Could we go one day without some fool blathering on about why the US sucks? We know you disagree with the politics, but we also don't care anymore. We are certainly tired of listening to the percieved abuses of power that occur here, particularly when they never materialize..
How about an intelligent comment about the article?
This reminded me of an incident involving a friend (really) who had his truck tossed for drugs.
After tearing his truck apart looking for drugs (they had a pretty decent reason, which is too complicated to get into) they found nothing.
Then they drove off and left it to him to put everything back the way it was.
Now I'm not an expert on networks, but if the search damages traffic in such a way as to make it unrecoverable (can it?) will the police be liable? How will you even know you were searched?
I'm no tinfoil hat guy, but this whole premise sucks.
That's exactly what YOU suggested. Did you forget? You should read your own posts before you respond to legitimate criticism.
"Anyone who disagrees with your point of view is complaining?"
When did I say that? When did I say anything that even SUGGESTED that? I didn't which is why your non-sequitur is so ridiculous. It seem that you are talking about yourself here and not me.
How about instead of attacking me personally, you address my criticism of your suggestion. It was valid criticism, and frankly, your suggestion WAS dumb.
And try to do it by actually addressing MY points, instead of attempting to read things into my post which aren't there, otherwise known as making shit up. You did it this time, but I'm sure you can do better now that you've been corrected.
In my state (each state here in the US is different) we have a "right to work" law, which paradoxically allows employers to fire for ANY reason or none at all, with the usual exceptions for discrimination, whistle-blowing, etc.
I've never liked it, but the unions here have no power to change it, and frankly I like unions even less.
No, that's not evil, but is is a good way to get sued for breach of fiduciary duties. YOU couldn't run a company the way you want to, because you would get fired as soon as you tried.
And you make two completely incorrect assumptions.
1. Open source does not mean a product was "developed essentially in public and reviewed by many" but rather that the source is open. Assuming code has been vetted just because it's open source (especially when discussing security) is the height of incompetence.
2. Commercial does not mean a product was "developed behind closed doors and reviewed by none outside the selling company" . That's as bad as the first assumption.
Other's have made the same point. EULA's may protect the company against libility if you get screwed, but they may not. The law is unclear, and generally untetested.
I'll wait until the law is clearer, but the idea that EULA's absolve a company of guilt simply is not correct (yet).
"Politically, I've got a lot in common with most people I meet"
Doubtful. The politics you have expressed are far from mainstream. More likely they think you're a kook who starts political arguments. Maybe they are afriad of being shot down by someone who talks too much and listens way too little.
Your perception of reality is not qualitatively better than anyone else's. I sense in you the same thing I sense in people just like you, that others "don't see the truth".
The problem with this, is that you don't see the truth either.
You are marginalized, but try to avoid that by suggesting everyone is. That is not true.
"Skepticism, requirements of corroboration, and easily seeing the big picture of global exploitation"
Nicely said. Now, are you an honest skeptic, or a nay-sayer and anti-globalist who calls himself a truth seeker? Why do you think you can see it while the rest of us can't?
"After a lifetime gaining wisdom about the unreliability of all media outlets"
ALL OF THEM? Come on, why the hyperbole? I mean apart from being the major component in your debate style? Why claim to be a truth seeker, then rely on lies?
The problem is that most people who are in the middle consider The Economist fair. It's generally people way out on either side politically that suggest The Economist is unfair. Knowing what I do of you from your history, it seems you are one of those people. No flame, mind you, but your politics are not... centrist.
For most of the people doing reviewing, the Economist is really very fair and reasonable in its reporting.
Is it possible you are just politically marginalized, and that your views differ significantly from the rest of ours?
Is there a publication you recommend? That isn't filled with lunatic fringe ravings? Seriously, I would like to try it.
It's not that simple. Multitasking muddys the water a bit. Is it really wasted time if you returned phone calls AND deleted spam?
In addition, no one WORKS for their entire shift. Regardless of your job, there are times when your attention wanders, or you lose focus. If I use my downtime, when I wouldn't be productive anyway, to delte spam how do you quantify that?
You make a complicated subject out to be simple, but it's really not.
If and employee takes the extra 2.8 minutes out of otherwise wasted time, productivity is unaffected. Employees waste far more than 2.8 minutes (closer to 2 HOURS!) daily.
Slashdot Mirror
"public drunkenness has its own de facto holiday"
We have Mardi Gras, which I will put up against any other public drunkenness holiday around the world.
Beside which, who can really get hammered on wine? French people I guess.
Um, if that was a joke it was dumb. If it was an attempt at jabbing the US, it was also dumb.
Maybe something not dumb now?
Could we go one day without some fool blathering on about why the US sucks? We know you disagree with the politics, but we also don't care anymore. We are certainly tired of listening to the percieved abuses of power that occur here, particularly when they never materialize..
How about an intelligent comment about the article?
This reminded me of an incident involving a friend (really) who had his truck tossed for drugs.
After tearing his truck apart looking for drugs (they had a pretty decent reason, which is too complicated to get into) they found nothing.
Then they drove off and left it to him to put everything back the way it was.
Now I'm not an expert on networks, but if the search damages traffic in such a way as to make it unrecoverable (can it?) will the police be liable? How will you even know you were searched?
I'm no tinfoil hat guy, but this whole premise sucks.
"No one's rewarding dissention"
That's exactly what YOU suggested. Did you forget? You should read your own posts before you respond to legitimate criticism.
"Anyone who disagrees with your point of view is complaining?"
When did I say that? When did I say anything that even SUGGESTED that? I didn't which is why your non-sequitur is so ridiculous. It seem that you are talking about yourself here and not me.
How about instead of attacking me personally, you address my criticism of your suggestion. It was valid criticism, and frankly, your suggestion WAS dumb.
And try to do it by actually addressing MY points, instead of attempting to read things into my post which aren't there, otherwise known as making shit up. You did it this time, but I'm sure you can do better now that you've been corrected.
I hope you're not a parent, because your post borders on the moronic. If oyu raise your kids this way, you've got a world of hurt coming.
If you reward dissention, you get more dissention. By your solution, people who piss and moan about work get... paid off?
What's to stop EVERYONE from complaining to get a little windfall?
Sorry, but your response was just dumb.
Ok, explain how that changes anything.
No law means a company is free to lie as much as they care to, with no repercussions. Not sure how this helps.
"I'll get tarred and feathered for this"
Probably, but because it's a poor solution, not because people are control freaks.
"It is just interesting how Google top dogs seem to be locking down on employee blogs that are at critical in any way"
No, they're not and you completely missed the point. It appears that he was fired for violating an NDA, so the tone of his comments is irrelevant.
Rarely. Those people are generally motivated and skilled enough to move to a better company.
This is always the final argument in these cases. So what do you do about it? We already have laws, that you agree don't work. So what to do?
In my state (each state here in the US is different) we have a "right to work" law, which paradoxically allows employers to fire for ANY reason or none at all, with the usual exceptions for discrimination, whistle-blowing, etc.
I've never liked it, but the unions here have no power to change it, and frankly I like unions even less.
"Because the masses expect freedom of speech and opinion, but the people in power don't like to grant it"
You mean "the people who own the company and therefore have a very real stake in how the company is percieved don't like to grant it" don't you?
"Evil is making less money than you could"
No, that's not evil, but is is a good way to get sued for breach of fiduciary duties. YOU couldn't run a company the way you want to, because you would get fired as soon as you tried.
Yet amazingly, you expect others to.
Maybe you should have taken 5 seconds to get your facts correct.
And you make two completely incorrect assumptions.
1. Open source does not mean a product was "developed essentially in public and reviewed by many" but rather that the source is open. Assuming code has been vetted just because it's open source (especially when discussing security) is the height of incompetence.
2. Commercial does not mean a product was "developed behind closed doors and reviewed by none outside the selling company" . That's as bad as the first assumption.
"So you'd use inferior software"
Commercial is not the same as inferior. MANY MANY commercial products are better than the open source version. Your bias is showing.
Other's have made the same point. EULA's may protect the company against libility if you get screwed, but they may not. The law is unclear, and generally untetested.
I'll wait until the law is clearer, but the idea that EULA's absolve a company of guilt simply is not correct (yet).
"you can't really hold accountable or make a lawsuit against is worthwhile"
Why can't you? The law on this is untested in many areas. What makes you so sure you couldn't make a case against them?
"Politically, I've got a lot in common with most people I meet"
Doubtful. The politics you have expressed are far from mainstream. More likely they think you're a kook who starts political arguments. Maybe they are afriad of being shot down by someone who talks too much and listens way too little.
Your perception of reality is not qualitatively better than anyone else's. I sense in you the same thing I sense in people just like you, that others "don't see the truth".
The problem with this, is that you don't see the truth either.
You are marginalized, but try to avoid that by suggesting everyone is. That is not true.
"Skepticism, requirements of corroboration, and easily seeing the big picture of global exploitation"
Nicely said. Now, are you an honest skeptic, or a nay-sayer and anti-globalist who calls himself a truth seeker? Why do you think you can see it while the rest of us can't?
"After a lifetime gaining wisdom about the unreliability of all media outlets"
ALL OF THEM? Come on, why the hyperbole? I mean apart from being the major component in your debate style? Why claim to be a truth seeker, then rely on lies?
No, it's not. There is more to "the rest of the world" than Europe, so when you mean "Europe" say "Europe".
The problem is that most people who are in the middle consider The Economist fair. It's generally people way out on either side politically that suggest The Economist is unfair. Knowing what I do of you from your history, it seems you are one of those people. No flame, mind you, but your politics are not... centrist.
For most of the people doing reviewing, the Economist is really very fair and reasonable in its reporting.
Is it possible you are just politically marginalized, and that your views differ significantly from the rest of ours?
Is there a publication you recommend? That isn't filled with lunatic fringe ravings? Seriously, I would like to try it.
It's not that simple. Multitasking muddys the water a bit. Is it really wasted time if you returned phone calls AND deleted spam?
In addition, no one WORKS for their entire shift. Regardless of your job, there are times when your attention wanders, or you lose focus. If I use my downtime, when I wouldn't be productive anyway, to delte spam how do you quantify that?
You make a complicated subject out to be simple, but it's really not.
And what EVIDENCE do you have of this? Apart from your seemingly authoritative post, there is not a single fact to support you.
How about more than your (unsubstantiated) opinion?
It DOES matter, and here's why.
If and employee takes the extra 2.8 minutes out of otherwise wasted time, productivity is unaffected. Employees waste far more than 2.8 minutes (closer to 2 HOURS!) daily.
"It wastes everyone's time"
A reasonable assumption, but unfortunately just an assumption. Any proof?
As long as it is possible to do 2 things at once (delte spam, make a phone call) all the proclamations about productivity loss will be wrong.