Whilst I disagree with much of what you say, I disagree more with the mods who declared this "Offtopic". It's more on-topic than half the comments in your average Slashdot discussion. Anyway...
An individual imprisoning someone else without cause has done A Bad Thing, and should be punished.
Does this mean the state shouldn't imprison someone who has committed a serious crime (including the person just mentioned)?
In general, this means we can't punish anyone because it'd be unfair for anyone to have that happen to them without having done anything wrong.
No one should have to endure the pain and annoyance of spam: it's the scurge of the online world. Not even the spammer, who may be in his business because of factors outside his control like debt or bills for an illness in the family, etc.
Personally, I don't think spamming a spammer would be appropriate punishment, because it doesn't have the same effect as spamming a *large* number of *separate* people. But I disagree with the logic used in your argument against it (see above).
I also disagree with "poor spammer" argument; this could be used to justify all manner of crimes. If the spammer is poor and desparate, this should be taken into account by the courts when sentencing.
And if they're sitting on their lazy ass in a luxurious house with four expensive cars bought on the proceeds of their business, this should also be taken into account.
Spam == bad. Victimization == bad. Why do people conflate the two?
It's not victimisation. It's a punishment "appropriate" to something wrong being done. As mentioned above, I don't think it's as appropriate as it appears at first, but that's beside the point.
Re:Hey, I often run Vodka through a filtration sys
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
He's using his liver and pancreas to filter his vodka, so I wouldn't want to drink it after it's been through his filtration system. For you, it might be a golden opportunity, however. (Parent's emphasis)
Golden. Ho ho ho ho ho.... cough.
Seriously, I saw some stuff called "Bacardi Oro" in Asda yesterday, and I just figured out how they make it.
No, I won't be buying it anytime soon.
Industrial Alcohol == Less Tax for UK Gov
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I love how out of puritanical fear that people will get drunk (and probably have sex) we put something that will instead make them blind or dead. What a country.
They do that in Britain too; although here it has a lot more to do with the fact that spirits are taxed to the gills... quote:-
"The excise tax today, literally today, on a 70 cl bottle of Sainsbury's vodka in Aberdeen is 84 per cent."
Needless to say, you don't get charged that if you pop over to B&Q for some luridly-coloured purple alcohol.
Somebody from CookingWithCum.com would. It's a real web site!
OMG... it's almost as weird and contrived as "Cooking with Dr. Pepper".
Almost.
Re:Absinthe
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
absinthe is once again legal all across the European Union
Off the top of my head (this is Slashdot, I'm damned if I'm going to research my incoherent ramblings- besides which, IIRC I didn't read this online), the absinthes now "legal" in Europe contain only a fraction of the amount of psychoactive substances that the old-school absinthes contained before they were banned.
Re:Speaking of filters...
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 5, Funny
the other shit in the urine will require more water to process than you get from the processed urine.
Dude, if you have shit in your urine, you should see a doctor *pronto*.
And in case you think it might be related to age, my younger brother, a high school student, has also recently been prescribed glasses due to too many hours in front of a CRT. That finally convinced my father to have an LCD for each PC in the house, thankfully.
Can you cite a reliable source that states that the problem is specifically with CRTs? My understanding was that the increase in eyesight problems in the modern world was due to reading things at close distance (I'd *guess*- no more than that- that our distant ancestors spent more time looking at relatively distant things, and that somehow looking at close things all the time causes the eye to develop wrongly).
Of course, a flickery CRT may give you a headache where an LCD won't; but I'm not sure how that would tie in with short(?)-sightedness.
That having been said, if it's true, it'd be a good case for buying an LCD instead of a CRT. Or it could be propoganda put out by companies wanting people to buy LCD displays...
Was Wired always such a superficial, up-its-own-arse, US-biased, advert-bloated business magazine?
Yeah, "Business Magazine". The first issue I bought was in 2000, and all of them seem to have focused more on the business
aspects than any actual science.
And even though the mainly scientific articles are quite lengthy, somehow when you get to the end, you realise you've learned nothing of substance.
Worse, if you read it in the UK, you can't get a cheap subscription (presumably because the advertising for expensive crap and business services that fill the mag aren't aimed at a UK audience); expect to pay around UKP 3.50, approx US$6.00-6.50.
I heard that it went downhill when it was purchased by Conde Nast, but frankly, I'm sceptical that it was ever that great.
The rationale goes like this: Classic suspense/ horror sequels suck. Why? Because you already know the monster (in this case the Alien) and you know too much about it (in this case you've seen half of the breeding cycle, and in some cuts much more of it).
Yep... I saw Aliens first (this was when my parents *finally* got a VCR, long after everyone else)... a couple of years later I saw the original Alien and didn't get anything out of it. Still don't, and that's almost certainly because there was no suspense or horror if you'd seen Aliens first.
Alien 4 would work much better as a straight action sequel to Aliens
Alien 4 was a decent film, better than 3 IMHO, but... my biggest criticism is the whole style of the thing. It shares that French "Comic Book" feel with The Fifth Element; the characters are far more stylised than the first two films.
Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in a standalone film, or where its predecessors shared this style. But they don't- Alien and Aliens (and Alien3, although who cares?) were more "realistic", and this discontinuity in style- although lessened by the fact that A4 is set quite a bit further on in time- kind of grates.
Is there a noticeable correlation between people who eat more cheese than average and the two aforementioned groups? If not, why did you mention it?
And now I think of it, isn't one of the characteristics of a psychopath that they don't learn?... which is also true, in a sense, of risk-takers. So I suspect it's not just coincidence that there is similarity between the groups, although I'm not suggesting risk-taker --> psycho (though the converse may have some truth).
He didn't bother to attend class; he just hung around the perimeter, terrorizing those smaller than him and robbing them of their lunch money.
Normally, thugs like these end up in prison, usually for assault-with-intent.
I'm a bit vague on this, but I remember something about psychopathic personality types being associated highly with both prison inmates *and* those in positions of power, such as head of a company.
Strangely enough, I also remember the same thing being true of risk-takers....
Considered submitting this version of the story myself; what makes this one different is the commentary towards the end (edited here):-
What about all of those countries who're already members of the WTO? They should perhaps also get the message about how Microsoft sees IP law being used in the future. Which might well have a helpful collateral damage effect in Europe, if Europe's leaders are paying attention. Yesterday the Polish Government backed out of support for the EU patents directive, in a move which threatens to derail it... the sound of Microsoft threatening all-out IP war really ought to strengthen the opposition's hand, and make the European Parliament, which opposes software patents, more determined to fight. So well done, Steve, we look forward to the rebuttal.
So, you recognize that the kids are addicted to watching a piece of furniture, and that if this piece of furniture were "gotten rid of" they would complain.
Staring at furniture; terrible thing. My kids do nothing but watch the living room armchair all day... damn, you want to hear the noise they make if you try to take it away.
Little bastards want me to upgrade the armchair to a leather sofa and have new cushions delivered every month. I was bloody furious... spoilt brats already have tables and wardrobes in their own rooms that they stare at until late at night, and *all day* on Saturday and Sunday.
Dammit, when I was a kid, we didn't have *any* furniture... I had to visit my friend's house. He was lucky; his family had a footstool. I was always jealous. Tell that to kids today, and they'll laugh at you.
Honestly computer Graphic Design can be done by anybody who is willing to put some time into it.
Let's see some of your fantastic artwork.
I say you're either lying through your teeth or you're one of those people who wouldn't know good graphic design if it came up and slapped them with a wet fish.
Re:Compressing white noise?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
Thus, perfectly compressed information should *appear* totally random.
Or... as the point I was going to make was, would *sound* totally random (i.e. like white noise) if you listened to it.
Re:Compressing white noise?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
Actually you are completely right. White noise probably doesnt compress very well..
Well... as I said, I am not an expert, and I've forgotten most of what I know. Take the following with a pinch of salt...
Information theory states that the more information something contains, the more random it should appear. Why? Because if you can partially predict following data from what has come before- i.e. there is some form of a pattern- then there is redundancy, because it isn't *new information* if you already know some or all of it, is it?
So, predictability (pattern) --> You are being given information you already know --> Inefficiency.
Thus, perfectly compressed information should *appear* totally random.
This makes a number of assumptions about what it is you're trying to achieve from white-noise compression. Unfortunately, I can't figure out what those assumptions are...:-(
Compressing white noise?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
Punk songs compress very well, so does white noise.
Only because you aren't concerned about the quality of the white noise; if you wanted to preserve it in as close to its original form as possible, it'd compress very badly, right?
BTW, I don't know shit about this beyond what I was taught as part of my Computer Science Communications and Graphics courses... and I've forgotten most of that. So if anyone remotely academic wants to chime in; be my guest.
Simple. If you get rid of management, where do the people who worked for that manager go? They are sitting idle and a burden to everyone at that point.
This might be a radical idea to you, but...
You plan in advance. No, really.
You decide who everyone will be working under in future, and how the company will be organised after the manager(s) are rearranged/let go/whatever.
Or do you propose that *everyone* beneath a manager is sacked and rehired every time a manager is moved, or management structure changes?
I doubt it. So what on earth is the problem with restructuring management to (e.g.) make it more efficient *without* sacking every non-manager? You simply plan ahead.
The company is in the shit if a senior manager quits. Are they going to sack everyone?
You made an assertion and proclaimed it "simple common sense". No it isn't; to be that confident of something it has to be blindingly obviously true in every case ("Setting yourself on fire is a bad idea"). Your use of it is closer to the Einstein definition; if it was "simple common sense", how come I spotted the flaw in seconds?
And the fact that you cut a single job that is quite important to the business (despite what the common Slashdot groupthink is) and left many worker bees is completely pointless to cutting back in the first place. Managers are damn important to a business.
Just because *some* management is necessary (*that's* "simple common sense"), doesn't mean that *all* management is necessary. If it was necessary management, they wouldn't (or shouldn't) cut it. Doesn't mean to say that some businesses don't have unnecessary layers of management.
I might be totally wrong here, but does your argument stem from considering management more important than "workers" (i.e. non-management)? Being in a position of authority does not necessarily make someone more important. Of course, I don't dispute that (in any healthy company), a senior manager is more important than a bottom-of-the-hierarchy worker. On the other hand, management-for-the-sake-of-it may be able to be trimmed without affecting productivity, which suggests that they weren't important.
It depends how well set-up your company is.
I can't make/.'ers see through their bias, so I give up. Go back to reading Dilbert and purchasing "anti-establishment" t-shirts and posters.
I suspect you're going to write-off this post as another anti-management rant. Actually, it was an anti-blind-assertion rant, but don't let that stop you complaining.
Serious restructuring has to occur, but before you can let management go you must get rid of the people *below* the management level. It's simple common sense.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
-- Albert Einstein
Seriously; why is it "common sense" to assume that you *must* get rid of the people below management level before you can restructure management?
It would be more "common sense" to assume that the reason high-level managerial positions aren't cut is because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Parent is actually a damned insightful idea (I'm not saying it'd work, but the very thought of it is clever). However, the author should realise that posting as an AC at this stage means it has little chance of getting modded up as it should (IMHO).
If there are no contracts (verbal or written), then what the Hell is the point of signing something to that effect? Doesn't that negate the point of no written contracts?
Brilliant! Just feed your contract into EA's HR computer (the one with a slot for paper, lots of big flashing neon lights, and randomly whirring reel-to-reel tape machines).
Then watch as it terminally malfunctions, screeching "Does not compute!" in a robotic voice, and throwing out large amounts of smoke.
Where do you fucking commies come from anyway?
You just seem to seep out of the woodwork whenever some story whining about bad work conditions comes up. Quit whining and find a better job!
Troll, sure. But it's a good opportunity to point out something...
It's blatant hypocrisy to support the right of companies act in their own interests (as supporters of the "free" market often do), then whine and start name-calling when employees do the same thing.
Companies acting in their own interest. Employees acting in *their* own interest. Seems like the true free-market to me.
No-one said the company owners on the receiving end had to like it; but they should take it like a man instead of screeching "Communists!" when the employee market (which is how you may care to look at it) decides to act together in its own interest.
As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice.
Uh... they would have an incentive if they started getting sued left, right and centre.
If they were lying to employees, that would be (breaking) a verbal contract, right? (I am assuming the US allows verbal contracts, assuming they can be proven).
If one employee is lied to, they're going to have a hard time proving it. If it is happening repeatedly and systematically to many employees, the case against EA would become stronger.
Slashdot Mirror
Whilst I disagree with much of what you say, I disagree more with the mods who declared this "Offtopic". It's more on-topic than half the comments in your average Slashdot discussion. Anyway...
An individual imprisoning someone else without cause has done A Bad Thing, and should be punished.
Does this mean the state shouldn't imprison someone who has committed a serious crime (including the person just mentioned)?
In general, this means we can't punish anyone because it'd be unfair for anyone to have that happen to them without having done anything wrong.
No one should have to endure the pain and annoyance of spam: it's the scurge of the online world. Not even the spammer, who may be in his business because of factors outside his control like debt or bills for an illness in the family, etc.
Personally, I don't think spamming a spammer would be appropriate punishment, because it doesn't have the same effect as spamming a *large* number of *separate* people. But I disagree with the logic used in your argument against it (see above).
I also disagree with "poor spammer" argument; this could be used to justify all manner of crimes. If the spammer is poor and desparate, this should be taken into account by the courts when sentencing.
And if they're sitting on their lazy ass in a luxurious house with four expensive cars bought on the proceeds of their business, this should also be taken into account.
Spam == bad. Victimization == bad. Why do people conflate the two?
It's not victimisation. It's a punishment "appropriate" to something wrong being done. As mentioned above, I don't think it's as appropriate as it appears at first, but that's beside the point.
He's using his liver and pancreas to filter his vodka, so I wouldn't want to drink it after it's been through his filtration system. For you, it might be a golden opportunity, however. (Parent's emphasis)
Golden. Ho ho ho ho ho.... cough.
Seriously, I saw some stuff called "Bacardi Oro" in Asda yesterday, and I just figured out how they make it.
No, I won't be buying it anytime soon.
I love how out of puritanical fear that people will get drunk (and probably have sex) we put something that will instead make them blind or dead. What a country.
They do that in Britain too; although here it has a lot more to do with the fact that spirits are taxed to the gills... quote:-
"The excise tax today, literally today, on a 70 cl bottle of Sainsbury's vodka in Aberdeen is 84 per cent."
Needless to say, you don't get charged that if you pop over to B&Q for some luridly-coloured purple alcohol.
Somebody from CookingWithCum.com would. It's a real web site!
OMG... it's almost as weird and contrived as "Cooking with Dr. Pepper".
Almost.
absinthe is once again legal all across the European Union
Off the top of my head (this is Slashdot, I'm damned if I'm going to research my incoherent ramblings- besides which, IIRC I didn't read this online), the absinthes now "legal" in Europe contain only a fraction of the amount of psychoactive substances that the old-school absinthes contained before they were banned.
the other shit in the urine will require more water to process than you get from the processed urine.
Dude, if you have shit in your urine, you should see a doctor *pronto*.
And in case you think it might be related to age, my younger brother, a high school student, has also recently been prescribed glasses due to too many hours in front of a CRT. That finally convinced my father to have an LCD for each PC in the house, thankfully.
Can you cite a reliable source that states that the problem is specifically with CRTs? My understanding was that the increase in eyesight problems in the modern world was due to reading things at close distance (I'd *guess*- no more than that- that our distant ancestors spent more time looking at relatively distant things, and that somehow looking at close things all the time causes the eye to develop wrongly).
Of course, a flickery CRT may give you a headache where an LCD won't; but I'm not sure how that would tie in with short(?)-sightedness.
That having been said, if it's true, it'd be a good case for buying an LCD instead of a CRT. Or it could be propoganda put out by companies wanting people to buy LCD displays...
Was Wired always such a superficial, up-its-own-arse, US-biased, advert-bloated business magazine?
Yeah, "Business Magazine". The first issue I bought was in 2000, and all of them seem to have focused more on the business aspects than any actual science.
And even though the mainly scientific articles are quite lengthy, somehow when you get to the end, you realise you've learned nothing of substance.
Worse, if you read it in the UK, you can't get a cheap subscription (presumably because the advertising for expensive crap and business services that fill the mag aren't aimed at a UK audience); expect to pay around UKP 3.50, approx US$6.00-6.50.
I heard that it went downhill when it was purchased by Conde Nast, but frankly, I'm sceptical that it was ever that great.
The rationale goes like this: Classic suspense/ horror sequels suck. Why? Because you already know the monster (in this case the Alien) and you know too much about it (in this case you've seen half of the breeding cycle, and in some cuts much more of it).
Yep... I saw Aliens first (this was when my parents *finally* got a VCR, long after everyone else)... a couple of years later I saw the original Alien and didn't get anything out of it. Still don't, and that's almost certainly because there was no suspense or horror if you'd seen Aliens first.
Alien 4 would work much better as a straight action sequel to Aliens
Alien 4 was a decent film, better than 3 IMHO, but... my biggest criticism is the whole style of the thing. It shares that French "Comic Book" feel with The Fifth Element; the characters are far more stylised than the first two films.
Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in a standalone film, or where its predecessors shared this style. But they don't- Alien and Aliens (and Alien3, although who cares?) were more "realistic", and this discontinuity in style- although lessened by the fact that A4 is set quite a bit further on in time- kind of grates.
"And people who eat cheese"?
Is there a noticeable correlation between people who eat more cheese than average and the two aforementioned groups? If not, why did you mention it?
And now I think of it, isn't one of the characteristics of a psychopath that they don't learn?... which is also true, in a sense, of risk-takers. So I suspect it's not just coincidence that there is similarity between the groups, although I'm not suggesting risk-taker --> psycho (though the converse may have some truth).
He didn't bother to attend class; he just hung around the perimeter, terrorizing those smaller than him and robbing them of their lunch money. Normally, thugs like these end up in prison, usually for assault-with-intent.
I'm a bit vague on this, but I remember something about psychopathic personality types being associated highly with both prison inmates *and* those in positions of power, such as head of a company.
Strangely enough, I also remember the same thing being true of risk-takers....
Considered submitting this version of the story myself; what makes this one different is the commentary towards the end (edited here):-
What about all of those countries who're already members of the WTO? They should perhaps also get the message about how Microsoft sees IP law being used in the future. Which might well have a helpful collateral damage effect in Europe, if Europe's leaders are paying attention. Yesterday the Polish Government backed out of support for the EU patents directive, in a move which threatens to derail it... the sound of Microsoft threatening all-out IP war really ought to strengthen the opposition's hand, and make the European Parliament, which opposes software patents, more determined to fight. So well done, Steve, we look forward to the rebuttal.
So when cats hunt (in the way they do) its YOU moralising thier NATURAL behavior.
As if humans don't moralise their *own* natural behaviour...
So, you recognize that the kids are addicted to watching a piece of furniture, and that if this piece of furniture were "gotten rid of" they would complain.
Staring at furniture; terrible thing. My kids do nothing but watch the living room armchair all day... damn, you want to hear the noise they make if you try to take it away.
Little bastards want me to upgrade the armchair to a leather sofa and have new cushions delivered every month. I was bloody furious... spoilt brats already have tables and wardrobes in their own rooms that they stare at until late at night, and *all day* on Saturday and Sunday.
Dammit, when I was a kid, we didn't have *any* furniture... I had to visit my friend's house. He was lucky; his family had a footstool. I was always jealous. Tell that to kids today, and they'll laugh at you.
Unbelievable.
Honestly computer Graphic Design can be done by anybody who is willing to put some time into it.
Let's see some of your fantastic artwork.
I say you're either lying through your teeth or you're one of those people who wouldn't know good graphic design if it came up and slapped them with a wet fish.
Thus, perfectly compressed information should *appear* totally random.
Or... as the point I was going to make was, would *sound* totally random (i.e. like white noise) if you listened to it.
Actually you are completely right. White noise probably doesnt compress very well..
:-(
Well... as I said, I am not an expert, and I've forgotten most of what I know. Take the following with a pinch of salt...
Information theory states that the more information something contains, the more random it should appear. Why? Because if you can partially predict following data from what has come before- i.e. there is some form of a pattern- then there is redundancy, because it isn't *new information* if you already know some or all of it, is it?
So, predictability (pattern) --> You are being given information you already know --> Inefficiency.
Thus, perfectly compressed information should *appear* totally random.
This makes a number of assumptions about what it is you're trying to achieve from white-noise compression. Unfortunately, I can't figure out what those assumptions are...
Punk songs compress very well, so does white noise.
Only because you aren't concerned about the quality of the white noise; if you wanted to preserve it in as close to its original form as possible, it'd compress very badly, right?
BTW, I don't know shit about this beyond what I was taught as part of my Computer Science Communications and Graphics courses... and I've forgotten most of that. So if anyone remotely academic wants to chime in; be my guest.
Simple. If you get rid of management, where do the people who worked for that manager go? They are sitting idle and a burden to everyone at that point.
/.'ers see through their bias, so I give up. Go back to reading Dilbert and purchasing "anti-establishment" t-shirts and posters.
This might be a radical idea to you, but...
You plan in advance. No, really.
You decide who everyone will be working under in future, and how the company will be organised after the manager(s) are rearranged/let go/whatever.
Or do you propose that *everyone* beneath a manager is sacked and rehired every time a manager is moved, or management structure changes?
I doubt it. So what on earth is the problem with restructuring management to (e.g.) make it more efficient *without* sacking every non-manager? You simply plan ahead.
The company is in the shit if a senior manager quits. Are they going to sack everyone?
You made an assertion and proclaimed it "simple common sense". No it isn't; to be that confident of something it has to be blindingly obviously true in every case ("Setting yourself on fire is a bad idea"). Your use of it is closer to the Einstein definition; if it was "simple common sense", how come I spotted the flaw in seconds?
And the fact that you cut a single job that is quite important to the business (despite what the common Slashdot groupthink is) and left many worker bees is completely pointless to cutting back in the first place. Managers are damn important to a business.
Just because *some* management is necessary (*that's* "simple common sense"), doesn't mean that *all* management is necessary. If it was necessary management, they wouldn't (or shouldn't) cut it. Doesn't mean to say that some businesses don't have unnecessary layers of management.
I might be totally wrong here, but does your argument stem from considering management more important than "workers" (i.e. non-management)? Being in a position of authority does not necessarily make someone more important. Of course, I don't dispute that (in any healthy company), a senior manager is more important than a bottom-of-the-hierarchy worker. On the other hand, management-for-the-sake-of-it may be able to be trimmed without affecting productivity, which suggests that they weren't important.
It depends how well set-up your company is.
I can't make
I suspect you're going to write-off this post as another anti-management rant. Actually, it was an anti-blind-assertion rant, but don't let that stop you complaining.
Serious restructuring has to occur, but before you can let management go you must get rid of the people *below* the management level. It's simple common sense.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
-- Albert Einstein
Seriously; why is it "common sense" to assume that you *must* get rid of the people below management level before you can restructure management?
It would be more "common sense" to assume that the reason high-level managerial positions aren't cut is because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Parent is actually a damned insightful idea (I'm not saying it'd work, but the very thought of it is clever). However, the author should realise that posting as an AC at this stage means it has little chance of getting modded up as it should (IMHO).
If there are no contracts (verbal or written), then what the Hell is the point of signing something to that effect? Doesn't that negate the point of no written contracts?
Brilliant! Just feed your contract into EA's HR computer (the one with a slot for paper, lots of big flashing neon lights, and randomly whirring reel-to-reel tape machines).
Then watch as it terminally malfunctions, screeching "Does not compute!" in a robotic voice, and throwing out large amounts of smoke.
What an excellent idea! When I start my company, the first thing I'm going to do is build a corporate dungeon.
"Corporate Dungeon" sounds more like the place a sweaty, overweight middle manager would visit to get whipped by a generic dominatrix in leather.
Where do you fucking commies come from anyway? You just seem to seep out of the woodwork whenever some story whining about bad work conditions comes up. Quit whining and find a better job!
Troll, sure. But it's a good opportunity to point out something...
It's blatant hypocrisy to support the right of companies act in their own interests (as supporters of the "free" market often do), then whine and start name-calling when employees do the same thing.
Companies acting in their own interest. Employees acting in *their* own interest. Seems like the true free-market to me.
No-one said the company owners on the receiving end had to like it; but they should take it like a man instead of screeching "Communists!" when the employee market (which is how you may care to look at it) decides to act together in its own interest.
As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice.
Uh... they would have an incentive if they started getting sued left, right and centre.
If they were lying to employees, that would be (breaking) a verbal contract, right? (I am assuming the US allows verbal contracts, assuming they can be proven).
If one employee is lied to, they're going to have a hard time proving it. If it is happening repeatedly and systematically to many employees, the case against EA would become stronger.