I don't think I have a "right" to my job. I do think that it's reasonable to expect my employer to live up to the terms of their contract with me and not to use outsourcing as a way of weasling out of it.
The widget seller IS protected by law, though more so their customer. The customer can't return the widget just because Joe Bloggs' Widget Emporium is selling them for thruppence less. If the customer signs a contract to have a widget delivered to their home every Thursday for the next year, their stuck with that, too. They can probably get out of that contract, but they'll have to pay for the privilege.
Employment laws aren't special. Remember that laws are made for the benefit of people who for the most part are employees rather than employers. It's scarcely surprising that those laws favour them. If a company doesn't like it, they can take their business elsewhere, (as some do). Sure: there's a balance between the citizenry protecting its employment, and encouraging businesses so that they will provide that employment but that certainly doesn't require us to do away with all employment protection legislation.
Those who disagree are at liberty to live in a country with a different approach (I assume we've got the Atlantic between us) or lobby their representative(s) to change things.
There's nothing wrong with looking for a new job. If it were me, I wouldn't just take the first thing that came up. With employment assured for at least a little while and the chance that you might actually like HP, be choosy. You're not under immediate pressure to leave so you can cherry pick the opportunities.
By the time you've had some interview practice you should have a better idea of whether you're going to get on with HP.
TUPE certainly serves to protect employees during outsourcing. But it also prevents the employer using outsourcing as a cheap way of cutting staff. Both of these seem like good things to me.
TUPE doesn't mean that you get to keep your job: there's no requirement for the new company to take you on. If they don't want to, the original employer can either keep you, or get rid of you under their usual terms. What they can't do is pass you over to the new guys and let THEM sack you under worse terms.
I got outsourced a couple of years ago, (not to HP) and I couldn't say it's any better or worse than it was before. I do have the advantage of UK employment law on my side, which in theory ensures I remain on cmparable terms and conditions. I ended up with a poorer pension scheme but a higher salary to make up for it, and a few minor changes in other benefits - mostly good.
Not everybody stayed on, but most people did. One guy left, then got re-hired because he was too valuable to lose. Most of us are doing pretty much the same job as we were before, although those in leadership roles probably have more responsibility than they did before.
In theory there are more opportunities for me. A lot of that is going to depend on me seeking them out. At the least, I shall end up doing work for other customers besides my original employer which gives me exposure to different ways of doing things.
In my limited experience - I got sort-of outsourced once before: massive reorganization which involved setting up a new company to handle IT for the whole group - it needn't be bad for you. I certainly think that some of the other posters are being needlessly alarmist and cynical. Go with it, and try to be involved in the changes.
We give the servers names relating to their location. But we then add one or more IP aliases - not simply DNS aliases - which relate to the specific application(s) running on the server. Originally, my standard was that these aliases were officially arbitrary, but they've tended to become a bit more meaningful these days.
One of the big advantages of this is that if you move an application to a different server it can keep the same alias, and youu don't end up with servers with the "wrong" geographical name. This can be particularly useful for BCS. Another is that users and admins can each have names which mean something to them. I do have to cross-reference names fairly frequently, but once you get beyond a couple of dozen servers that's inevitable, (unless you've got a fairly freakish memory).
It does depend - as always - on what you're running on the servers. We don't have users or even developers, (much) logging on to servers directly: they're using applications such as SAP so they don't really care or even know which specific server they're using.
Theoretically you're right. However, in practice I think that broadband offers more opportunities to be secure. (Though perhaps more serious consequences if you aren't.)
Lots of people have mentioned easier patching, but what comes to my mind is firewalls. When I got my broadband, I got a cheap modem/etc with a decent firewall built in, rather than the software firewall I was using before, (ZoneAlarm). That was not really an option when I was using dial-up.
Sure: some people will just be using a modem in their PC - a USB device supplied by their ISP, most likely. But external modem/router/switch/firewall/WiFi boxes are really cheap these days and increasingly ISPs provide them for a fairly low cost. (I'd still rather choose my own.)
With increasing use of laptops and wireless connections, dedicated modem/etcs will surely become even more common.
It's not some sort of panacea, but it can help a lot to protect people on the internet.
Some people may argue that their aged grandparent couldn't cope with handling a router as well, but really how difficult is it? Someone (you) set it up for them and then it just runs. And they're not exactly difficult to configure these days. Certainly no harder than configuring their email client in the first place.
Someone else mentioned the security of disconnecting the phone line from the modem. All of the machines I use have very simple buttons to turn off the wireless connection - either an actual switch on the machine or a straightforward icon on the task bar. A timid user ought to be able to cope with that and it's a lot simpler than fidling around with an RJ11 or whatever.
I got broadband a couple of years ago after using a dial-up link for ages. I was only using the Internet for email, usenet and a little bit of web-browsing so I didn't think that broadband had much to offer me. What made me switch in the end were two things. The convenience of an always-on connection. Since I was paying for my dial-up by the minute I tended to connect, download my email and latest bunch of Usenet posts then disconnect. So if someone posted an interesting web link, I had to re-connect if I wanted to look at it immediately. The realisation that I could actually get broadband for about the same cost as my dial-up. Admittedly, I could have gotten a cheaper dial-up link but effectively it meant I could get something for nothing.
Since getting broadband I have found myself using the internet for a lot of things that I wouldn't have thought of before. Large emails, (like my dad's holiday snaps) don't bother me anymore. I can stream audio and video to my heart's content. If I want to download something I can just do it, and not have to worry about leaving my PC switched on overnight.
There's more I could do, of course, but even the little I do is stuff I hadn't considered until I got broadband. But I didn't get broadband for those capabilities.
Cost and convenience are the biggest drivers for most people.
When SPAM first started it was from legitimate companies. And who says what's "legitimate"? Maybe a big company wouldn't want their name tarnished, but it might be more tempting for a smaller business. I can imagine some person running a business from home selling, say, macrame cooking pots over the internet deciding that a bit of spam was worthwhile as a cheap way to reach an international market. Or that spamming in the name of their rival down the road - or across the ocean - is tempting.
They want to be able to see not only whether infringing videos make up a significant proportion of views, but also whether viewing such videos is restricted to a small sub-set of YouTube viewers, or is more general behaviour.
If everybody is at it, then they can claim that YouTube can't function without copyright infringement. If it's mostly a small set of people doing all the uploads and viewing it'd be harder to make such a claim.
If that were done it would just become another extortion technique: cough up or I'll send SPAM in your name and the government will beat you up. Or just to hurt some company you've taken exception to.
Sure: if you can trace a Spammer back to a customer then take action against that customer. But I suspect that would be easier said than done.
Reassuarance was one of the things I wanted most when I used the service last year. I had accute abdominal pain and wanted someone to tell me whether I should just put up with it until it went away, or that it was a bit more serious and needed some attention.
But reassurance is something that they just can't provide. Imagine the consequences if they told someone "Oh, that's nothing to worry about" only to be proved wrong. A visit to an actual flesh-and-blood doctor can provide a lot more.
I applaud the idea of trying to provide an easily accessible service to provide simple medical advice, but I'm not convinced it's really workable.
If you're not in the US yet, how can you have committed any crime in US jurisdiction? If you are in the US then surely you're entitled to the protection of the US constitution?
With the ammount of data that devices can store there's no way a customs agent could inspect it immediately with any thoroughness.
Confiscating a laptop or other device is obviously really inconvenient for the owner, especially if they don't know when or if it'll be returned.
Copying a disk - or whatever - is possible, but apart from the issues that raises about the security of the data and its eventual disposition, I wonder if whatever customs agents do would meet the requirements to be used as evidence. Normally forensic specialists are very careful about exactly how a disk is copied. Simply copying the files won't do.
I think it's much more to do with having the confidence to object.
It can also be very difficult if all the local employers have similar terms. Unless you're something special - which by definition most people aren't - your options can be very limited.
One of the big advantages of collective bargaining is that it gives people more power to stand up for themselves. Conditions may be a lot better than they were a century ago, but this sort of thing shows that there's still a place for unionisation in some form.
I'll gladly take your word about the general accuracy of betting markets. However, I'm not convinced that this is a typical case. I still suspect that a lot of people will not be regular gamblers: a sufficiently large number to distort the picture. My gut feeling is that professional gamblers won't see this as a good bet - it's too difficult to judge - so the bulk of the money will be coming from folk with too much of a vested interest.
Who are the bigger gamblers: Democrats or Republicans? Unless they're evenly represented the market will not be unbiased.
Bear in mind this isn't some objective prediction, but what people think is going to happen. A lot of those people betting probably have a personal emotional investment in the outcome and are betting with their hearts, not their minds.
Just like sports betting, where folk put money on their local team regardless of whether they're any good, or back a horse because they like the name.
In the developed world, most people don't buy bikes because they can't afford a car but because they want a bike. They're generally luxury items and the manufacturers design them accordingly.
That's changed a bit: consumers are becoming more interested in fuel consumption, (here in the UK, anyway). A modern sports bike will match or beat most cars, (unless you're thrashing the tits off it). Small bikes are way ahead but they're not a large part of the market, apart from learner bikes. Having said that, scooters have had a bit of a resurgance recently and most of those will return 60mpg+ even with some teen-age hooligan riding them.
Re:Everybody hates a truck until...
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
See (c). When I need a truck, I rent one. That's easy with all the money I save by not owning a truck. Heck, I even have money left over. Same here. I use a motorcycle most of the time and don't own anything with four wheels. Renting a car or van on the occassions I do need one is cheap and simple. For people in urban areas, (large) vehicle ownership is a luxury. Heck: getting a taxi is probably cheeper for a lot of people.
Those folk who do actually use an SUV for something close to what it's intended for occasionally might do well to have it as a second vehicle, if they have the space. Get something "sensible" for most days with an SUV for those weekends in the country. Once you've made the capital outlay running two vehicles needn't cost any more than running one and it's no worse for the environment: you can only use one of them at a time. Might even be better if you have the choice to use whichever vehicle is most efficient for the job at hand.
I quite liked Skara Brae. I'd never seen anything like it, and the idea that it's as old as Egypt's pyramids is quite impressive. The prototype for Barrett Homes.
There are lots of other great things on Orkney, too. Maes Howe was interesting. I got an individual guided tour as nobody else was around that day. Seeing millenia old Viking graffiti was fascinating.
The only down-side is that it's quite a long way away from anything, but anybody spending time in the north of Scotland should make the effort. The ferry from Scrabster, (near Thurso) makes a day-trip viable if you're staying somewhere nearby.
I bought a Dell Inspiron recently with Ubuntu pre-installed. I'd been using an older Inspiron with SuSE, but several years of use and abuse were taking their toll so I was ready for a replacement when they were announced.
I'd had a few minor problems getting Linux to work on my old machine, (wireless networking and the touchpad, mostly) and since I've got better things to do with my time I was quite pleased to be able to buy a machine with everything I wanted ready to go. I have no regrets so far.
The Ubuntu machine worked out slightly cheaper than a similarly spec'ed Windows laptop, but not enough to affect my decision much. If the Ubuntu pre-loads hadn't been available I might well have bought a Windows Inspiron anyway and put SuSE on it again.
These days a big issue is CYA when it comes to people's personal data. It shouldn't be. The issue should be to ensure that valuable/sensitive information is appropriately handled. If you do that properly, then your arse is covered automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I have a "right" to my job. I do think that it's reasonable to expect my employer to live up to the terms of their contract with me and not to use outsourcing as a way of weasling out of it.
The widget seller IS protected by law, though more so their customer. The customer can't return the widget just because Joe Bloggs' Widget Emporium is selling them for thruppence less. If the customer signs a contract to have a widget delivered to their home every Thursday for the next year, their stuck with that, too. They can probably get out of that contract, but they'll have to pay for the privilege.
Employment laws aren't special. Remember that laws are made for the benefit of people who for the most part are employees rather than employers. It's scarcely surprising that those laws favour them. If a company doesn't like it, they can take their business elsewhere, (as some do). Sure: there's a balance between the citizenry protecting its employment, and encouraging businesses so that they will provide that employment but that certainly doesn't require us to do away with all employment protection legislation.
Those who disagree are at liberty to live in a country with a different approach (I assume we've got the Atlantic between us) or lobby their representative(s) to change things.
There's nothing wrong with looking for a new job. If it were me, I wouldn't just take the first thing that came up. With employment assured for at least a little while and the chance that you might actually like HP, be choosy. You're not under immediate pressure to leave so you can cherry pick the opportunities.
By the time you've had some interview practice you should have a better idea of whether you're going to get on with HP.
TUPE certainly serves to protect employees during outsourcing. But it also prevents the employer using outsourcing as a cheap way of cutting staff. Both of these seem like good things to me.
TUPE doesn't mean that you get to keep your job: there's no requirement for the new company to take you on. If they don't want to, the original employer can either keep you, or get rid of you under their usual terms. What they can't do is pass you over to the new guys and let THEM sack you under worse terms.
This would seem to be the obvious thing to do.
I got outsourced a couple of years ago, (not to HP) and I couldn't say it's any better or worse than it was before. I do have the advantage of UK employment law on my side, which in theory ensures I remain on cmparable terms and conditions. I ended up with a poorer pension scheme but a higher salary to make up for it, and a few minor changes in other benefits - mostly good.
Not everybody stayed on, but most people did. One guy left, then got re-hired because he was too valuable to lose. Most of us are doing pretty much the same job as we were before, although those in leadership roles probably have more responsibility than they did before.
In theory there are more opportunities for me. A lot of that is going to depend on me seeking them out. At the least, I shall end up doing work for other customers besides my original employer which gives me exposure to different ways of doing things.
In my limited experience - I got sort-of outsourced once before: massive reorganization which involved setting up a new company to handle IT for the whole group - it needn't be bad for you. I certainly think that some of the other posters are being needlessly alarmist and cynical. Go with it, and try to be involved in the changes.
That's similar to what I do.
We give the servers names relating to their location. But we then add one or more IP aliases - not simply DNS aliases - which relate to the specific application(s) running on the server. Originally, my standard was that these aliases were officially arbitrary, but they've tended to become a bit more meaningful these days.
One of the big advantages of this is that if you move an application to a different server it can keep the same alias, and youu don't end up with servers with the "wrong" geographical name. This can be particularly useful for BCS. Another is that users and admins can each have names which mean something to them. I do have to cross-reference names fairly frequently, but once you get beyond a couple of dozen servers that's inevitable, (unless you've got a fairly freakish memory).
It does depend - as always - on what you're running on the servers. We don't have users or even developers, (much) logging on to servers directly: they're using applications such as SAP so they don't really care or even know which specific server they're using.
Theoretically you're right. However, in practice I think that broadband offers more opportunities to be secure. (Though perhaps more serious consequences if you aren't.)
Lots of people have mentioned easier patching, but what comes to my mind is firewalls. When I got my broadband, I got a cheap modem/etc with a decent firewall built in, rather than the software firewall I was using before, (ZoneAlarm). That was not really an option when I was using dial-up.
Sure: some people will just be using a modem in their PC - a USB device supplied by their ISP, most likely. But external modem/router/switch/firewall/WiFi boxes are really cheap these days and increasingly ISPs provide them for a fairly low cost. (I'd still rather choose my own.)
With increasing use of laptops and wireless connections, dedicated modem/etcs will surely become even more common.
It's not some sort of panacea, but it can help a lot to protect people on the internet.
Some people may argue that their aged grandparent couldn't cope with handling a router as well, but really how difficult is it? Someone (you) set it up for them and then it just runs. And they're not exactly difficult to configure these days. Certainly no harder than configuring their email client in the first place.
Someone else mentioned the security of disconnecting the phone line from the modem. All of the machines I use have very simple buttons to turn off the wireless connection - either an actual switch on the machine or a straightforward icon on the task bar. A timid user ought to be able to cope with that and it's a lot simpler than fidling around with an RJ11 or whatever.
I got broadband a couple of years ago after using a dial-up link for ages.
I was only using the Internet for email, usenet and a little bit of web-browsing so I didn't think that broadband had much to offer me. What made me switch in the end were two things.
The convenience of an always-on connection. Since I was paying for my dial-up by the minute I tended to connect, download my email and latest bunch of Usenet posts then disconnect. So if someone posted an interesting web link, I had to re-connect if I wanted to look at it immediately.
The realisation that I could actually get broadband for about the same cost as my dial-up. Admittedly, I could have gotten a cheaper dial-up link but effectively it meant I could get something for nothing.
Since getting broadband I have found myself using the internet for a lot of things that I wouldn't have thought of before. Large emails, (like my dad's holiday snaps) don't bother me anymore. I can stream audio and video to my heart's content. If I want to download something I can just do it, and not have to worry about leaving my PC switched on overnight.
There's more I could do, of course, but even the little I do is stuff I hadn't considered until I got broadband. But I didn't get broadband for those capabilities.
Cost and convenience are the biggest drivers for most people.
When SPAM first started it was from legitimate companies. And who says what's "legitimate"? Maybe a big company wouldn't want their name tarnished, but it might be more tempting for a smaller business. I can imagine some person running a business from home selling, say, macrame cooking pots over the internet deciding that a bit of spam was worthwhile as a cheap way to reach an international market. Or that spamming in the name of their rival down the road - or across the ocean - is tempting.
I can see why the information could be relevant.
They want to be able to see not only whether infringing videos make up a significant proportion of views, but also whether viewing such videos is restricted to a small sub-set of YouTube viewers, or is more general behaviour.
If everybody is at it, then they can claim that YouTube can't function without copyright infringement. If it's mostly a small set of people doing all the uploads and viewing it'd be harder to make such a claim.
If that were done it would just become another extortion technique: cough up or I'll send SPAM in your name and the government will beat you up. Or just to hurt some company you've taken exception to.
Sure: if you can trace a Spammer back to a customer then take action against that customer. But I suspect that would be easier said than done.
Reassuarance was one of the things I wanted most when I used the service last year. I had accute abdominal pain and wanted someone to tell me whether I should just put up with it until it went away, or that it was a bit more serious and needed some attention.
But reassurance is something that they just can't provide. Imagine the consequences if they told someone "Oh, that's nothing to worry about" only to be proved wrong. A visit to an actual flesh-and-blood doctor can provide a lot more.
I applaud the idea of trying to provide an easily accessible service to provide simple medical advice, but I'm not convinced it's really workable.
I'm not a citizen. :-(
I'm a subject of your close ally and friend the UK. Which is so... much... better.
If you're not in the US yet, how can you have committed any crime in US jurisdiction?
If you are in the US then surely you're entitled to the protection of the US constitution?
It only needs to be good enough to resist a brute force attack for long enough for you to reach your destination and move it somewhere more secure.
With the ammount of data that devices can store there's no way a customs agent could inspect it immediately with any thoroughness.
Confiscating a laptop or other device is obviously really inconvenient for the owner, especially if they don't know when or if it'll be returned.
Copying a disk - or whatever - is possible, but apart from the issues that raises about the security of the data and its eventual disposition, I wonder if whatever customs agents do would meet the requirements to be used as evidence. Normally forensic specialists are very careful about exactly how a disk is copied. Simply copying the files won't do.
I think it's much more to do with having the confidence to object.
It can also be very difficult if all the local employers have similar terms. Unless you're something special - which by definition most people aren't - your options can be very limited.
One of the big advantages of collective bargaining is that it gives people more power to stand up for themselves. Conditions may be a lot better than they were a century ago, but this sort of thing shows that there's still a place for unionisation in some form.
Something more like the Singularity can be found in a lot of Ken MacLeod's books, particularly The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division.
MacLeod's an excellent writer and well worth a look if you haven't already come across him.
I'll gladly take your word about the general accuracy of betting markets. However, I'm not convinced that this is a typical case. I still suspect that a lot of people will not be regular gamblers: a sufficiently large number to distort the picture. My gut feeling is that professional gamblers won't see this as a good bet - it's too difficult to judge - so the bulk of the money will be coming from folk with too much of a vested interest.
Who are the bigger gamblers: Democrats or Republicans? Unless they're evenly represented the market will not be unbiased.
Bear in mind this isn't some objective prediction, but what people think is going to happen. A lot of those people betting probably have a personal emotional investment in the outcome and are betting with their hearts, not their minds.
Just like sports betting, where folk put money on their local team regardless of whether they're any good, or back a horse because they like the name.
In the developed world, most people don't buy bikes because they can't afford a car but because they want a bike. They're generally luxury items and the manufacturers design them accordingly.
That's changed a bit: consumers are becoming more interested in fuel consumption, (here in the UK, anyway). A modern sports bike will match or beat most cars, (unless you're thrashing the tits off it). Small bikes are way ahead but they're not a large part of the market, apart from learner bikes. Having said that, scooters have had a bit of a resurgance recently and most of those will return 60mpg+ even with some teen-age hooligan riding them.
Those folk who do actually use an SUV for something close to what it's intended for occasionally might do well to have it as a second vehicle, if they have the space. Get something "sensible" for most days with an SUV for those weekends in the country. Once you've made the capital outlay running two vehicles needn't cost any more than running one and it's no worse for the environment: you can only use one of them at a time. Might even be better if you have the choice to use whichever vehicle is most efficient for the job at hand.
I quite liked Skara Brae. I'd never seen anything like it, and the idea that it's as old as Egypt's pyramids is quite impressive. The prototype for Barrett Homes.
There are lots of other great things on Orkney, too. Maes Howe was interesting. I got an individual guided tour as nobody else was around that day. Seeing millenia old Viking graffiti was fascinating.
The only down-side is that it's quite a long way away from anything, but anybody spending time in the north of Scotland should make the effort. The ferry from Scrabster, (near Thurso) makes a day-trip viable if you're staying somewhere nearby.
That was my experience, too, (except in Sterling). The difference was probably about what one could get as a Windows refund, but a lot less hassle.
I bought a Dell Inspiron recently with Ubuntu pre-installed. I'd been using an older Inspiron with SuSE, but several years of use and abuse were taking their toll so I was ready for a replacement when they were announced.
I'd had a few minor problems getting Linux to work on my old machine, (wireless networking and the touchpad, mostly) and since I've got better things to do with my time I was quite pleased to be able to buy a machine with everything I wanted ready to go. I have no regrets so far.
The Ubuntu machine worked out slightly cheaper than a similarly spec'ed Windows laptop, but not enough to affect my decision much. If the Ubuntu pre-loads hadn't been available I might well have bought a Windows Inspiron anyway and put SuSE on it again.