all said nearly the same thing, because her reply was:
We are not publishing that follow-up report, since it would not be ethical to publish remarks that could be, or are suspected of being erroneous. We have also removed the original story from our Web site and have requested that Computer Currents do so too, which they have done. The next time this issue comes up we will do a more complete story with all sides represented. Thanks very much to everyone for their comments and insight.
It is interesting to watch where the new and the old media collide. Keep an eye on these types of articles, which, whether intentionally spinning MS BS or just being clueless, need to be responded to, if they are to be stopped. By 10 or 12 of us writing to them immediately with constructive comments, we've made a small difference. And kudos to Computer Currents!
Rich G.
Those who forget history are doomed to...uh...er...
This whole situation is appalling. Trust-e is clearly beholden to its corporate patrons, and is defrauding the consumer by pretending to act in their best interest.
I happen to be a Consumer Reports online customer, and I'm going to complain loud and clear, and point them to this article. Maybe they'll raise a stink if they knew. They should know better.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a friend who's an Uber Tech Lead (I am not making that up) at Google and he told me how it works in practice:
:)
Everyone gets their 1 day a week to work on whatever they want, *however*, in reality at Google you're slammed working on your project like anywhere else. Therefore, on Friday, you really need to finish patching that security hole in Gmail, so you 'bank' your time. Once your project lets up a bit, you withdraw your time and take n days to work on your personal project.
It seems like this is a fairly practical system for software development, which goes in waves of heavy work and then light times of regrouping and gathering requirements. The 20% gets used during those times when you'd otherwise be waiting for the next big thing to hit.
The interesting thing about Google is that people work to gather other 20%ers onto your 20% project, thereby increasing your project and hopefully eventually presenting it to mgmt for work as a real project (Orkut and Gmail started this way). If you can't gather others onto your 20% project, you're encouraged to find another project...
Anyway, I wish I could implement this system at my work, but my PHBs think it's "wasted time" and given our quarter-to-quarter existence, spending that 20% on customer issues is probably a better use of time, at least for the short-term.
Most companies that are engaged in marketing consider personal data to have an "age", and after several years it is discarded as being no longer relevant. People move, sell their cars, get new jobs, go up and down in salary, etc. So the Genie is out of the bottle for at least the next few years, but then its value fades.
:-)
Social Security numbers, on the other hand, never change (unless you specifically request it at the SSA office; little tidbit I don't know if most slashdotters know...), so I'm more concerned about people having my social security number.
With a social security number and a name, it's relatively easy to order a credit report on someone...
Rich
"Sure, my social security number is 123-45-6789! Really!"
Rich G.
Those who forget history are doomed to...uh...er...
This whole situation is appalling. Trust-e is clearly beholden to its corporate patrons, and is defrauding the consumer by pretending to act in their best interest.
I happen to be a Consumer Reports online customer, and I'm going to complain loud and clear, and point them to this article. Maybe they'll raise a stink if they knew. They should know better.
Rich