I'm guessing a lot more people have eaten Spam than have digested the Python skit...
You're surely right, but among the circles of people who were in a position to name such a thing, I'm quite positive that Monty Python is the origin of the term "Spam."
First, my compliments on your thoughtful and insightful reply. Extremely well done. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and reinforce my statement.
I was not attempting to indict the factual accuracy of the information provided in the article. I am sure that Mr. Robb did go through a very tumultuous and disturbing dilemma, made all the more confusing by the arcane (and therefore intimidating) legal system.
But I don't think you can argue that this article was not biased. Robb's plight is entirely over-dramatized, given the fact that it turned out he was just fine, no harm done. What all of that information does is infuriate the reader when he discovers that somehow, Mr. Robb, our fearless underdog, has now been BLACKLISTED (a term frought with its own insidious connotations, certainly) by Microsoft.
I am NOT going to get into a debate defending Microsoft's contracting practices -- I'll admit that I'm not sure they're really defensible. I will, however, point out that this article was written by a Union publication and that definitely has an influence on the way in which the information is presented.
I also would like to point out that we can't be entirely sure that Mr. Robb's skill set was indeed, up to snuff for future projects -- until we see his resume and interview him personally, that cannot simply be assumed.
I'm not going to argue that collective bargaining might not be an effective negotiating tool with large companies. (Just don't force ME to assimilate into the collective, thankyouverymuch!) But I didn't read anything in this article proposing such a measure. It was, IMHO, written purely to agitate and infuriate, with a minimum of attention paid to actually *informing* the reader. When someone works so hard to get you to think from your gut and your heart rather than your head, then I say beware -- stop, look, and consider carefully where they're trying to lead you.
Regarding the concept that one is forced to sign a contract in order to maintain one's livelihood... Well, we're guaranteed to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- I don't read homeownership on that list. We are free to commit to the obligation of paying a mortgage, and with that obligation also comes the responsibility of earning the money to hold up our end of the deal. Were you under duress to sign the mortgage? If not, then you made your own free choice to assume the responsibilities inherent therein. You were FREE to make the decision to assume that responsibility (or not), and therefore FREE to liberate yourself from perhaps being "forced" to sign an employment agreement that you may not find entirely equitable. I know it's unfair, but... I don't have to say it.
As far as righting injustices goes, Hallelujah! Let's "right" away! I am just not convinced that the solutions provided by unionization aren't the wrong way to go about accomplishing that lofty goal.
Hey, no would said that a contract wouldn't have restrictions of one kind or another written into it. But who's holding the gun to your head forcing you to SIGN it?
THERE'S your free market, baby. It's all about YOU... always all about you.
I'm not going to get into an argument about Microsoft. I truly don't have an opinion about them (at least not one I'm going to get bogged down in a debate over).
What I will mention, though, is that if someone is having a helluva time finding acceptable employment conditions in a specific job market, then maybe s/he should consider getting trained in and pursuing another field of endeavor.
Sure, it's not the easiest thing to do (who said life is easy?), but if you feel like you're getting sodomized at every turn in a particular industry, then, by all means, GET THE HECK OUT! (Unless, of course, that sort of thing is your bag, baby.)
What else would you suggest is the solution? I'm all ears... eyes... whatever.
Well, I certainly didn't mean to be foolish. And I sincerely feel for your difficult situation. In the same position, I'm not sure what I would do.
I also agree that the Unions served an important function in the post-industrial economy to protect laborers from unfair business practices, and perhaps even continue to do so, to some extent.
That said, I don't believe that Unions are without their own flaws. One of those flaws is what my original post was based on, and that is that they use yellow "journalism" like that employed in this particular article to sway readers to their side of the argument, which really isn't much of an argument except for a typically whiny, "That's not fair!".
I fail to see (and perhaps you can be of use in educating me) how Unions can provide a viable solution to workers caught in the undertow of our weakened economy. The truth is, times are tough all over, and it's part of the ebb and flow of life that we are faced with these challenges. Are you really sure that whatever "solution" the Unions provide is one that you want to be stuck with when things take a turn for the better? Personally, I *do* prefer to let things work themselves out on the free market -- the best laws are the natural ones, like that of supply and demand.
I look forward to what I am sure will be a very enlightening response!
This article is so unbelieveably biased that I didn't even have to look at the source to realize that it was Union rag.
Note how it starts out by getting you all riled up about this poor guy's plight -- his role as the beleaguered sole supporter of his special-needs daughter and the hopelessness conundrum proposed by his circumstances. But if you read it thoroughly, you also see that he was completely vindicated by Excell, the Washington State Employment Security Department, and later, by Volt.
And then, of course, the article launches into the obligatory attack on Microsoft and its evil feudalistic business practices, because who doesn't hate MS, right?
Listen up, people. We live in a FREE country. You don't HAVE to sign a contract with an employment agency if you don't want to, and before you do, you'd sure as hell better read the fine print before you sign up! If they aren't making you a decent offer, then move on to the next agency!! Evaluate them as carefully as you would a prospective employer -- because, in effect, that is what they are.
The knowledge you have and the skills you can leverage are your currency in today's economy. When you accept a job or a contract with someone, it's because you are willing to provide what you know in exchange for what they offer you.
These businesses won't STAY in business for long if they can't recruit quality talent. Hell, if you're good enough, you can negotiate the damn non-compete out of your OWN contract!
Next time you read an article like this -- remember: Always consider the source!
I think, as with most crimes requiring some skill and thought, there will be those who attempt to "digifeit" to see simply if they can. (Sound familiar?)
Then again, there will be those who won't even try it simply because it's illegal.
Well, in politics it's all about power, money, and relationships. A politician getting into bed with one company for a "long-term, monogamous relationship" is going to yield him a lot more leverage (favors owed him) than if that company knows they're gonna have to woo him all over again in 3 years' time. And when the company knows they've got "a man on the inside," they in turn can leverage their resources to make sure he stays in office.
Open up the bidding process and the decision making just got a lot more risky for the incumbent parties -- the winning bidder has got to perform or lose their contract, and the politician responsible for giving them the contract could lose his job. I think it will make him a lot more picky about making sure that whoever wins the contract will truly be the organization that will do the best job.
In my search for a reference to back up my use of the slang term, I found information that pointed me to the correct spelling of the word. It's "cojones" with an "O" (used in Spain -- huevos is preferred in Mexico). Live and learn!
But dude, cojones, huevos, balls o lo que sea -- they're all slang, it all works. I know what I'm talking about. Trust me.
1) Of course the marines would do it. In a war, that's what you do. And soldiers fighting are in a much more autonomous position to enable them to take such heroic measures.
2) You are talking about a frigging MOVIE. Would you pay to go see a movie that was about a big bureaucratic cluster f*** that didn't get any positive results, and the good guys die in the end, without any heorism involved?
I made this point in a separate post below, but the folks in the most senior positions at NASA (and anywhere -- I'm not just picking on NASA) did NOT get there by being heroes. They got there by luck and by making the right political decisions -- the SAFE decisions.
The question I posed wasn't about whether the guys on the ground would be willing to mount a rescue -- it was about whether those who were in danger would really want to be rescued, at the risk of all those other lives.
It's just thinking from the other guys' perspective, see?
To make a reference to your movie there, remember the burden it placed on Private Ryan to have had all those guys lose their lives to save his? ["Earn this!" -- if that's the line -- been a long time since I've seen it.] When faced with it, what choice would one make?
Personally, I like having both options open. It goes like this: first I rent the DVD, then if I really like it, I go ahead and buy it.
And truth be told, I think that the cost projection of $7500 to "fill up" a 30GB player is a little absurd (leave it to the marketers!). The vast majority of users (not/.ers, of course, since we always carry things ad absurum!), will never buy that many songs. The player will be obsolete before that happens, and they'll move along to the next platform.
That's all well and good -- I see your point. But it's not just the astronauts' lives and some equipment that will be sacrificed. It's hundreds and hundreds of hours of training and dollars invested in these people. Dollars that come largely from taxpayers. Not to mention public buy-in (both financial and political) to the value of the program
Here's some pure speculation for you: If every available astronaut would be willing to lay his life on the line to go up in attempt to rescue the others, what level of sacrifice do you think the doomed astronauts would have been willing to make to ensure that the space program would survive a [potential] disaster? Would they have wanted a rescue attempt, given the potential for failure and subsequent [we can assume] abandonment of the space program? Would they really be willing to risk their colleagues' lives in a rescue attempt?
I would never assume to have the answer to this question, but given the dedication of astronauts to the "cause" of space exploration, it's enough to give me pause to think.
Do you really think there's someone at a high enough level at NASA (or anywhere, for that matter) who would have had the brass cajones (that's "brass balls" for you gringos) to take accountability for approving such a rescue mission? If a rescue were successful, he'd have to answer to the bean counters and outrage over having risked *two* crews. And if it weren't....
How is this a vast improvement over video teleconferencing? You are still just looking at a picture of the person who's not there. So it can move around the room -- you're still not getting the true "presence" of a person in the room.
Cool techno-gadgetry aside, I just don't see companies jumping on this thing. They're gonna stick with the cheap stuff already available, and when it's really important, they'll break down and buy a plane ticket.
Yes, I think that a deeply held interest in the basic mechanisms of how things work is inherent to being a geek. Back in school you could tell which kid was going to grow up to be a geek because if you asked him what time it was, not only could he tell you the time, but he could (and would!) also explain the inner workings of his watch, discuss the theoretical physics behind our planetary time zones, and get off on a tangent about fluctuations in space-time and the potential implications. (Yeah, simple stuff now, but pretty heady for an 8th grader!)
That said, I don't think that this interest in making/doing stuff yourself is unique JUST to geeks. This may be completely foreign territory to most/.ers, but Martha Stewart has created an entire industry based on glorifying the domestic arts. Sure, she makes her own yogurt, raises her own chickens for the eggs (which, BTW, are color-coordinated with the décor of her kitchen *gag*), and whips up little "projects" on her sewing machine in nothing flat. Takes "field trips" to a variety of artisans like metalsmiths and stone carvers. And gardening? Fuhgeddaboudit. She's gone beyond the standard squash & peas & carrots - she's cultivating "heirloom" tomatoes with exotic color variations and patterns on them, for chrissakes!
To be honest, aside from the fact that most people really don't CARE how to make stuff themselves, they just don't have TIME to do it. Are you going to come home after having worked all day for a paycheck (to pay for the hefty mortgage, the nice car, the 2-week family vacation) and spend 2 hours cooking a meal that will be consumed in 15 minutes? Or spend 10 hours sewing a garment that might cost $20 at a department store? Our time has become more valuable than the products we can hand-craft, so we buy the cheap manufactured goods and go about our lives.
It takes a deep sense of satisfaction and fulfillment, a pride in good craftsmanship, a true appreciation for things made "from scratch" to pursue these "lost arts" in today's culture. It's making things for the sake of making things and the value we place on them ourselves, unlike the "old days" when time was a less valuable commodity, and the only way to get stuff WAS to make it.
Now, to return to the original issue at hand - WHY does this seem to be more prevalent among geek set? Well, think about it: you've got a bunch of single guys with plenty of disposable income and free time on their hands (due to lack of familial responsibilities and no social life to speak of). It harkens back to the days of the great monasteries. Think about the monks hand-transcribing all those texts (a little like writing code, no?) - no families, no need for money... (no sex!) - just a bunch of time on their hands to spend their days furthering the intellectual evolution of the species. Load a guy down with a family and a mortgage, and *fwip* his available time (and money!) available for geeking out at will just dwindled considerably.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing a lot more people have eaten Spam than have digested the Python skit...
....Bethanie....
You're surely right, but among the circles of people who were in a position to name such a thing, I'm quite positive that Monty Python is the origin of the term "Spam."
First, my compliments on your thoughtful and insightful reply. Extremely well done. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and reinforce my statement.
:-)
....Bethanie....
I was not attempting to indict the factual accuracy of the information provided in the article. I am sure that Mr. Robb did go through a very tumultuous and disturbing dilemma, made all the more confusing by the arcane (and therefore intimidating) legal system.
But I don't think you can argue that this article was not biased. Robb's plight is entirely over-dramatized, given the fact that it turned out he was just fine, no harm done. What all of that information does is infuriate the reader when he discovers that somehow, Mr. Robb, our fearless underdog, has now been BLACKLISTED (a term frought with its own insidious connotations, certainly) by Microsoft.
I am NOT going to get into a debate defending Microsoft's contracting practices -- I'll admit that I'm not sure they're really defensible. I will, however, point out that this article was written by a Union publication and that definitely has an influence on the way in which the information is presented.
I also would like to point out that we can't be entirely sure that Mr. Robb's skill set was indeed, up to snuff for future projects -- until we see his resume and interview him personally, that cannot simply be assumed.
I'm not going to argue that collective bargaining might not be an effective negotiating tool with large companies. (Just don't force ME to assimilate into the collective, thankyouverymuch!) But I didn't read anything in this article proposing such a measure. It was, IMHO, written purely to agitate and infuriate, with a minimum of attention paid to actually *informing* the reader. When someone works so hard to get you to think from your gut and your heart rather than your head, then I say beware -- stop, look, and consider carefully where they're trying to lead you.
Regarding the concept that one is forced to sign a contract in order to maintain one's livelihood... Well, we're guaranteed to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- I don't read homeownership on that list. We are free to commit to the obligation of paying a mortgage, and with that obligation also comes the responsibility of earning the money to hold up our end of the deal. Were you under duress to sign the mortgage? If not, then you made your own free choice to assume the responsibilities inherent therein. You were FREE to make the decision to assume that responsibility (or not), and therefore FREE to liberate yourself from perhaps being "forced" to sign an employment agreement that you may not find entirely equitable. I know it's unfair, but... I don't have to say it.
As far as righting injustices goes, Hallelujah! Let's "right" away! I am just not convinced that the solutions provided by unionization aren't the wrong way to go about accomplishing that lofty goal.
I welcome your argument to the contrary!
Hey, no would said that a contract wouldn't have restrictions of one kind or another written into it. But who's holding the gun to your head forcing you to SIGN it?
....Bethanie....
THERE'S your free market, baby. It's all about YOU... always all about you.
I'm not going to get into an argument about Microsoft. I truly don't have an opinion about them (at least not one I'm going to get bogged down in a debate over).
....Bethanie....
What I will mention, though, is that if someone is having a helluva time finding acceptable employment conditions in a specific job market, then maybe s/he should consider getting trained in and pursuing another field of endeavor.
Sure, it's not the easiest thing to do (who said life is easy?), but if you feel like you're getting sodomized at every turn in a particular industry, then, by all means, GET THE HECK OUT! (Unless, of course, that sort of thing is your bag, baby.)
What else would you suggest is the solution? I'm all ears... eyes... whatever.
Well, I certainly didn't mean to be foolish. And I sincerely feel for your difficult situation. In the same position, I'm not sure what I would do.
....Bethanie....
I also agree that the Unions served an important function in the post-industrial economy to protect laborers from unfair business practices, and perhaps even continue to do so, to some extent.
That said, I don't believe that Unions are without their own flaws. One of those flaws is what my original post was based on, and that is that they use yellow "journalism" like that employed in this particular article to sway readers to their side of the argument, which really isn't much of an argument except for a typically whiny, "That's not fair!".
I fail to see (and perhaps you can be of use in educating me) how Unions can provide a viable solution to workers caught in the undertow of our weakened economy. The truth is, times are tough all over, and it's part of the ebb and flow of life that we are faced with these challenges. Are you really sure that whatever "solution" the Unions provide is one that you want to be stuck with when things take a turn for the better? Personally, I *do* prefer to let things work themselves out on the free market -- the best laws are the natural ones, like that of supply and demand.
I look forward to what I am sure will be a very enlightening response!
This article is so unbelieveably biased that I didn't even have to look at the source to realize that it was Union rag.
....Bethanie....
Note how it starts out by getting you all riled up about this poor guy's plight -- his role as the beleaguered sole supporter of his special-needs daughter and the hopelessness conundrum proposed by his circumstances. But if you read it thoroughly, you also see that he was completely vindicated by Excell, the Washington State Employment Security Department, and later, by Volt.
And then, of course, the article launches into the obligatory attack on Microsoft and its evil feudalistic business practices, because who doesn't hate MS, right?
Listen up, people. We live in a FREE country. You don't HAVE to sign a contract with an employment agency if you don't want to, and before you do, you'd sure as hell better read the fine print before you sign up! If they aren't making you a decent offer, then move on to the next agency!! Evaluate them as carefully as you would a prospective employer -- because, in effect, that is what they are.
The knowledge you have and the skills you can leverage are your currency in today's economy. When you accept a job or a contract with someone, it's because you are willing to provide what you know in exchange for what they offer you.
These businesses won't STAY in business for long if they can't recruit quality talent. Hell, if you're good enough, you can negotiate the damn non-compete out of your OWN contract!
Next time you read an article like this -- remember: Always consider the source!
I think, as with most crimes requiring some skill and thought, there will be those who attempt to "digifeit" to see simply if they can. (Sound familiar?)
....Bethanie....
Then again, there will be those who won't even try it simply because it's illegal.
Well, in politics it's all about power, money, and relationships. A politician getting into bed with one company for a "long-term, monogamous relationship" is going to yield him a lot more leverage (favors owed him) than if that company knows they're gonna have to woo him all over again in 3 years' time. And when the company knows they've got "a man on the inside," they in turn can leverage their resources to make sure he stays in office.
....Bethanie....
Open up the bidding process and the decision making just got a lot more risky for the incumbent parties -- the winning bidder has got to perform or lose their contract, and the politician responsible for giving them the contract could lose his job. I think it will make him a lot more picky about making sure that whoever wins the contract will truly be the organization that will do the best job.
Why do geeks do anything?
BECAUSE THEY CAN!!
Actually, I'm glad you pointed that out.
....Bethanie....
In my search for a reference to back up my use of the slang term, I found information that pointed me to the correct spelling of the word. It's "cojones" with an "O" (used in Spain -- huevos is preferred in Mexico). Live and learn!
But dude, cojones, huevos, balls o lo que sea -- they're all slang, it all works. I know what I'm talking about. Trust me.
OK -- 2 BIG differences that I see right here.
....Bethanie....
1) Of course the marines would do it. In a war, that's what you do. And soldiers fighting are in a much more autonomous position to enable them to take such heroic measures.
2) You are talking about a frigging MOVIE. Would you pay to go see a movie that was about a big bureaucratic cluster f*** that didn't get any positive results, and the good guys die in the end, without any heorism involved?
I made this point in a separate post below, but the folks in the most senior positions at NASA (and anywhere -- I'm not just picking on NASA) did NOT get there by being heroes. They got there by luck and by making the right political decisions -- the SAFE decisions.
The question I posed wasn't about whether the guys on the ground would be willing to mount a rescue -- it was about whether those who were in danger would really want to be rescued, at the risk of all those other lives.
It's just thinking from the other guys' perspective, see?
To make a reference to your movie there, remember the burden it placed on Private Ryan to have had all those guys lose their lives to save his? ["Earn this!" -- if that's the line -- been a long time since I've seen it.] When faced with it, what choice would one make?
That's all I'm saying.
How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?
/.ers, of course, since we always carry things ad absurum!), will never buy that many songs. The player will be obsolete before that happens, and they'll move along to the next platform.
....Bethanie....
Personally, I like having both options open. It goes like this: first I rent the DVD, then if I really like it, I go ahead and buy it.
And truth be told, I think that the cost projection of $7500 to "fill up" a 30GB player is a little absurd (leave it to the marketers!). The vast majority of users (not
That's all well and good -- I see your point. But it's not just the astronauts' lives and some equipment that will be sacrificed. It's hundreds and hundreds of hours of training and dollars invested in these people. Dollars that come largely from taxpayers. Not to mention public buy-in (both financial and political) to the value of the program
....Bethanie....
Here's some pure speculation for you: If every available astronaut would be willing to lay his life on the line to go up in attempt to rescue the others, what level of sacrifice do you think the doomed astronauts would have been willing to make to ensure that the space program would survive a [potential] disaster? Would they have wanted a rescue attempt, given the potential for failure and subsequent [we can assume] abandonment of the space program? Would they really be willing to risk their colleagues' lives in a rescue attempt?
I would never assume to have the answer to this question, but given the dedication of astronauts to the "cause" of space exploration, it's enough to give me pause to think.
Do you really think there's someone at a high enough level at NASA (or anywhere, for that matter) who would have had the brass cajones (that's "brass balls" for you gringos) to take accountability for approving such a rescue mission? If a rescue were successful, he'd have to answer to the bean counters and outrage over having risked *two* crews. And if it weren't....
...Bethanie....
Hence the geekly interest in it, no doubt?
....Bethanie....
How is this a vast improvement over video teleconferencing? You are still just looking at a picture of the person who's not there. So it can move around the room -- you're still not getting the true "presence" of a person in the room.
....Bethanie....
Cool techno-gadgetry aside, I just don't see companies jumping on this thing. They're gonna stick with the cheap stuff already available, and when it's really important, they'll break down and buy a plane ticket.
Boring, but true.
Yes, I think that a deeply held interest in the basic mechanisms of how things work is inherent to being a geek. Back in school you could tell which kid was going to grow up to be a geek because if you asked him what time it was, not only could he tell you the time, but he could (and would!) also explain the inner workings of his watch, discuss the theoretical physics behind our planetary time zones, and get off on a tangent about fluctuations in space-time and the potential implications. (Yeah, simple stuff now, but pretty heady for an 8th grader!)
/.ers, but Martha Stewart has created an entire industry based on glorifying the domestic arts. Sure, she makes her own yogurt, raises her own chickens for the eggs (which, BTW, are color-coordinated with the décor of her kitchen *gag*), and whips up little "projects" on her sewing machine in nothing flat. Takes "field trips" to a variety of artisans like metalsmiths and stone carvers. And gardening? Fuhgeddaboudit. She's gone beyond the standard squash & peas & carrots - she's cultivating "heirloom" tomatoes with exotic color variations and patterns on them, for chrissakes!
....Bethanie....
That said, I don't think that this interest in making/doing stuff yourself is unique JUST to geeks. This may be completely foreign territory to most
To be honest, aside from the fact that most people really don't CARE how to make stuff themselves, they just don't have TIME to do it. Are you going to come home after having worked all day for a paycheck (to pay for the hefty mortgage, the nice car, the 2-week family vacation) and spend 2 hours cooking a meal that will be consumed in 15 minutes? Or spend 10 hours sewing a garment that might cost $20 at a department store? Our time has become more valuable than the products we can hand-craft, so we buy the cheap manufactured goods and go about our lives.
It takes a deep sense of satisfaction and fulfillment, a pride in good craftsmanship, a true appreciation for things made "from scratch" to pursue these "lost arts" in today's culture. It's making things for the sake of making things and the value we place on them ourselves, unlike the "old days" when time was a less valuable commodity, and the only way to get stuff WAS to make it.
Now, to return to the original issue at hand - WHY does this seem to be more prevalent among geek set? Well, think about it: you've got a bunch of single guys with plenty of disposable income and free time on their hands (due to lack of familial responsibilities and no social life to speak of). It harkens back to the days of the great monasteries. Think about the monks hand-transcribing all those texts (a little like writing code, no?) - no families, no need for money... (no sex!) - just a bunch of time on their hands to spend their days furthering the intellectual evolution of the species. Load a guy down with a family and a mortgage, and *fwip* his available time (and money!) available for geeking out at will just dwindled considerably.
I speak, I daresay, from experience.