Truth is, the desire for personal advancement is a sickness.
Just think logically for a second. Imagine if everyone on the planet was justified in desiring advancement and actually got their wish? Well gee, then all the old people would be CEOs and Presidents and Popes, and all the young people would be supporting this immensely top-heavy upside down pyramid. Would this be a healthy society? Personally, I don't think so.
Just look around and pay attention: what kind of person is advancing? Are they moral or immoral? Are they compassionate and selfless, always immediately giving away the fruits of their labor, or the one who is always looking out for the NUMERO UNO, who, at best, make a gesture of giving, while their core practice from 9 to 5 is to cheat, steal, and to spread misinformation about the real situation to all the people around them?
Frankly, I don't see a single person, NO, HONEST, who is "deserves" advancement.
Now, don't get me wrong! I am not against advancement in and of itself. Just try to see that advancement is not a right. There is no way to deserve it. Advancement is something that egoistic people do, by fighting for it, either openly or covertly behind the scenes, but still fighting, still forming hostile intent toward others.
The very meaning of the word "advancement" discloses the truth. How do we recognize someone who has "advanced"? We recognize them as being advanced in relation to others, less advanced. Without this distinction, the word "advancement" has no meaning. So desire for advancement is really a hostile desire, because essentially you desire to be above others. Saying that "a person desires others to be seen as being below oneself" is just a different way to describe the very same dynamic. This is not the same as desiring to benefit the community and oneself and being spontaneously promoted by the community without actively seeking it out. A person who has been promoted by the community does not attach much sentimental weight to it, and sees it as a service to perform, rather then spoils of "hard work" to enjoy. And should the community want another person to supercede such community-promoted individual, such individual gladly gives up their top spot, because all along they had no hostile motivation to make others seem as below themselves.
"Hard work" doesn't mean good work or moral work. Many people work hard at self-promotion and getting others to buy into their ponzy schemes. Some of them work 70 hour weeks and make big risks, and extract big rewards. That doesn't mean it's good. That doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean it leads to a good life.
Well, in all fairness the post you are replying to DID say, "inherently expensive".
Truth is, NOTHING is inherently anything. Everything is the way it is only in context, in relation to something else. Nothing is inherently this or that way. There is no inherent "cupness" in a cup, for example. The price of items has to do with the value we place on them, and many other factors, not all of which are obvious.
Yes, everyone knows how much a diamond ring costs right now. *yawn* That doesn't make our point any less valuable.
Actually diamonds are not inherently expensive. Diamonds at the moment are artificially expensive due to controls that are exercized over their distribution by the diamond cartel.
Diamonds are cheap, plentiful and getting cheaper as we speak, because there are a few companies that are perfecting the manufacture of gem grade artificial diamond.
If you don't believe me, look for an article on the diamond industry (detailing advances in the artificial diamond production, among other things) in the Wired magazine.
The article was sensationalist and attributed to malice and conspiracy what is best explained by profit motive.
And how exactly is profit motive different from malice?
Profit motive means "Making myself rich is priority number one. All else, including humane treatment of people is priority number 10 and lower." That's very much what malice is. Malice is not some diabolical desire to destroy the world. Malice is just wanton, unrestrained, unconsidered selfishness.
Compare this with some of these others motives:
"To make everyone happy, including myself"
"To advance the health of the community"
"To be happily content."
"To learn new things."
"To share."
Etc. These are some examples of what I consider to be non-malicious motives. Gathering up and hoarding of stuff for oneself is as evil as it gets.
All motives are selfish at some point. However, wanton, unrestrained selfishness that has not been subjected to some very serious, prolonged inquiry is what malice is (unlike other, more enlightened kinds of selfishness).
Has it occurred to anyone that people have anxiety for a valid reason?
What if taking the pill will simply mask the underlying cause?
In other words, what if people are anxious because the world really is messed up, as a result of us people being messed up (too greedy, too hateful, etc.)? Then taking this "medicine" will allow people to ignore this and go on collecting more pleasures. Thus, a slave can be made to forget his miseries, but should the "medicine" ever stop, the slave is SCREWED. And if the slave is bad, there is always the thread of withholding the medicine. Remind you of anything?
I said the same thing before, but with more reasons why so. It sucks. The characters are not well developed. Like the shepherd who is alive for 5 mins of the movie and is killed. I could feel no emotional bond between that character, the spaceship's captain and myself. Bad acting? Something else is wrong? I don't know, but I can't connect even slightly to the characters of that movie. It seemed like a bunch of boring nonsense.
It amazes me to no end how much hype this movie is getting. It's mostly undeserved in my opinion, but whatever. Since when did my opinion mattered, eh?:)
Re:Maybe an OSS future isn't that bright afterall
on
Nessus Closes Source
·
· Score: 1
The big-bucks-for-trivial-software cash cow is already dying.
What exactly is trivial? Isn't that a little subjective? I think installing a pipe or fixing a leak is trivial, but plumbers (who provide a service) still charge a very decent rate.:)
Garbage companies make decent money just getting rid of stuff. I mean, getting rid of stuff is not exactly a big genius.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as an artisan. If you make a chair and an artisan makes one, there will be a big difference. Your chair will suck, and the artisan's chair will be sublime. An artisan garbageman can make art out of garbage disposal. Even the most mundane and trivial task can be enlightened through artisanship.
Either way, the situation is not as clear and obvious as your post makes me think.
Uncertainty? I guess I am not affected in the same way as you. I don't build up any anticipation but only see what is visible NOW. I don't guess into the future. Also the "force of nature" villain didn't scare me at all, and appeared contrived and boring to me.
The problem is that people do not know what freedom is, have never really experienced it, and thus, do not appreciate it.
For example, in the nearby park here, the kids play in a walled off pen. Where is freedom? They play with their parents 50% of the time and hardly socialize with other kids. Then in high-school 99% of your time is devoted to school. Good? Not at all! There should be social time -- look at exUSSR schools that had 10-20 min breaks between classes.
Basically, the kid grows up being totally controlled by a parent, and is utterly uffraid to step on the street and explore the city on their own. The parent instills paranoya in the kid. In school the kids can't talk to each other for more than 5 mins between classes. Wake up. We have a society of trained zombies who wouldn't know freedom if it bit them on the ass.
I also think that the right and like-minded left wing (together) are destroying our education, because critical thinking is antithetic to the rule of the powerful, which is essentially what we have now. Notice how the right wingers howl when colleges and universities are mentioned -- "yeeewwwww...those stinking libural colleges.. yuck" Why? Because any places that teaches independent and critical thinking is bad for them, that's why. So our education is almost dead and the powerful have won, for now.
Personally I think Serenity has one fatal flaw -- the characters receive no development and there is no emotional connection to them. I haven't seen Firefly and have no background at all. I went to see it because of all the buzz, and I was disappointed. Who is River? I don't really understand. It's obvious she's psychic and she kicks ass, but why should I care for her? Should I care? Should I dislike her? I have no idea. I feel nothing whatsoever for River character. I can say the same for all the other characters. Who is the assassin? Why is he that way? Why is he going around killing things with a katana? Yes, I know all the obvious answers that are provided by the movie, but those answers were not enough to get me to feel anything whatsoever about that character.
I feel that some ideas were interesting, like the idea of "what happens if people are made ultra-docile?" and so on. However, this interesting idea took all of about 10-20 mins in the movie. The fights with the reavers (or whatever they're called) took 90% of the time, but content having to do with reaver's background took about 10% of the movie time. As a result, reavers are like stupid zombies that mindlessly attack things and I feel nothing, neither for them nor for the people they slay, simply because the situation is so absurd and nonsensical to me.
In short, Serenity may be a good movie-length feature for those who have seen Firefly, but it sucks badly as a stand-alone movie.
Don't label yourself "idealist", because that will create a false impression. I'd say, if anuything, you are pragmatic.
Essentially you're protesting this logic:
"Everyone should once in a while punch a passerby, so that all people are forced to become better at self-defense. If we all punch each other, eventually we'll all be martial arts experts, and life will be safe."
I think that challenging others only belongs in a debate or in a game.
LOL. Of course the profits from this, if it were done, would NEVER go to the autoworkers. They'd be split between the CxOs, VPs, and the shareholders. F*ck the workers, but yea...when and if the levy like that is lobbied for, surely the "poor workers" would be used as an excuse for the change in policy.
It's kinda like RIAA and MPAA saying "poor artists", when really it's someone else who wants to get the money, and artists have been forever and ever ripped off.
I got infected with a rootkit, and man was it a pain to get rid of it! The main problem for me was that Windows was not a modular system that I could boot in pieces and that there was no useful boot log, etc. In other words, the problem is that Windows is essentially a black box, and so it was very hard for me to make an intelligent decision on how to defend the system. Obviously something starts the rootkit, but WHAT? There are so many entry points, and they are so thoroughly block-boxed, undocumented (from a power user's perspective), non-logged, etc., that I think the answer to the question is yes.
Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?
Yes, most definitely. If it was open source, it would be more modularized and I could better understand the boot sequence and various entry points. In my experience, main open source projects are documented far better than many closed source software packages. Some closed source vendors even go so far as to withhold documentation (*ahem*Adobe*ahem*).
I don't think you understand my drift. I'll try to be more direct.
If the person wants to screw me, it's already TOO late to cover my rear end with legal documents, no matter how precise the language is.
If the person wants to screw me, LET THEM. Why? Because I simply have no energy whatsoever left to be spent in paranoya, thinking of every conceivable instance of ill will and how that ill could be defended from via precise language. I have thought about this issue for more than 10 years, thoroughly, and I have mostly abandoned attempts at self-defence and CYA-type of attitude. I realize that I am going to die. I realize that even at 30 yrs old, I've lived a rich (with experience and not with money) life, and frankly, I am ready for death or any other outcome, even torture. I am sick of constantly fretting over my body. I am sick of having trouble falling asleep because my mind is racing, obsessed with what may or may not happen tomorrow.
I'm not sure you understand very clearly -- I WANT TO LIVE. REALLY LIVE. And these days, I DO LIVE. I am ALIVE in the greatest sense of the word. I have little fear. I do what I think is best, no matter what. I say what is right at my work, even if I have to be fired. I don't care if I go on the street. And you know what? This is the best feeling there is. I breathe free. I walk free. I can't tell you how good it is to live like this, to rise above the mundane concerns and to exist as a fragile entity (and this is the truth anyway, bodies are fragile). I do not exaust myself worrying about who can mess me up. If someone messes me up, I only wish that they enjoy it, because then at least 1 person will be happy.
Do you see what I am saying? The moment ILL WILL forms in someone's heart, it's already TOO LATE. Legal documents do not offer an effective defense against ILL WILL. But what does? Wisdom, patience, love, open-armed defenseless fearlessness -- you know...all those "trite" things that many people believe belong in fairy tales? Guess what? Those things are real, they are awesome and they are realizable by any being who has strong enough determination and who values such things.
Good companies and people welcome criticism with open arms. I guess the understanding that Microsoft is a bunch of sheeite is so well-entrenched, that we don't need to mention it, and just assume that they are. And since they are, we assume they will react by firing, like a lowly sheeite person would react.
This overlooks the possibility that people can experience moral growth. It's possible that when the same person would have fired his/her critic, now they see otherwise and will not fire them.
Let's not forget, it is people who make hire/fire decisions and not companies.
People want the government to protect them from having to do hard work like reading legal documents before signing them.
The fact that reading legal documents is hard work speaks volumes as to the amounts of ill faith inherent in them. If the contract is drawn up in good faith, there is simply no need to make it abstruse (hard to understand). A contract that does not seek to rip a person off in any way should be easy to understand even to someone with just 3 years of school.
It is sad that we have an entire profession devoted to actually understanding correctly what the fsc*k the legal documents say. I say it's high time to say "f u" to the legal language and make it a requirement that all contracts be brief, to the point and in plain language. Maybe then people will take time to read them and sign them in good faith.
As it stands, a person gets a 30 page packet and thinks, "Ah, this is some cr*p I have to sign if I want this job.. How bad can it be? They're not going to rip me off. I trust them and I want this job. I will sign it." It's obvious to me where the abuse is happening.
Confidentiality can be used to cloak all sorts of things. I believe individuals should have some privacy, but proceedings in public companies should not be private.
The confidentiality of some internal process is not as important to me as how each individual person is treated. If people are abused even a little bit, then to me that trumps enourmous amounts of confidentiality expectations.
Pay attention -- if you treat people well, things naturally remain quiet. But treat people poorly, and then even a contract won't help to keep shit confidential. The moral of the story is -- just do not be an ass to people, it's not really profitable. I'm not saying "be good". Just saying "do not be an ass".
Microsoft is an obnoxious company who has utter disregard for the wider community. These internal troubles simply reflect what's outside, as far as I can see. If the company treats clients like shit, why would it treat their own employees like gold?
Usually the problem is that morally "superior" people regard others with contempt. But regarding people with contempt is a moral flaw.
There are, I believe, people who really ARE superior, but they do not naively regard themselves as "superior" and they do not necessarily avoid cursing and other "bad" behaviors either.
It's a matter of being very sensitive to the situation and responding to it appropriately that makes one morally well developed, I feel.
What's insane is that making a criticism of the company is perceived these days as "a liability for incalculable damages".
That's insane.
Why is it that the damages to the company are important anyway? A company is a fictitious entity. Damages to people matter more than damges to companies, and in this case employees are important people, and they are the ones being damaged and not the other way around.
Businesses have no sense of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil' - they produce a product and will try to squeeze as much profit out of their customers as possible.
Do not anthropomorphize businesses. Anthropomorphization of businesses really is getting annoying. All business decisions are made by people. It is people who have no concept of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil'.
It is people who make decisions. Not business.
It is people who bear responsibility. Not business.
Everything that people do can be said (with a large degree of success) to be based on some kind of sentimentally purposive view (commonly known as "agenda", "ambition", etc.).
Even things like photographs are not objective (why choose a certain place, angle, time, lens, camera, etc.?). There is nothing that's 100% objective, but the reverse is true also, there is nothing that's 100% subjective.
If feelings were 100% subjective, they couldn't produce even an indirect impact on experience noticable to others, as they would be mandated to strictly stay within a limited domain, including all the consequences and contexts. And because it's impossible to discern the boundary between cause and effect, between a thing and its context, nothing is strictly subjective. But nothing is strictly objective either.
The boundary between subjective and objective is very vague and does not hold up well to analysis (if at all).
So, what you're observing there is not very surprising.
Slashdot Mirror
Truth is, the desire for personal advancement is a sickness.
Just think logically for a second. Imagine if everyone on the planet was justified in desiring advancement and actually got their wish? Well gee, then all the old people would be CEOs and Presidents and Popes, and all the young people would be supporting this immensely top-heavy upside down pyramid. Would this be a healthy society? Personally, I don't think so.
Just look around and pay attention: what kind of person is advancing? Are they moral or immoral? Are they compassionate and selfless, always immediately giving away the fruits of their labor, or the one who is always looking out for the NUMERO UNO, who, at best, make a gesture of giving, while their core practice from 9 to 5 is to cheat, steal, and to spread misinformation about the real situation to all the people around them?
Frankly, I don't see a single person, NO, HONEST, who is "deserves" advancement.
Now, don't get me wrong! I am not against advancement in and of itself. Just try to see that advancement is not a right. There is no way to deserve it. Advancement is something that egoistic people do, by fighting for it, either openly or covertly behind the scenes, but still fighting, still forming hostile intent toward others.
The very meaning of the word "advancement" discloses the truth. How do we recognize someone who has "advanced"? We recognize them as being advanced in relation to others, less advanced. Without this distinction, the word "advancement" has no meaning. So desire for advancement is really a hostile desire, because essentially you desire to be above others. Saying that "a person desires others to be seen as being below oneself" is just a different way to describe the very same dynamic. This is not the same as desiring to benefit the community and oneself and being spontaneously promoted by the community without actively seeking it out. A person who has been promoted by the community does not attach much sentimental weight to it, and sees it as a service to perform, rather then spoils of "hard work" to enjoy. And should the community want another person to supercede such community-promoted individual, such individual gladly gives up their top spot, because all along they had no hostile motivation to make others seem as below themselves.
"Hard work" doesn't mean good work or moral work. Many people work hard at self-promotion and getting others to buy into their ponzy schemes. Some of them work 70 hour weeks and make big risks, and extract big rewards. That doesn't mean it's good. That doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean it leads to a good life.
Well, in all fairness the post you are replying to DID say, "inherently expensive".
Truth is, NOTHING is inherently anything. Everything is the way it is only in context, in relation to something else. Nothing is inherently this or that way. There is no inherent "cupness" in a cup, for example. The price of items has to do with the value we place on them, and many other factors, not all of which are obvious.
Yes, everyone knows how much a diamond ring costs right now. *yawn* That doesn't make our point any less valuable.
Yes, without this work the humanity will take two steps backward.
What I do is very important too. I am an important person, because I am my favorite person.
Actually diamonds are not inherently expensive. Diamonds at the moment are artificially expensive due to controls that are exercized over their distribution by the diamond cartel.
Diamonds are cheap, plentiful and getting cheaper as we speak, because there are a few companies that are perfecting the manufacture of gem grade artificial diamond.
If you don't believe me, look for an article on the diamond industry (detailing advances in the artificial diamond production, among other things) in the Wired magazine.
And how exactly is profit motive different from malice?
Profit motive means "Making myself rich is priority number one. All else, including humane treatment of people is priority number 10 and lower." That's very much what malice is. Malice is not some diabolical desire to destroy the world. Malice is just wanton, unrestrained, unconsidered selfishness.
Compare this with some of these others motives:
"To make everyone happy, including myself"
"To advance the health of the community"
"To be happily content."
"To learn new things."
"To share."
Etc. These are some examples of what I consider to be non-malicious motives. Gathering up and hoarding of stuff for oneself is as evil as it gets.
All motives are selfish at some point. However, wanton, unrestrained selfishness that has not been subjected to some very serious, prolonged inquiry is what malice is (unlike other, more enlightened kinds of selfishness).
Has it occurred to anyone that people have anxiety for a valid reason?
What if taking the pill will simply mask the underlying cause?
In other words, what if people are anxious because the world really is messed up, as a result of us people being messed up (too greedy, too hateful, etc.)? Then taking this "medicine" will allow people to ignore this and go on collecting more pleasures. Thus, a slave can be made to forget his miseries, but should the "medicine" ever stop, the slave is SCREWED. And if the slave is bad, there is always the thread of withholding the medicine. Remind you of anything?
I said the same thing before, but with more reasons why so. It sucks. The characters are not well developed. Like the shepherd who is alive for 5 mins of the movie and is killed. I could feel no emotional bond between that character, the spaceship's captain and myself. Bad acting? Something else is wrong? I don't know, but I can't connect even slightly to the characters of that movie. It seemed like a bunch of boring nonsense.
:)
It amazes me to no end how much hype this movie is getting. It's mostly undeserved in my opinion, but whatever. Since when did my opinion mattered, eh?
The big-bucks-for-trivial-software cash cow is already dying.
:)
What exactly is trivial? Isn't that a little subjective? I think installing a pipe or fixing a leak is trivial, but plumbers (who provide a service) still charge a very decent rate.
Garbage companies make decent money just getting rid of stuff. I mean, getting rid of stuff is not exactly a big genius.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as an artisan. If you make a chair and an artisan makes one, there will be a big difference. Your chair will suck, and the artisan's chair will be sublime. An artisan garbageman can make art out of garbage disposal. Even the most mundane and trivial task can be enlightened through artisanship.
Either way, the situation is not as clear and obvious as your post makes me think.
Uncertainty? I guess I am not affected in the same way as you. I don't build up any anticipation but only see what is visible NOW. I don't guess into the future. Also the "force of nature" villain didn't scare me at all, and appeared contrived and boring to me.
The problem is that people do not know what freedom is, have never really experienced it, and thus, do not appreciate it.
.those stinking libural colleges.. yuck" Why? Because any places that teaches independent and critical thinking is bad for them, that's why. So our education is almost dead and the powerful have won, for now.
For example, in the nearby park here, the kids play in a walled off pen. Where is freedom? They play with their parents 50% of the time and hardly socialize with other kids. Then in high-school 99% of your time is devoted to school. Good? Not at all! There should be social time -- look at exUSSR schools that had 10-20 min breaks between classes.
Basically, the kid grows up being totally controlled by a parent, and is utterly uffraid to step on the street and explore the city on their own. The parent instills paranoya in the kid. In school the kids can't talk to each other for more than 5 mins between classes. Wake up. We have a society of trained zombies who wouldn't know freedom if it bit them on the ass.
I also think that the right and like-minded left wing (together) are destroying our education, because critical thinking is antithetic to the rule of the powerful, which is essentially what we have now. Notice how the right wingers howl when colleges and universities are mentioned -- "yeeewwwww..
Personally I think Serenity has one fatal flaw -- the characters receive no development and there is no emotional connection to them. I haven't seen Firefly and have no background at all. I went to see it because of all the buzz, and I was disappointed. Who is River? I don't really understand. It's obvious she's psychic and she kicks ass, but why should I care for her? Should I care? Should I dislike her? I have no idea. I feel nothing whatsoever for River character. I can say the same for all the other characters. Who is the assassin? Why is he that way? Why is he going around killing things with a katana? Yes, I know all the obvious answers that are provided by the movie, but those answers were not enough to get me to feel anything whatsoever about that character.
I feel that some ideas were interesting, like the idea of "what happens if people are made ultra-docile?" and so on. However, this interesting idea took all of about 10-20 mins in the movie. The fights with the reavers (or whatever they're called) took 90% of the time, but content having to do with reaver's background took about 10% of the movie time. As a result, reavers are like stupid zombies that mindlessly attack things and I feel nothing, neither for them nor for the people they slay, simply because the situation is so absurd and nonsensical to me.
In short, Serenity may be a good movie-length feature for those who have seen Firefly, but it sucks badly as a stand-alone movie.
Don't label yourself "idealist", because that will create a false impression. I'd say, if anuything, you are pragmatic.
Essentially you're protesting this logic:
"Everyone should once in a while punch a passerby, so that all people are forced to become better at self-defense. If we all punch each other, eventually we'll all be martial arts experts, and life will be safe."
I think that challenging others only belongs in a debate or in a game.
genuinely forming friendships (to a point)
LOL, what a crock.
LOL. Of course the profits from this, if it were done, would NEVER go to the autoworkers. They'd be split between the CxOs, VPs, and the shareholders. F*ck the workers, but yea...when and if the levy like that is lobbied for, surely the "poor workers" would be used as an excuse for the change in policy.
It's kinda like RIAA and MPAA saying "poor artists", when really it's someone else who wants to get the money, and artists have been forever and ever ripped off.
Amen.
I got infected with a rootkit, and man was it a pain to get rid of it! The main problem for me was that Windows was not a modular system that I could boot in pieces and that there was no useful boot log, etc. In other words, the problem is that Windows is essentially a black box, and so it was very hard for me to make an intelligent decision on how to defend the system. Obviously something starts the rootkit, but WHAT? There are so many entry points, and they are so thoroughly block-boxed, undocumented (from a power user's perspective), non-logged, etc., that I think the answer to the question is yes.
Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?
Yes, most definitely. If it was open source, it would be more modularized and I could better understand the boot sequence and various entry points. In my experience, main open source projects are documented far better than many closed source software packages. Some closed source vendors even go so far as to withhold documentation (*ahem*Adobe*ahem*).
I understand what you're saying.
I don't think you understand my drift. I'll try to be more direct.
If the person wants to screw me, it's already TOO late to cover my rear end with legal documents, no matter how precise the language is.
If the person wants to screw me, LET THEM. Why? Because I simply have no energy whatsoever left to be spent in paranoya, thinking of every conceivable instance of ill will and how that ill could be defended from via precise language. I have thought about this issue for more than 10 years, thoroughly, and I have mostly abandoned attempts at self-defence and CYA-type of attitude. I realize that I am going to die. I realize that even at 30 yrs old, I've lived a rich (with experience and not with money) life, and frankly, I am ready for death or any other outcome, even torture. I am sick of constantly fretting over my body. I am sick of having trouble falling asleep because my mind is racing, obsessed with what may or may not happen tomorrow.
I'm not sure you understand very clearly -- I WANT TO LIVE. REALLY LIVE. And these days, I DO LIVE. I am ALIVE in the greatest sense of the word. I have little fear. I do what I think is best, no matter what. I say what is right at my work, even if I have to be fired. I don't care if I go on the street. And you know what? This is the best feeling there is. I breathe free. I walk free. I can't tell you how good it is to live like this, to rise above the mundane concerns and to exist as a fragile entity (and this is the truth anyway, bodies are fragile). I do not exaust myself worrying about who can mess me up. If someone messes me up, I only wish that they enjoy it, because then at least 1 person will be happy.
Do you see what I am saying? The moment ILL WILL forms in someone's heart, it's already TOO LATE. Legal documents do not offer an effective defense against ILL WILL. But what does? Wisdom, patience, love, open-armed defenseless fearlessness -- you know...all those "trite" things that many people believe belong in fairy tales? Guess what? Those things are real, they are awesome and they are realizable by any being who has strong enough determination and who values such things.
Good companies and people welcome criticism with open arms. I guess the understanding that Microsoft is a bunch of sheeite is so well-entrenched, that we don't need to mention it, and just assume that they are. And since they are, we assume they will react by firing, like a lowly sheeite person would react.
This overlooks the possibility that people can experience moral growth. It's possible that when the same person would have fired his/her critic, now they see otherwise and will not fire them.
Let's not forget, it is people who make hire/fire decisions and not companies.
People want the government to protect them from having to do hard work like reading legal documents before signing them.
The fact that reading legal documents is hard work speaks volumes as to the amounts of ill faith inherent in them. If the contract is drawn up in good faith, there is simply no need to make it abstruse (hard to understand). A contract that does not seek to rip a person off in any way should be easy to understand even to someone with just 3 years of school.
It is sad that we have an entire profession devoted to actually understanding correctly what the fsc*k the legal documents say. I say it's high time to say "f u" to the legal language and make it a requirement that all contracts be brief, to the point and in plain language. Maybe then people will take time to read them and sign them in good faith.
As it stands, a person gets a 30 page packet and thinks, "Ah, this is some cr*p I have to sign if I want this job.. How bad can it be? They're not going to rip me off. I trust them and I want this job. I will sign it." It's obvious to me where the abuse is happening.
Confidentiality can be used to cloak all sorts of things. I believe individuals should have some privacy, but proceedings in public companies should not be private.
The confidentiality of some internal process is not as important to me as how each individual person is treated. If people are abused even a little bit, then to me that trumps enourmous amounts of confidentiality expectations.
Pay attention -- if you treat people well, things naturally remain quiet. But treat people poorly, and then even a contract won't help to keep shit confidential. The moral of the story is -- just do not be an ass to people, it's not really profitable. I'm not saying "be good". Just saying "do not be an ass".
Microsoft is an obnoxious company who has utter disregard for the wider community. These internal troubles simply reflect what's outside, as far as I can see. If the company treats clients like shit, why would it treat their own employees like gold?
Usually the problem is that morally "superior" people regard others with contempt. But regarding people with contempt is a moral flaw.
There are, I believe, people who really ARE superior, but they do not naively regard themselves as "superior" and they do not necessarily avoid cursing and other "bad" behaviors either.
It's a matter of being very sensitive to the situation and responding to it appropriately that makes one morally well developed, I feel.
What's insane is that making a criticism of the company is perceived these days as "a liability for incalculable damages".
That's insane.
Why is it that the damages to the company are important anyway? A company is a fictitious entity. Damages to people matter more than damges to companies, and in this case employees are important people, and they are the ones being damaged and not the other way around.
Businesses have no sense of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil' - they produce a product and will try to squeeze as much profit out of their customers as possible.
Do not anthropomorphize businesses. Anthropomorphization of businesses really is getting annoying. All business decisions are made by people. It is people who have no concept of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil'.
It is people who make decisions. Not business.
It is people who bear responsibility. Not business.
It is always the people and no one else -- ever.
What's left? NOTHING!
Everything that people do can be said (with a large degree of success) to be based on some kind of sentimentally purposive view (commonly known as "agenda", "ambition", etc.).
Even things like photographs are not objective (why choose a certain place, angle, time, lens, camera, etc.?). There is nothing that's 100% objective, but the reverse is true also, there is nothing that's 100% subjective.
If feelings were 100% subjective, they couldn't produce even an indirect impact on experience noticable to others, as they would be mandated to strictly stay within a limited domain, including all the consequences and contexts. And because it's impossible to discern the boundary between cause and effect, between a thing and its context, nothing is strictly subjective. But nothing is strictly objective either.
The boundary between subjective and objective is very vague and does not hold up well to analysis (if at all).
So, what you're observing there is not very surprising.
You are blessed. No, seriously. Take care of yourself.