too bad these corporatocrats don't get that it's bilateral. they have no right dictating to employees what they may do outside of work, or commandeer their off-duty intellectual activity as their own. until this is fixed, I have zero sympathy for your 'entitlement' problems.
np.. then I want to see equal protections from employer encroachment on employees when they're outside the office.. these days, most contracts try to take ownership of your 'off duty' output. to me, that's no different than using company resources for personal use.
Why? By law you cannot check prior employers for proper references. You can only ask dates of employment and what their position was.
..and for good reason. Without this law, any screw up on your part, no matter how minor, or rash action by an insecure employer trashes a career permanently, especially if an old ex employer is badmouthing you. Humans are not robots. Basically, in your world, 98% of the population would be unemployable.
Do people cheat with references and resumes? sure. it's just become part of the boilerplate of getting a job, very few peoples' experience actually lives up to the unreasonable standards this process implies. So much so that it hardly matters. Just get rid of it. Bring in the prospects, test their abilities relevant to the job, pick a likely winner and see how it goes.
The problem with this is the basic fallacy of democracy: just because the majority chooses a path doesnt mean it's the correct one. Democracy works fine for issues that boil down to preference, but not things like engineering or science, which are often the building blocks behind a company's product.
You should feel like what you do matters, if that's in fact the truth. this 'socialism' doesn't allow for a reality check. This is what's happening with the US fed nowadays: tons of bureaucracy and inefficient, wasteful use of funds, leading to demands for higher taxes and debt. This run amok is what killed the soviet union too.
Responsible employees try to prevent this sort of dependency but companies often don't give enough time or resources to accomplish it. (time to document, hours to crosstrain, etc)
honestly, I find that 'you will crosstrain before we can your ass' etiquette extremely insulting and demoralizing. I refuse to do that. If an employer wants to can me, I have better things to do than sacrifice for them while they find 'better' people to replace me. The moment I'm notified, their problems are no longer mine. Why? because I have to find new employment.
deep inside, yes, people do, if they really did screw up big time. the blustering on the surface caused by wounded pride only rarely causes a backlash.
(most people figure this out when they work fast-food as a 16 year old.)
unfortunately, the 16yo kids who go on from burger flipping to be the psychopathic executives developing these horrible policies in the first place don't either.
This is exactly what I'd do if I wanted to maximize the shot of the terminated employee sticking it back to me. You start with the language "time for him to go" without any justification, THEN you search for every possible thing you can find in the contract to trump up the charges as much as you can ('illicit' web browsing). You illegally search personal belongings under the assumption of guilt without court oversight, while if the employee got into something he shouldn't have at work, you'd have the police there in microseconds... I hope I never have to work for someone like you.
It's an arduous process, but it's my job to protect the company from thieves.
safety over liberty. companies like yours should just move your offices to china and be done with it. Get out. We don't want you.
Considered by whom? The people who stand to benefit from treating employees unethically in the first place? in this case, the 'reference' is no different than having it still in your head at your new job. it's the law that's unethical.
This is the mentality that causes people to stick it to the holy churches of corporate psychopathy in the first place. subject employees to hostile working environments like slaves, and they'll act like slaves when they rebel.
then don't hire them.. do the work yourself. obviously you did something to them that pissed them off..it's not a one way street. if you want people to respect you and your property, you have to respect them and theirs.
since most businesses are run by insecure twats, it is likely the sysadmin will have the nuclear option used against him for trivial disagreements. The sysadmin, in a state of rage over unfair treatment, hits his red button figuring he's got little to lose at this point. His employer just destroyed his career and his credibility after all. As far as I'm concerned, the party with the most power, the employer, deserves what it gets. If it treats its employees well, statistically, it doesn't have much to worry about. If it treats them like criminals out of insecurity, then it deserves what it gets.
Dell and everyone else also have to meet these specs.. It doesn't justify 3.5x overcharge for 8GB ram upgrade.
All that said, yes, it's a pisser that Apple is finding yet another way to force everything you do to be under their thumb. But we're having this hissy fit because we all know we'll keep buying their products, at the end of the day, what they are doing is creating products we want, which other companies can not compete with.
speak for yourself. the only thing that makes this laptop interesting is the display, and that wasn't developed by apple. apple just said to the panel OEM "we'll buy X number of panels if you'll only sell them to us for Y amount of time". I hardly see any innovation in that.
just because people don't 'feel' like they're being screwed doesn't mean they aren't being screwed. It just means they're making ignorant, emotional, impulsive purchases..
that ship sailed many years ago, sometime around 1995 I would think, and I think the technology world's a better place as a result.
No it's not. when the trend setting levels are set to the lowest common denominator, the products sold become predatory, and largely useless for anything but banal tasks. They typically trade rights/control for convenience under the guise of extremely limited empowerment. Up until about 1998 or so, computing really was about personal empowerment, now it's about usurping as much control from the user as possible.
Basically, you are arguing from popularity, which is a horrible way to judge success. Unfortunately, our culture suffers this confirmation bias nearly everywhere, and it shows. In the case of replaceable batteries, some of us go off grid for extended periods, and having spare batteries is a necessity. Apple users love to claim how apple products last longer than their cheap windows counterparts, but since the battery is usually the first thing to go, that claim is obviously bogus. 4 years is about average for a laptop battery these days, less if you use it in a way that burns through charge cycles.
We tech-savvy people shouldn't be "pissed off" at Microsoft, Apple, HP or whoever - we just choose a different product
this works until there are no other choices. It's a reactionary, passive-aggressive attempt to silence criticism. We have a right to tell manufacturers what we think about their products, and being tech heads, we see things most consumers haven't thought about, which makes the products better when they finally hit the market. people like you don't seem to get that because you're too busy astroturfing for your favorite brands (or justifying your impulsive, emotional purchase). In the case of batteries, it's trivial to allow user-servicable replacements, but apple would rather monetize that (take control) under the guise of convenience (we'll do it for you for $130). It's not really convenience at all because the laptop must be shipped out leaving the customer without a machine for weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
No thanks.. ] I don't want to live in the police state that would be required to force everyone into compliance.
they aren't bending anything.. it's more like someone happened to step on their driveway a few times while walking their dog along the street.
too bad these corporatocrats don't get that it's bilateral. they have no right dictating to employees what they may do outside of work, or commandeer their off-duty intellectual activity as their own. until this is fixed, I have zero sympathy for your 'entitlement' problems.
Most people don't have a choice... well they do, but poverty really isn't an option.
np.. then I want to see equal protections from employer encroachment on employees when they're outside the office.. these days, most contracts try to take ownership of your 'off duty' output. to me, that's no different than using company resources for personal use.
too bad many employers don't show their employees the same respect when employees are on their own time with their own resources.
Why? By law you cannot check prior employers for proper references. You can only ask dates of employment and what their position was.
..and for good reason. Without this law, any screw up on your part, no matter how minor, or rash action by an insecure employer trashes a career permanently, especially if an old ex employer is badmouthing you. Humans are not robots. Basically, in your world, 98% of the population would be unemployable.
Do people cheat with references and resumes? sure. it's just become part of the boilerplate of getting a job, very few peoples' experience actually lives up to the unreasonable standards this process implies. So much so that it hardly matters. Just get rid of it. Bring in the prospects, test their abilities relevant to the job, pick a likely winner and see how it goes.
The problem with this is the basic fallacy of democracy: just because the majority chooses a path doesnt mean it's the correct one. Democracy works fine for issues that boil down to preference, but not things like engineering or science, which are often the building blocks behind a company's product.
You should feel like what you do matters, if that's in fact the truth. this 'socialism' doesn't allow for a reality check. This is what's happening with the US fed nowadays: tons of bureaucracy and inefficient, wasteful use of funds, leading to demands for higher taxes and debt. This run amok is what killed the soviet union too.
Responsible employees try to prevent this sort of dependency but companies often don't give enough time or resources to accomplish it. (time to document, hours to crosstrain, etc)
honestly, I find that 'you will crosstrain before we can your ass' etiquette extremely insulting and demoralizing. I refuse to do that. If an employer wants to can me, I have better things to do than sacrifice for them while they find 'better' people to replace me. The moment I'm notified, their problems are no longer mine. Why? because I have to find new employment.
yup..gotta love corporate-backed government.. life in prison for copying data? please..
deep inside, yes, people do, if they really did screw up big time. the blustering on the surface caused by wounded pride only rarely causes a backlash.
(most people figure this out when they work fast-food as a 16 year old.)
unfortunately, the 16yo kids who go on from burger flipping to be the psychopathic executives developing these horrible policies in the first place don't either.
in most cases where a terminated employee lashes out, yes, it's due to dubious justifications for termination.
This is exactly what I'd do if I wanted to maximize the shot of the terminated employee sticking it back to me. You start with the language "time for him to go" without any justification, THEN you search for every possible thing you can find in the contract to trump up the charges as much as you can ('illicit' web browsing). You illegally search personal belongings under the assumption of guilt without court oversight, while if the employee got into something he shouldn't have at work, you'd have the police there in microseconds... I hope I never have to work for someone like you.
It's an arduous process, but it's my job to protect the company from thieves.
safety over liberty. companies like yours should just move your offices to china and be done with it. Get out. We don't want you.
Considered by whom? The people who stand to benefit from treating employees unethically in the first place? in this case, the 'reference' is no different than having it still in your head at your new job. it's the law that's unethical.
This is the mentality that causes people to stick it to the holy churches of corporate psychopathy in the first place. subject employees to hostile working environments like slaves, and they'll act like slaves when they rebel.
then don't hire them.. do the work yourself. obviously you did something to them that pissed them off..it's not a one way street. if you want people to respect you and your property, you have to respect them and theirs.
since most businesses are run by insecure twats, it is likely the sysadmin will have the nuclear option used against him for trivial disagreements. The sysadmin, in a state of rage over unfair treatment, hits his red button figuring he's got little to lose at this point. His employer just destroyed his career and his credibility after all. As far as I'm concerned, the party with the most power, the employer, deserves what it gets. If it treats its employees well, statistically, it doesn't have much to worry about. If it treats them like criminals out of insecurity, then it deserves what it gets.
don't forget the upbringing of the insecure blowhards who fired him without real justification in the first place.
This is the kind of treatment that makes workers angry enough to do the things your 'big company' doesn't want happening in the first place.
Dell and everyone else also have to meet these specs.. It doesn't justify 3.5x overcharge for 8GB ram upgrade.
All that said, yes, it's a pisser that Apple is finding yet another way to force everything you do to be under their thumb. But we're having this hissy fit because we all know we'll keep buying their products, at the end of the day, what they are doing is creating products we want, which other companies can not compete with.
speak for yourself. the only thing that makes this laptop interesting is the display, and that wasn't developed by apple. apple just said to the panel OEM "we'll buy X number of panels if you'll only sell them to us for Y amount of time". I hardly see any innovation in that.
just because people don't 'feel' like they're being screwed doesn't mean they aren't being screwed. It just means they're making ignorant, emotional, impulsive purchases..
..which is to the detriment of us all, techs and the people who are these 'new' targets.
that ship sailed many years ago, sometime around 1995 I would think, and I think the technology world's a better place as a result.
No it's not. when the trend setting levels are set to the lowest common denominator, the products sold become predatory, and largely useless for anything but banal tasks. They typically trade rights/control for convenience under the guise of extremely limited empowerment. Up until about 1998 or so, computing really was about personal empowerment, now it's about usurping as much control from the user as possible.
Basically, you are arguing from popularity, which is a horrible way to judge success. Unfortunately, our culture suffers this confirmation bias nearly everywhere, and it shows. In the case of replaceable batteries, some of us go off grid for extended periods, and having spare batteries is a necessity. Apple users love to claim how apple products last longer than their cheap windows counterparts, but since the battery is usually the first thing to go, that claim is obviously bogus. 4 years is about average for a laptop battery these days, less if you use it in a way that burns through charge cycles.
We tech-savvy people shouldn't be "pissed off" at Microsoft, Apple, HP or whoever - we just choose a different product
this works until there are no other choices. It's a reactionary, passive-aggressive attempt to silence criticism. We have a right to tell manufacturers what we think about their products, and being tech heads, we see things most consumers haven't thought about, which makes the products better when they finally hit the market. people like you don't seem to get that because you're too busy astroturfing for your favorite brands (or justifying your impulsive, emotional purchase). In the case of batteries, it's trivial to allow user-servicable replacements, but apple would rather monetize that (take control) under the guise of convenience (we'll do it for you for $130). It's not really convenience at all because the laptop must be shipped out leaving the customer without a machine for weeks.
yes, but it merited a serious reply..
'is not' should be 'does'