No, 6 percent said they like heavy metal more than anything else. 30% said they like metal and 39% said they like rock. Unless you include 'soft' rock as rock then metal is really just part of the rock group.
Metallica circa 90's is a different fan-base then Metallica circa 80's. The black album and everything thereafter fails to be Metal. The black album was still good, just not Metallica. Everything after the black album is simply shit.
Yeah, its too bad that Metallica sold out. Most of my friends though the black album sucked. I thought the black album was good but that they should have released it under a different name since it wasn't proper Metallica. Everything that came after the black album has been shit, regardless of what name you stick on the label.
'Jokes aside, I've loved metal, punk, thrash, etc. since I first heard it. Oddly enough I love classical music too (even Joyce Hatto. Ha!) but can't stand country music, rap, hip hop....'
You have just described my tastes to a T. What happened to our kind?
Yup that is what I remember. It wasn't even a racial thing. Don't get me wrong, racial slurs were tossed around like candy but in the small town I lived in most of the youth hadn't even met someone of another race. All the 'rapper' kids were just wiggers and we laughed at them.
Then there were the preps. They dressed like the wiggers (because that Nike and sports stuff was expensive and the preps had to flaunt money) and usually listened to rap/hip-hop/etc but at least they didn't usually come up to you and call you G or tell you they were a blood or crypt.
I remember at a small gathering one time a so called blood was bragging about his brotherhood and status. A friend shaped a 'B' out of a wire hanger and branded him with it. Convinced him that it would show his loyalty. The following day he spread it around town that so and so was his bitch and he had branded him to prove it. The kid showed his 'B' all over town and it was a good month before he found out why everyone thought it was so funny.
Nah, they just failed to include the rest of the rock listeners. 39% listen to rock. The metal crowd are just hardcore rock fans, not an entirely separate group.
Actually we always had a term for those who listened to the beginner 'hard rock' stuff. What was that again? Oh yeah, we called them wannabe.
The part I find sad is the R&B fans. I mean, hey anyone can tap their foot to an R&B song because they all have a beat... and nothing else.
Technically you are still incorrect. There are a default set of restrictions put into place by copyright law that take effect when any copyrightable work is created. A Microsoft EULA adds additional restrictions on top of those. The GPL relaxes those restrictions under a certain set of conditions at no point does the GPL add any restrictions. The BSD license relaxes even more of those restrictions under certain conditions. Reverting the work to the public domain is the only way to entirely remove those restrictions.
When looking at the GPL(vANY), the BSD License, and a Microsoft EULA, the only one that adds restrictions that aren't already innate under US law is a Microsoft EULA. The rest merely partially relax restrictions placed by copyright law to differing degrees.
You can not name a single restriction in the GPL, only terms you must meet for the GPL to grant you an additional right.
Perhaps it helps to give another example. You have no PEZ (right to derive and distribute), I do have PEZ. I am willing to let you have some of my PEZ for a dollar. I am not restricting access to PEZ to those willing to give me a dollar, I am allowing those willing to give me a dollar to have some of my PEZ. In other words I am granting access to PEZ, not denying it. There might be those who want PEZ but aren't willing to give me a dollar but they have no justification for being angry with me. I am not stopping them from getting PEZ I am just providing my conditions for getting MY PEZ.
That part is false, at least in the end user sense. Copyright law does not restrict use. So long as the person I obtained the software had the right to distribute it (under any license) I don't even need a license to use the software at all. You can use any copyrighted material so long as you obtained it legally. Similarly, there is no license agreement on a printed book but I don't need permission to read it as long as it wasn't stolen.
That part is false. The GPL does not add any restrictions those are specified in copyright law. It relaxes copyright restrictions under certain conditions.
'If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers'
If you can't pass on the right then the CURRENT GPL short circuits and you lose your own right to distribute. Let alone v3. You have to be able to pass the same terms and the rights to exercise them to distribute under the GPL.
'If the GPLv3 code places any further restrictions on GPLv2 code, it is incompatible with the GPLv2 license and cannot be used. The GPLv2 license has been around first so it will take supreamecy.'
You wouldn't be able to mix GPLv2 only code and GPLv3 code but very little code is licensed only under GPLv2, most is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later'. This means you can take any of that GPLv2 code and distribute it and derivatives under GPLv3 without even needing to ask the author. As the for the GPLv2 coming first thing, that is nonsense that you made up.
'This will make the FSF lose it's right to use GPLed software.'
The author can license under any license they choose. They hold the copyright and aren't bound by the terms of the GPL. Furthermore, the GPL does not cover usage of software. It covers distribution.
'I think 99% of the parents would disagree with you on that one.'
Parents have an extraordinary amount of bias when it comes to children. Decisions should be made by a 3rd party observer not by someone in the middle of things who has either excessive hormones or a driving paternal instinct clouding their judgment.
With very few exceptions college students are over 18 and are therefore considered adults. At least in the United States and this is a US based forum. Many reach an adult maturity at a younger age than that. Remember, they don't have to make correct choices or the same choices that more experienced adults would make, they only have to have the intellect to conceptually understand (as opposed to the true understanding that comes from experience of consequences) the choices available and the consequences.
There is a difference between behaving in a manner that is not destructive to yourself and others and morality. Morality is an imaginary concept that was discovered by the more intelligent to exploit the less intelligent in primitive cultures (via religion) unfortunately it has persisted in many forms to this day.
There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad; at least beyond correct or incorrect actions within a specific context. It would be incorrect to use a deep voice to give a Mike Tyson impression but it isn't innately evil to use a deep voice only incorrect within that specific context.
Almost everything we consider immoral was considered moral or morally neutral within a culture somewhere in the world at some point. The common ground is only seen with moral concepts that are required for any society to function in an orderly fashion so they do not present evidence for innate morality.
'The post to which I responded made the real point that it wasn't believed that having a neat desk CAUSED the productivity.'
The merits of correlations aside I think we need to keep our eye on the correlation at hand. Those with the messy desks were shown to be more productive, not those with the neat desks.
'Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc.'
Because Slashdot is primarily populated by males. The ladies can beat up the men for it all day long but you will never change the FACT that men are hardwired to view women as sex objects. The first and most powerful drive in the interaction between male and female is the drive to mate. There are no exceptions, even if it is not conscious (and it is usually very conscious) the first thing a man considers when he looks at a female is whether or not he wants to mate with her (and yes, he makes the initial decision when he SEES her, not when hears about her accomplishments).
A man can pretend to only be considering your accomplishments but he can not actually only consider them. That doesn't mean a man can't be impressed with your accomplishments if you are not attractive or that he can't be impressed with them if you are attractive.
There are some men who show enough restraint to consider whether or not he wants to mate (or commence some act that is derivative of mating) with you silently rather than with crude remarks. But there will always be some who are comfortable making those comments on an internet forum where they wouldn't be comfortable making them publicly.
There is no question that Microsoft stumbled upon the function that has ultimately become the heart of AJAX. Nobody is denying that.
Claiming that means Microsoft actually wants AJAX to be the first widespread technology that they don't hook with proprietary extensions is ridiculous. Just because they had a part in the technology existing doesn't mean they want it to be a uniform platform and play well with others. History has shown that there have been literally no instances where Microsoft has embraced an open technology and failed to extend.
Microsoft has never been interested in making anything truly open. Be it a standard, format, protocol, or anything else. There is fairly substantial historical basis for calling foul the moment they send representatives from the dark empire to join a commitee to develop an open anything.
The only role Microsoft will play on this committee is keeping the standard conservative and covering only core functions. That way there is plenty of room for them to extend the hell out of it.
That's like claiming that a $5000 ring is only worth $30 because that is what it cost to have it resized. The cost to resolve the problem was $200k that doesn't mean the data wasn't worth $38bil.
'Because employees are human beings, with more important responsibilities that do not stop just because they are at work?
Because lots of essential services are only available during office hours?
Because people have breaks during the day, when they're not required to be working?'
Right.
'Your approach appears to be focussed on working 100% of the time during office hours'
No my approach appears to be focused on working 100% of the time during office hours with the exclusion of aforementioned breaks. During the course of an 8hr workday you get at least 2 15 minute breaks and another 1 hr break for lunch. You break about every 2hrs and under those circumstances there is no justification for not spending the rest of the time working. That is 1.5hrs out of an 8hr workday that you not only can make calls without cutting into company time during business hours but are being paid for your pleasure to do so. Those are hardly slave-like work conditions.
'provides suitable facilities for personal calls to be made privately and without distracting others in the office'
That goes without saying. Although I personally don't think privacy should really be given just a place that doesn't distract other employees. The employer shouldn't be given the false expectation of privacy when they communicate from work. None of those communications should be made during working hours, they should made during breaks. During breaks they should not be made from your workstation or the phone at your desk. They should be made from the phones/computers in the employee break areas. Any communications made from the workplace are probably going to be monitored. You have no expectation of privacy at work.
'Hey, you could try banning personal phone calls at work, too. Let us know how that works out for you in a couple of years... if you're still in business.'
I don't make personal calls while I am at work. Why should anyone else? Unless you are working for a company that puts you on salary and requires you to work abusive hours.
'denied access to private communication with anyone outside the business during office hours, denied time off when they're sick or for medical check-ups'
Those aren't even in the same ballpark. If employees are given adequate breaks, sick days, vacation days, personal days, etc there is no excuse for them to be using the work time that is left for anything they could have taken care of during off hours. I am all for giving employees time off when they need it and entirely support the idea that time off work belongs to the employee. First it should be respected by the employer and not interrupted with work and second the employer should keep their nose out of what the employees does during that time. But the employee in turn needs to respect the time they commit to their employer and shouldn't interrupt work time with personal business that they should finish on personal time. Naturally emergencies are an exception; calls from wives to pick up something after work are not. That is what cell phones and their accompanying voice mail boxes are for.
'Fortunately for all of us, it's rarely necessary to invoke such laws.'
There are no laws preventing employers from making employees work during the time they are paid to work.
'Companies that abuse their staff (and that's exactly what this sort of thing is) '
Hardly.
'will simply see all their staff walk,'
Perhaps in your world. In my world the balance of power rests with employers not employees. Employees are a dime a dozen. The unexpected loss of an employee isn't going to have much impact on most companies. The loss of a job can be devestating to an employee. The employee usually only has one job and the employer usually has lots of employees.
'That's a pretty unrealistic attitude and one that's bound to lead to resentment and all of its associated problems. Most modern managers realize that allowing workers to handle personal tasks at work usually makes them more productive and more loyal.'
That is debatable.
'Besides, much of the time it isn't strictly personal. Many of my colleagues and co-workers use gmail or yahoo mail for their professional mailing lists because it's easier to handle the high volume, thread-based correspondence and its accessible from anywhere.'
Then you are back to work communications. Work communications MUST all go through the company mail system so that they can be archived for legal reasons. It might be easier for your colleagues and co-workers but you are putting your employer at legal risk.
Unless what you really mean is that your co-workers like to read technical mailing lists on topics that interest them when they are bored. That is about as work related as reading Slashdot when you are a tech support drone and shouldn't be done on-the-clock.
Good (company paid) benefits, frequent paid breaks, a real (rather than formally stated) open door policy, and lots of personal/sick/vacation days keep employees happy and loyal. When you have those things there is no reason that an employee can't stick to working during work time. Unless of course your employees are salaried, in that case you are undoubtedly abusing them unpaid draconian hours that require them to be able to handle person matters at work.
The other exception might be tech support employees and those guys who clean the sewers. They spend grueling hours sifting and filtering shit and I say let them handle all the personal business they can if it delays the inevitable burn-out that comes with that job.
'If you insist on adopting this kind of totalitarian approach, don't be surprised if your employees screw you. As I said elsewhere, trust has to work both ways.'
You aren't being paid to send and receive personal emails. Unless there is some sort of emergency personal communications should be restricted to breaks, lunch periods, and off-hours. There is no reason for any of those communications to take place at your desk.
It isn't a matter of trusting you not to abuse the priv, it is a question of not needing to trust you because ANY personal communications while on the clock are an abuse.
FROM THE ARTICLE 'Five years ago the system was too bulky to be transported easily, and now the various parts can fit in a shoebox. In 10 years it could be fast and accurate enough to commercialize in home PCs or games consoles, according to Guber'
This is not new. This company has had it for five years. It is inaccurate and can only parse 18 characters a minute, that's not quite 4/wpm. I don't know about you but in without thought typing I type at about 60/wpm. He hopes it will be good enough to use in homes 10 years from now.
How about we see this story again in 10 years instead of seeing the same not to be available this decade interfaces every 6 months or so.
Slashdot Mirror
'6 percent of them say they like heavy metal.'
No, 6 percent said they like heavy metal more than anything else. 30% said they like metal and 39% said they like rock. Unless you include 'soft' rock as rock then metal is really just part of the rock group.
Metallica circa 90's is a different fan-base then Metallica circa 80's. The black album and everything thereafter fails to be Metal. The black album was still good, just not Metallica. Everything after the black album is simply shit.
There is no relation between intelligence and proper grammar/spelling. Begone troll.
Yeah, its too bad that Metallica sold out. Most of my friends though the black album sucked. I thought the black album was good but that they should have released it under a different name since it wasn't proper Metallica. Everything that came after the black album has been shit, regardless of what name you stick on the label.
'Jokes aside, I've loved metal, punk, thrash, etc. since I first heard it. Oddly enough I love classical music too (even Joyce Hatto. Ha!) but can't stand country music, rap, hip hop....'
You have just described my tastes to a T. What happened to our kind?
Yup that is what I remember. It wasn't even a racial thing. Don't get me wrong, racial slurs were tossed around like candy but in the small town I lived in most of the youth hadn't even met someone of another race. All the 'rapper' kids were just wiggers and we laughed at them.
Then there were the preps. They dressed like the wiggers (because that Nike and sports stuff was expensive and the preps had to flaunt money) and usually listened to rap/hip-hop/etc but at least they didn't usually come up to you and call you G or tell you they were a blood or crypt.
I remember at a small gathering one time a so called blood was bragging about his brotherhood and status. A friend shaped a 'B' out of a wire hanger and branded him with it. Convinced him that it would show his loyalty. The following day he spread it around town that so and so was his bitch and he had branded him to prove it. The kid showed his 'B' all over town and it was a good month before he found out why everyone thought it was so funny.
Nah, they just failed to include the rest of the rock listeners. 39% listen to rock. The metal crowd are just hardcore rock fans, not an entirely separate group.
Actually we always had a term for those who listened to the beginner 'hard rock' stuff. What was that again? Oh yeah, we called them wannabe.
The part I find sad is the R&B fans. I mean, hey anyone can tap their foot to an R&B song because they all have a beat... and nothing else.
'Why bother?'
I can't speak for anyone else in the thread but the main reason I bother is because I am an anal prick. Not to mention the fact that its a slow Weds.
Technically you are still incorrect. There are a default set of restrictions put into place by copyright law that take effect when any copyrightable work is created. A Microsoft EULA adds additional restrictions on top of those. The GPL relaxes those restrictions under a certain set of conditions at no point does the GPL add any restrictions. The BSD license relaxes even more of those restrictions under certain conditions. Reverting the work to the public domain is the only way to entirely remove those restrictions.
When looking at the GPL(vANY), the BSD License, and a Microsoft EULA, the only one that adds restrictions that aren't already innate under US law is a Microsoft EULA. The rest merely partially relax restrictions placed by copyright law to differing degrees.
You can not name a single restriction in the GPL, only terms you must meet for the GPL to grant you an additional right.
Perhaps it helps to give another example. You have no PEZ (right to derive and distribute), I do have PEZ. I am willing to let you have some of my PEZ for a dollar. I am not restricting access to PEZ to those willing to give me a dollar, I am allowing those willing to give me a dollar to have some of my PEZ. In other words I am granting access to PEZ, not denying it. There might be those who want PEZ but aren't willing to give me a dollar but they have no justification for being angry with me. I am not stopping them from getting PEZ I am just providing my conditions for getting MY PEZ.
'you cannot (legally) use'
That part is false, at least in the end user sense. Copyright law does not restrict use. So long as the person I obtained the software had the right to distribute it (under any license) I don't even need a license to use the software at all. You can use any copyrighted material so long as you obtained it legally. Similarly, there is no license agreement on a printed book but I don't need permission to read it as long as it wasn't stolen.
'It governs how you use the product'
That part is false. The GPL does not add any restrictions those are specified in copyright law. It relaxes copyright restrictions under certain conditions.
'If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers'
If you can't pass on the right then the CURRENT GPL short circuits and you lose your own right to distribute. Let alone v3. You have to be able to pass the same terms and the rights to exercise them to distribute under the GPL.
'If the GPLv3 code places any further restrictions on GPLv2 code, it is incompatible with the GPLv2 license and cannot be used. The GPLv2 license has been around first so it will take supreamecy.'
You wouldn't be able to mix GPLv2 only code and GPLv3 code but very little code is licensed only under GPLv2, most is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later'. This means you can take any of that GPLv2 code and distribute it and derivatives under GPLv3 without even needing to ask the author. As the for the GPLv2 coming first thing, that is nonsense that you made up.
'This will make the FSF lose it's right to use GPLed software.'
The author can license under any license they choose. They hold the copyright and aren't bound by the terms of the GPL. Furthermore, the GPL does not cover usage of software. It covers distribution.
Last I checked Firefox doesn't correct spelling mistakes. Google toolbar does though.
'I think 99% of the parents would disagree with you on that one.'
Parents have an extraordinary amount of bias when it comes to children. Decisions should be made by a 3rd party observer not by someone in the middle of things who has either excessive hormones or a driving paternal instinct clouding their judgment.
With very few exceptions college students are over 18 and are therefore considered adults. At least in the United States and this is a US based forum. Many reach an adult maturity at a younger age than that. Remember, they don't have to make correct choices or the same choices that more experienced adults would make, they only have to have the intellect to conceptually understand (as opposed to the true understanding that comes from experience of consequences) the choices available and the consequences.
There is a difference between behaving in a manner that is not destructive to yourself and others and morality. Morality is an imaginary concept that was discovered by the more intelligent to exploit the less intelligent in primitive cultures (via religion) unfortunately it has persisted in many forms to this day.
There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad; at least beyond correct or incorrect actions within a specific context. It would be incorrect to use a deep voice to give a Mike Tyson impression but it isn't innately evil to use a deep voice only incorrect within that specific context.
Almost everything we consider immoral was considered moral or morally neutral within a culture somewhere in the world at some point. The common ground is only seen with moral concepts that are required for any society to function in an orderly fashion so they do not present evidence for innate morality.
'The post to which I responded made the real point that it wasn't believed that having a neat desk CAUSED the productivity.'
The merits of correlations aside I think we need to keep our eye on the correlation at hand. Those with the messy desks were shown to be more productive, not those with the neat desks.
'Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc.'
Because Slashdot is primarily populated by males. The ladies can beat up the men for it all day long but you will never change the FACT that men are hardwired to view women as sex objects. The first and most powerful drive in the interaction between male and female is the drive to mate. There are no exceptions, even if it is not conscious (and it is usually very conscious) the first thing a man considers when he looks at a female is whether or not he wants to mate with her (and yes, he makes the initial decision when he SEES her, not when hears about her accomplishments).
A man can pretend to only be considering your accomplishments but he can not actually only consider them. That doesn't mean a man can't be impressed with your accomplishments if you are not attractive or that he can't be impressed with them if you are attractive.
There are some men who show enough restraint to consider whether or not he wants to mate (or commence some act that is derivative of mating) with you silently rather than with crude remarks. But there will always be some who are comfortable making those comments on an internet forum where they wouldn't be comfortable making them publicly.
shh don't tell anyone but USB is hardware. On the software side there are a number of proprietary Microsoft solutions surrounding USB.
There is no question that Microsoft stumbled upon the function that has ultimately become the heart of AJAX. Nobody is denying that.
Claiming that means Microsoft actually wants AJAX to be the first widespread technology that they don't hook with proprietary extensions is ridiculous. Just because they had a part in the technology existing doesn't mean they want it to be a uniform platform and play well with others. History has shown that there have been literally no instances where Microsoft has embraced an open technology and failed to extend.
Microsoft has never been interested in making anything truly open. Be it a standard, format, protocol, or anything else. There is fairly substantial historical basis for calling foul the moment they send representatives from the dark empire to join a commitee to develop an open anything.
The only role Microsoft will play on this committee is keeping the standard conservative and covering only core functions. That way there is plenty of room for them to extend the hell out of it.
That's like claiming that a $5000 ring is only worth $30 because that is what it cost to have it resized. The cost to resolve the problem was $200k that doesn't mean the data wasn't worth $38bil.
'Because employees are human beings, with more important responsibilities that do not stop just because they are at work?
Because lots of essential services are only available during office hours?
Because people have breaks during the day, when they're not required to be working?'
Right.
'Your approach appears to be focussed on working 100% of the time during office hours'
No my approach appears to be focused on working 100% of the time during office hours with the exclusion of aforementioned breaks. During the course of an 8hr workday you get at least 2 15 minute breaks and another 1 hr break for lunch. You break about every 2hrs and under those circumstances there is no justification for not spending the rest of the time working. That is 1.5hrs out of an 8hr workday that you not only can make calls without cutting into company time during business hours but are being paid for your pleasure to do so. Those are hardly slave-like work conditions.
'provides suitable facilities for personal calls to be made privately and without distracting others in the office'
That goes without saying. Although I personally don't think privacy should really be given just a place that doesn't distract other employees. The employer shouldn't be given the false expectation of privacy when they communicate from work. None of those communications should be made during working hours, they should made during breaks. During breaks they should not be made from your workstation or the phone at your desk. They should be made from the phones/computers in the employee break areas. Any communications made from the workplace are probably going to be monitored. You have no expectation of privacy at work.
'Hey, you could try banning personal phone calls at work, too. Let us know how that works out for you in a couple of years... if you're still in business.'
I don't make personal calls while I am at work. Why should anyone else? Unless you are working for a company that puts you on salary and requires you to work abusive hours.
'denied access to private communication with anyone outside the business during office hours, denied time off when they're sick or for medical check-ups'
Those aren't even in the same ballpark. If employees are given adequate breaks, sick days, vacation days, personal days, etc there is no excuse for them to be using the work time that is left for anything they could have taken care of during off hours. I am all for giving employees time off when they need it and entirely support the idea that time off work belongs to the employee. First it should be respected by the employer and not interrupted with work and second the employer should keep their nose out of what the employees does during that time. But the employee in turn needs to respect the time they commit to their employer and shouldn't interrupt work time with personal business that they should finish on personal time. Naturally emergencies are an exception; calls from wives to pick up something after work are not. That is what cell phones and their accompanying voice mail boxes are for.
'Fortunately for all of us, it's rarely necessary to invoke such laws.'
There are no laws preventing employers from making employees work during the time they are paid to work.
'Companies that abuse their staff (and that's exactly what this sort of thing is) '
Hardly.
'will simply see all their staff walk,'
Perhaps in your world. In my world the balance of power rests with employers not employees. Employees are a dime a dozen. The unexpected loss of an employee isn't going to have much impact on most companies. The loss of a job can be devestating to an employee. The employee usually only has one job and the employer usually has lots of employees.
'That's a pretty unrealistic attitude and one that's bound to lead to resentment and all of its associated problems. Most modern managers realize that allowing workers to handle personal tasks at work usually makes them more productive and more loyal.'
That is debatable.
'Besides, much of the time it isn't strictly personal. Many of my colleagues and co-workers use gmail or yahoo mail for their professional mailing lists because it's easier to handle the high volume, thread-based correspondence and its accessible from anywhere.'
Then you are back to work communications. Work communications MUST all go through the company mail system so that they can be archived for legal reasons. It might be easier for your colleagues and co-workers but you are putting your employer at legal risk.
Unless what you really mean is that your co-workers like to read technical mailing lists on topics that interest them when they are bored. That is about as work related as reading Slashdot when you are a tech support drone and shouldn't be done on-the-clock.
Good (company paid) benefits, frequent paid breaks, a real (rather than formally stated) open door policy, and lots of personal/sick/vacation days keep employees happy and loyal. When you have those things there is no reason that an employee can't stick to working during work time. Unless of course your employees are salaried, in that case you are undoubtedly abusing them unpaid draconian hours that require them to be able to handle person matters at work.
The other exception might be tech support employees and those guys who clean the sewers. They spend grueling hours sifting and filtering shit and I say let them handle all the personal business they can if it delays the inevitable burn-out that comes with that job.
'If you insist on adopting this kind of totalitarian approach, don't be surprised if your employees screw you. As I said elsewhere, trust has to work both ways.'
You aren't being paid to send and receive personal emails. Unless there is some sort of emergency personal communications should be restricted to breaks, lunch periods, and off-hours. There is no reason for any of those communications to take place at your desk.
It isn't a matter of trusting you not to abuse the priv, it is a question of not needing to trust you because ANY personal communications while on the clock are an abuse.
FROM THE ARTICLE 'Five years ago the system was too bulky to be transported easily, and now the various parts can fit in a shoebox. In 10 years it could be fast and accurate enough to commercialize in home PCs or games consoles, according to Guber'
This is not new. This company has had it for five years. It is inaccurate and can only parse 18 characters a minute, that's not quite 4/wpm. I don't know about you but in without thought typing I type at about 60/wpm. He hopes it will be good enough to use in homes 10 years from now.
How about we see this story again in 10 years instead of seeing the same not to be available this decade interfaces every 6 months or so.