where have you successfully made the case that said onus specifically lies with women?
Obviously your logic skills are seriously lacking, since nobody has said that, neither in the main article, nor in this thread.
Are you suggesting men are not inherently capable of appreciating civility/professionalism?
Some men, definitely.
Are you suggesting women are incapable of operating in an environment with lower standards of civility/professionalism?
Why should anyone of either gender have to tolerate a work environment with lower standards of civility or professionalism? Why should a co-worker be treated with less civility and/or less professionalism than either a boss, a customer, a supplier, or a total stranger?
First, I'm not a proponent of any such thing - however, your argument is a variant of the "attack the messenger, not the message" for the statements made in that particular page - which go against the lie that nuking both hiroshima and nagasaki was necessary.
It's like all the other attacks on civilian targets - the intentional ones that would have been classified as war crimes, such as the fire-bombings of Desden and Tokyo.
Also, the Wiki article on the firebombing of Tokyo mentions the Japanese emperor's personal involvement in the peace talks - which would be 5 months before Hiroshima. So stop with the stupidity - there was immoral behaviour on both sides.
Wanting a workplace that's not full of profanity and sexist jokes is not asking for "gender superiority."
It's equally unacceptable if the person speaking like they have Tourette's is a woman.
When you go "My F***ING piece of S*** computer F***ING froze the F*** up again and I lost a S***load of F***ing work, if F***ING Steve Balmer were F***ING here right now, I'd F***ing kill the C***S***ING MOTHERF***ING C***", you're distracting attention from the real issue, and making it about you and your anger.
In short, you're not acting like a professional, and the real professionals around you shouldn't have to put up with such distractions.
Excusing it behind the facade of "faux equality" is equally unprofessional.
What next - excusing groping a woman because "you would have no objection to women groping you?" It's the same argument - and it doesn't work.
A bit more research uncovered this thread. From her posts there, and the replies, it's obvious she's got a long history of cyber-stalking anyone she disagrees with. Her mother had her placed in a mental institution when she was 16 (her admission). When one music producer threatened to sue her, her response to them was "good luck getting any money out of a homeless person on SSI disability" (her admission).
One example - she started a petition against a competitor in the music biz, claiming they were nazi white supremists, and blog-spammed it on a bunch of forums. When people started posting comments in the petition about how one of the band members is black, she deleted them, then finally deleted the petition, all the while continuing the harassment.
She doesn't have a cyber-stalker. The whole thing was made up because she didn't produce what she promised when she got kickstarter funding a few years ago, and now that she wants to scam them again, she thinks that this will work. The real name for what she is trying to do is extortion, with kickstarter as the victim.
Judging by how many people are so "OMG this is terrible shame on kickstarter" without doing any sort of reality check - not even seeing the obvious contradictions in the story she put out on her "I'm being cyber-stalked" page, it makes me wonder.
in my experience men programmers make as many or more vulgar and offensive jabs at each other as they do toward women.
So, because guys treat each other like they're in some locker room, it's okay for them to treat women just as rudely? Not all of us want to hear every second sentence punctuated with obscenities, whether they're directed at a male co-worker OR a female co-worker.
When's the last time you actually mailed a letter? Before or after the last month-long postal strike last summer? The last postal increase? The last decade?
We could do just fine with once-a-week delivery, which would drastically cut both costs and prices, while improving service (look at all the places where there is NO mail delivery because they've been built in the last 2 decades, so you need to go and pick it up at a "community mailbox"). It's not like a letter gets delivered the next day anyway, and they deliver more junk mail and ad mail than real mail.
So - go to 1-day-a-week (or 2 days if you must, sort of like garbage pickup), and re-instate door-to-door service to everyone, while reducing prices.
If it was only 2 days later, it sure as h*** didn't go via Canada Post.
It's not like anyone uses them all that much any more. The month-long postal strike last summer (and the subsequent month to clear out the backlog) was the final straw for a lot of people.
Mentally ill. She claims to be on SSI because of a physical disability, though that obviously hasn't prevented her from previously raising funds on kickstarter (though she never delivered), and from "touring" both in N.A. and Europe. File it under "your tax dollars at work."
And like many people who falsely accuse others, she's oblivious to the fact that she is the one who has a history of cyber-stalking, though in this case, it's her attacking anyone who disagrees with her. Kickstarter is just the latest victim.
In this case, she may have crossed the line into something more easily actionable than her past libels - using these tactics to try to get Kickstarter to allow a new project is extortion. One woman has already gone to jail for an extortion attempt involving multiple attacks against a firm using hundreds of web sites, forums, and blogs to try to ruin their reputation after they refused to do business with her.
It never happened. She's mentally ill (her mother had her committed at 16), is homeless, lives off SSI, scams a few bucks whenever she can, has a history of harassing people and groups online, etc.
This thread was started when one organizer finally got fed up with her online harassment (cyberstalking, false accusations) tactics and threatened to sue.
She has a LONNNG history of craziness and being banned from online forums. This is just another public melt-down by someone who needs professional help - but as she wrote, she won't go for it until everyone who has "wronged" her pays up. A real nutcase.
And then this current round of self-promotion, spammed to reddit (the original post was a sock-puppet account, quickly deleted) and here (anon submission at the same time), with some lies about being cyber-stalked, which she describes here: http://experimenthaywire.net/is-there-a-solution-to-cyberstalking/
On the one hand, she claims that the guy has been sitting in his basement for a decade ducking restraining orders (which isn't how it works); a few paragraphs down, she says the cops can't locate him. I'm sure the police have access to a street map.
She got funded by kickstarter a few years ago, didn't deliver what was promised, and now claims that she was banned because she's been cyber-stalked. It's more likely that her history of over-the-top behaviour directed at so many people brought all the negative comments, and her "don't believe them, it's all from one crazy cyber-stalker using multiple identities and impersonating everyone in the music industry" was her way of trying to avoid the consequences.
As many of you know I am the target of a resentful/predatory cyberstalker who has over hundreds of victims. This guy has been after me for over a decade and is hiding in his basement to avoid being served with various restraining orders. (not to mention that thousands of people want him dead)
and
The hunt for my stalker continues yet has been unsuccessful as of now. The FBI having bigger fish to fry. The police say that he is âoegood at what he does.â
So, the police can't track him down even though she has his address to try to serve him with restraining orders for 10 years? (never mind that you can't "duck" being served a restraining order for 10 years - you just go back to court, convince the judge that the person is actively seeking to not being served, they publish the notice in the paper that an order affecting them has been deposited with the court, end of story).
This is so obviously a complete fake... but let's now throw in this - from the same page
to sending my friends and family infant rape fantasies about me
... so, cyber-stalker sends emails with what can be classified as kiddie pr0n, but no way to track them down even when you have the guys' address and sufficient cause for a warrant to search his computer? I'm not buying any of it.
She used a new sock-puppet account to post this on reddit, and simultaneously submitted it anonymously here, as her latest self-promotion campaign, and/or to try to get kickstarter to let her do another project despite not delivering on her last one, even though it was funded.
The problem of cyber-stalking is real enough. Just not in this phony case.
"This guy has been after me for over a decade and is hiding in his basement to avoid being served with various restraining orders." She knows the guy well enough to try to have him served with a restraining order, but he ducks it for a decade?
And then she writes, on the same page: "The hunt for my stalker continues yet has been unsuccessful as of now." WT***????
If she's going to make up stuff and post it to slashdot and reddit, she shouldn't be surprised that anyone who actually has been cyber-stalked will spot the lies and contradictions. This isn't myspace or failbook.
She's also the one who started the thread on reddit using a new sockpuppet account, then quickly deleting the account. Just like she simultaneously submitted it here anonymously (it takes time for stuff to go from the submission queue to the front page).
A real publicity hound, and she even admits on her own site that she knows the guy - "This guy has been after me for over a decade and is hiding in his basement to avoid being served with various restraining orders". (Which isn't how it works... but then again, the whole thing is so obviously made up).
So, we have an obvious contradiction here - she knows who and where he is, but "the police can't track him down?"
Shameless self-promoting drama queens like this one trivialize cyber-stalking.
This guy has been after me for over a decade and is hiding in his basement to avoid being served with various restraining orders
That's total BS. First, you can't "hide in your basement" for 10 years to avoid being personally served with a restraining order. Hire a better process server.
Second, the police do take it seriously, especially if you have any information that can identify the person. It's how one of my cyber-stalkers ended up getting fired, despite being thousands of miles away.
So, she knows the guy - and has a bit of history with him. So I'm not convinced. Not when she's lied about other stuff (like claiming her past project was booted when it was actually funded).
Then there's her complaint about Facebook.
I am no longer allowed to go by my copyrighted pseudonym and thousands of people are now aware of my full first and last name.
In other words, she created a fake Facebook profile and when she couldn't prove it was hers, they locked her out of it. If she's not happy with Facebooks' policies, there's a simple solution - don't use it. If your business depends on Facebook, you have bigger problems than some random cyber-stalker.
As for Kickstarter, here's the way I see it. If they allow individuals to delete comments in a comment submission queue, then complaints will never be brought to the administrators' attention. So that's not going to work.
But judging by this comment (and following the provided link verifies it on kickstarter), since she's lying about her past project being banned by kickstarter whe it was actually funded, what else is she lying about?
Bottom line - a liar, a publicity hound and a drama queen, with a co-dependency problem with her stalker (she needs the publicity as much as he needs to stalk), call the wambulance.
No, free trade rules shouldn't apply - neither to goods nor to services.
The problem with "free trade" is that it results in a race to the bottom on all fronts - work environments, wages, corporate governance, taxes, tax-funded services, inspections, pollution, safety, etc.
We tried this experiment, and it is a failure.
The rule should be simple - if you want access to our market, you play by our rules. Same standards for labour, pollution controls, safety inspections, etc. Don't want to contribute back to the country by creating jobs locally? Then expect to contribute back by paying tariffs.
China does a lot worse. Want to sell in China? They demand that any foreign company partner up with a local entity, and that the local entity own the majority of the merged business. They also demand (and get) technology transfers. That is not "free trade" in any shape, matter, or form. So forget it - free trade is already dead, and those who insist on sticking with the illusion are going to continue to pay a heavy economic toll.
So you paid exactly what the chromebook was worth - nothing.
Nobody is actually forking over good money for them - they are one more failure on the trashbin of history.
As for $100 tablets, how hard is it to google for "android tablet $100".
You're still better off in the long run paying for an iPad. Apple is out-spending Google by more than an order of magnitude in term of R&D on iOS vs Android, and that's not about to change any time soon, simply because a lot of the real work has to be done by the individual hand-set manufacturers to tailor it to their own hardware. So all Google actually can do is work on the base system and their own google-phone.
Long-term, the prospects for Android are just not that good - not unless the manufacturers adopt only one or two base hardware configurations - and that's not going to happen.
A comparison would be to the early days of home computing - there were so many systems, none compatible with each other - different system buses, different cpus, different hardware for everything... and creating an OS and software for each was a zoo. Now it's a lot simpler, and even now we have problems.
Apple loves Android from a strategic point of view - Android kicks the crap out of every other competitor except Apple, Android takes the least profitable customers, and Apple takes +90% of the market profits with the rest.
From a marketing point of view, Google really, really, extremely badly screwed the pooch on this one. It may be their biggest mistake to date. Instead of buying Motorola at this late date, they should have bought it out of the gate, and launched Android exclusively on that one vendor - no license for anyone else. Moto had the brand recognition and the global scope, and the market demand for a "google-phone" was there. They could have pulled an Apple with a Googlerola phone, then Googlerola tablets, and not run into the headaches with product fragmentation and apps that run badly on too many devices. AND they would be making (much) more profits, albeit on less revenue to begin with. (Apple makes $575 per phone, google - less than $2).
Instead, the current Motorola acquisition is questionable at best - other Android partners are giving it the evil eye, and it doesn't really do much for Google except acquire a captive brand and some patents, which they would have gotten in an exclusive deal anyway.
Google needs to re-think their motto - it should be "Don't be stupid!"
If you read the court filing, he admitted to going to India for a meeting half a year before he made the internal complaint, to discuss ways to "creatively get around the visa problems." He then knowingly continued to place and manage people with the wrong visas, and only filed an internal complaint when he was asked to write cover letters, because THAT would leave a paper trail exposing his complicity in the whole scam.
If you read the article itself, they're still paying him NOT to show up at the office ($90,000 a year), he takes meds for "anger and depression", has "problems with alcohol" (and mixing psycho-pharmaceuticals and booze is never a smart move), bought a gun which he keeps strapped to his ankle whenever he's out, and even when he's home, he's a raging paranoid, as he admits to sticking it in the face of a door-to-door salesman.
Also, while he mentions the crank phone calls in the court filing, he never mentions the supposed death threat - so it probably never happened except in his own mind, months after, "embellishing" his story. Certainly, if someone wrote me one, I'd keep it as evidence and mention it in the filing before I'd worry about a few crank phone calls.
The best outcome would be for this guy to eat his gun, before he kills some innocent bystander with it. I have *no* sympathy for a crook who, when he's about to get caught, tries to blame others.
You're so full of sh*t - you couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of the stuff in the original link - which cited sources, including the US generals involved at the time, one of who went on to be president.
The ones offering surrender had no power to make it happen.
That's an outright lie. The emperor himself had ordered that the Japanese offer a complete surrender, and several offers were made months before the nukes were dropped.
This was reported shortly after the war, and confirmed by, among others, McArthur and Eisenhower. There was no question that the offers were anything but completely genuine. The nuking of Japan was part of the positioning of the US for after the war, nothing more.
Come off it - this isn't "day 1, day 2" - this went on for 2-1/2 YEARS before he complained! He both placed and managed these people. Placing them meant making sure they were qualified to do the job, and to present their qualifications to prospective employers - in other words, he had their paperwork, and knew the score as to where, how, and for whom they were working for - after all, he works for an Indian outsourcing company, duh!
He knew exactly what was going on. Para. 12 of his statement of claim he went to Bangalore in March, 2010 for a meeting to discuss ways to "creatively" work around the visa requirements.
He knew (Para 30) of plenty of other illegal activity, but didn't complain about ANY of it until after he was asked to take part in the visa fraud cover-up. In other words, as long as there was no paper trail pointing to his tush, he continued to turn a blind eye.
In the meantime, he's turned into a nutcase. He bought a gun and keeps it strapped to his ankle when he goes out.
Huh, that's funny. I didn't realize exercising a Constitutional right made one a nutcase.....
Pointing it at a total stranger (a salesman) is kind of beyond "exercising a Constitutional right". Or do you believe that sticking a gun in $RANDOM_PERSON'S_FACE is exercising some sort of constitutionally-protected freedom of expression?
The guy is just as guilty of illegality as InfoSys:
Indian employees he had placed as full-time programmers on projects he managed told him they were struggling to survive in the United States on Indian wages. The B-1 workers were fully employed in this country, and Infosys was charging its customers full-time wages, he said.
So here we have this guy placing people as full-time programmers (something he knew was illegal), managing them for 2 years, and suddenly he gets cold feet when it starts to go pear-shaped and he's asked to help cover it up by writing some letters.
And then he whines about how cruel the company is paying him almost $1,800.00 a week to stay home and do nothing??? Sign me up, baby!
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously your logic skills are seriously lacking, since nobody has said that, neither in the main article, nor in this thread.
Some men, definitely.
Why should anyone of either gender have to tolerate a work environment with lower standards of civility or professionalism? Why should a co-worker be treated with less civility and/or less professionalism than either a boss, a customer, a supplier, or a total stranger?
It's like all the other attacks on civilian targets - the intentional ones that would have been classified as war crimes, such as the fire-bombings of Desden and Tokyo.
Also, the Wiki article on the firebombing of Tokyo mentions the Japanese emperor's personal involvement in the peace talks - which would be 5 months before Hiroshima. So stop with the stupidity - there was immoral behaviour on both sides.
The point is that the onus should not be on women to have to ask for either civility OR professionalism.
Just google for it.
Wanting a workplace that's not full of profanity and sexist jokes is not asking for "gender superiority."
It's equally unacceptable if the person speaking like they have Tourette's is a woman.
When you go "My F***ING piece of S*** computer F***ING froze the F*** up again and I lost a S***load of F***ing work, if F***ING Steve Balmer were F***ING here right now, I'd F***ing kill the C***S***ING MOTHERF***ING C***", you're distracting attention from the real issue, and making it about you and your anger.
In short, you're not acting like a professional, and the real professionals around you shouldn't have to put up with such distractions.
Excusing it behind the facade of "faux equality" is equally unprofessional.
What next - excusing groping a woman because "you would have no objection to women groping you?" It's the same argument - and it doesn't work.
One example - she started a petition against a competitor in the music biz, claiming they were nazi white supremists, and blog-spammed it on a bunch of forums. When people started posting comments in the petition about how one of the band members is black, she deleted them, then finally deleted the petition, all the while continuing the harassment.
She doesn't have a cyber-stalker. The whole thing was made up because she didn't produce what she promised when she got kickstarter funding a few years ago, and now that she wants to scam them again, she thinks that this will work. The real name for what she is trying to do is extortion, with kickstarter as the victim.
Judging by how many people are so "OMG this is terrible shame on kickstarter" without doing any sort of reality check - not even seeing the obvious contradictions in the story she put out on her "I'm being cyber-stalked" page, it makes me wonder.
So, because guys treat each other like they're in some locker room, it's okay for them to treat women just as rudely? Not all of us want to hear every second sentence punctuated with obscenities, whether they're directed at a male co-worker OR a female co-worker.
transgender-friendly workplace?
We could do just fine with once-a-week delivery, which would drastically cut both costs and prices, while improving service (look at all the places where there is NO mail delivery because they've been built in the last 2 decades, so you need to go and pick it up at a "community mailbox"). It's not like a letter gets delivered the next day anyway, and they deliver more junk mail and ad mail than real mail.
So - go to 1-day-a-week (or 2 days if you must, sort of like garbage pickup), and re-instate door-to-door service to everyone, while reducing prices.
No, you lose. We've seen the ugly underbelly of the coder culture, and too often, it looks like this
If it was only 2 days later, it sure as h*** didn't go via Canada Post.
It's not like anyone uses them all that much any more. The month-long postal strike last summer (and the subsequent month to clear out the backlog) was the final straw for a lot of people.
And like many people who falsely accuse others, she's oblivious to the fact that she is the one who has a history of cyber-stalking, though in this case, it's her attacking anyone who disagrees with her. Kickstarter is just the latest victim.
In this case, she may have crossed the line into something more easily actionable than her past libels - using these tactics to try to get Kickstarter to allow a new project is extortion. One woman has already gone to jail for an extortion attempt involving multiple attacks against a firm using hundreds of web sites, forums, and blogs to try to ruin their reputation after they refused to do business with her.
It never happened. She's mentally ill (her mother had her committed at 16), is homeless, lives off SSI, scams a few bucks whenever she can, has a history of harassing people and groups online, etc.
For a better understanding, go back a few years to this thread: http://www.side-line.com/side-line-forum/topic/beware-mentally-challenged-person-on-gothindustrial-messageboards
This thread was started when one organizer finally got fed up with her online harassment (cyberstalking, false accusations) tactics and threatened to sue.
She has a LONNNG history of craziness and being banned from online forums. This is just another public melt-down by someone who needs professional help - but as she wrote, she won't go for it until everyone who has "wronged" her pays up. A real nutcase.
Not just likely. She's been doing it for years and years ...
http://www.side-line.com/side-line-forum/topic/beware-mentally-challenged-person-on-gothindustrial-messageboards#post-19422She accuses a band of being Nazi white supremists, starts up an online petition against them, and on the petition, deletes comments that point out one of the band members is black.
And then this current round of self-promotion, spammed to reddit (the original post was a sock-puppet account, quickly deleted) and here (anon submission at the same time), with some lies about being cyber-stalked, which she describes here: http://experimenthaywire.net/is-there-a-solution-to-cyberstalking/
On the one hand, she claims that the guy has been sitting in his basement for a decade ducking restraining orders (which isn't how it works); a few paragraphs down, she says the cops can't locate him. I'm sure the police have access to a street map.
She got funded by kickstarter a few years ago, didn't deliver what was promised, and now claims that she was banned because she's been cyber-stalked. It's more likely that her history of over-the-top behaviour directed at so many people brought all the negative comments, and her "don't believe them, it's all from one crazy cyber-stalker using multiple identities and impersonating everyone in the music industry" was her way of trying to avoid the consequences.
Unfortunately, she's lying.
On her website, she makes 2 contradictory claims on the same page:
and
So, the police can't track him down even though she has his address to try to serve him with restraining orders for 10 years? (never mind that you can't "duck" being served a restraining order for 10 years - you just go back to court, convince the judge that the person is actively seeking to not being served, they publish the notice in the paper that an order affecting them has been deposited with the court, end of story).
This is so obviously a complete fake ... but let's now throw in this - from the same page
She used a new sock-puppet account to post this on reddit, and simultaneously submitted it anonymously here, as her latest self-promotion campaign, and/or to try to get kickstarter to let her do another project despite not delivering on her last one, even though it was funded.
The problem of cyber-stalking is real enough. Just not in this phony case.
"This guy has been after me for over a decade and is hiding in his basement to avoid being served with various restraining orders." She knows the guy well enough to try to have him served with a restraining order, but he ducks it for a decade?
And then she writes, on the same page: "The hunt for my stalker continues yet has been unsuccessful as of now." WT***????
If she's going to make up stuff and post it to slashdot and reddit, she shouldn't be surprised that anyone who actually has been cyber-stalked will spot the lies and contradictions. This isn't myspace or failbook.
She's also the one who started the thread on reddit using a new sockpuppet account, then quickly deleting the account. Just like she simultaneously submitted it here anonymously (it takes time for stuff to go from the submission queue to the front page).
A real publicity hound, and she even admits on her own site that she knows the guy - "This guy has been after me for over a decade and is hiding in his basement to avoid being served with various restraining orders". (Which isn't how it works ... but then again, the whole thing is so obviously made up).
So, we have an obvious contradiction here - she knows who and where he is, but "the police can't track him down?"
Shameless self-promoting drama queens like this one trivialize cyber-stalking.
I'm not buying into it either.
First, there's this claim on her page:
That's total BS. First, you can't "hide in your basement" for 10 years to avoid being personally served with a restraining order. Hire a better process server.
Second, the police do take it seriously, especially if you have any information that can identify the person. It's how one of my cyber-stalkers ended up getting fired, despite being thousands of miles away.
So, she knows the guy - and has a bit of history with him. So I'm not convinced. Not when she's lied about other stuff (like claiming her past project was booted when it was actually funded).
Then there's her complaint about Facebook.
In other words, she created a fake Facebook profile and when she couldn't prove it was hers, they locked her out of it. If she's not happy with Facebooks' policies, there's a simple solution - don't use it. If your business depends on Facebook, you have bigger problems than some random cyber-stalker.
As for Kickstarter, here's the way I see it. If they allow individuals to delete comments in a comment submission queue, then complaints will never be brought to the administrators' attention. So that's not going to work.
But judging by this comment (and following the provided link verifies it on kickstarter), since she's lying about her past project being banned by kickstarter whe it was actually funded, what else is she lying about?
Bottom line - a liar, a publicity hound and a drama queen, with a co-dependency problem with her stalker (she needs the publicity as much as he needs to stalk), call the wambulance.
The problem with "free trade" is that it results in a race to the bottom on all fronts - work environments, wages, corporate governance, taxes, tax-funded services, inspections, pollution, safety, etc.
We tried this experiment, and it is a failure.
The rule should be simple - if you want access to our market, you play by our rules. Same standards for labour, pollution controls, safety inspections, etc. Don't want to contribute back to the country by creating jobs locally? Then expect to contribute back by paying tariffs.
China does a lot worse. Want to sell in China? They demand that any foreign company partner up with a local entity, and that the local entity own the majority of the merged business. They also demand (and get) technology transfers. That is not "free trade" in any shape, matter, or form. So forget it - free trade is already dead, and those who insist on sticking with the illusion are going to continue to pay a heavy economic toll.
So you paid exactly what the chromebook was worth - nothing.
Nobody is actually forking over good money for them - they are one more failure on the trashbin of history.
As for $100 tablets, how hard is it to google for "android tablet $100".
You're still better off in the long run paying for an iPad. Apple is out-spending Google by more than an order of magnitude in term of R&D on iOS vs Android, and that's not about to change any time soon, simply because a lot of the real work has to be done by the individual hand-set manufacturers to tailor it to their own hardware. So all Google actually can do is work on the base system and their own google-phone.
Long-term, the prospects for Android are just not that good - not unless the manufacturers adopt only one or two base hardware configurations - and that's not going to happen.
A comparison would be to the early days of home computing - there were so many systems, none compatible with each other - different system buses, different cpus, different hardware for everything ... and creating an OS and software for each was a zoo. Now it's a lot simpler, and even now we have problems.
Apple loves Android from a strategic point of view - Android kicks the crap out of every other competitor except Apple, Android takes the least profitable customers, and Apple takes +90% of the market profits with the rest.
From a marketing point of view, Google really, really, extremely badly screwed the pooch on this one. It may be their biggest mistake to date. Instead of buying Motorola at this late date, they should have bought it out of the gate, and launched Android exclusively on that one vendor - no license for anyone else. Moto had the brand recognition and the global scope, and the market demand for a "google-phone" was there. They could have pulled an Apple with a Googlerola phone, then Googlerola tablets, and not run into the headaches with product fragmentation and apps that run badly on too many devices. AND they would be making (much) more profits, albeit on less revenue to begin with. (Apple makes $575 per phone, google - less than $2).
Instead, the current Motorola acquisition is questionable at best - other Android partners are giving it the evil eye, and it doesn't really do much for Google except acquire a captive brand and some patents, which they would have gotten in an exclusive deal anyway.
Google needs to re-think their motto - it should be "Don't be stupid!"
If you read the court filing, he admitted to going to India for a meeting half a year before he made the internal complaint, to discuss ways to "creatively get around the visa problems." He then knowingly continued to place and manage people with the wrong visas, and only filed an internal complaint when he was asked to write cover letters, because THAT would leave a paper trail exposing his complicity in the whole scam.
If you read the article itself, they're still paying him NOT to show up at the office ($90,000 a year), he takes meds for "anger and depression", has "problems with alcohol" (and mixing psycho-pharmaceuticals and booze is never a smart move), bought a gun which he keeps strapped to his ankle whenever he's out, and even when he's home, he's a raging paranoid, as he admits to sticking it in the face of a door-to-door salesman.
Also, while he mentions the crank phone calls in the court filing, he never mentions the supposed death threat - so it probably never happened except in his own mind, months after, "embellishing" his story. Certainly, if someone wrote me one, I'd keep it as evidence and mention it in the filing before I'd worry about a few crank phone calls.
The best outcome would be for this guy to eat his gun, before he kills some innocent bystander with it. I have *no* sympathy for a crook who, when he's about to get caught, tries to blame others.
You're so full of sh*t - you couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of the stuff in the original link - which cited sources, including the US generals involved at the time, one of who went on to be president.
That's an outright lie. The emperor himself had ordered that the Japanese offer a complete surrender, and several offers were made months before the nukes were dropped.
This was reported shortly after the war, and confirmed by, among others, McArthur and Eisenhower. There was no question that the offers were anything but completely genuine. The nuking of Japan was part of the positioning of the US for after the war, nothing more.
Come off it - this isn't "day 1, day 2" - this went on for 2-1/2 YEARS before he complained! He both placed and managed these people. Placing them meant making sure they were qualified to do the job, and to present their qualifications to prospective employers - in other words, he had their paperwork, and knew the score as to where, how, and for whom they were working for - after all, he works for an Indian outsourcing company, duh!
He knew exactly what was going on. Para. 12 of his statement of claim he went to Bangalore in March, 2010 for a meeting to discuss ways to "creatively" work around the visa requirements.
He knew (Para 30) of plenty of other illegal activity, but didn't complain about ANY of it until after he was asked to take part in the visa fraud cover-up. In other words, as long as there was no paper trail pointing to his tush, he continued to turn a blind eye.
He and Infosys are a marriage made in heaven.
Pointing it at a total stranger (a salesman) is kind of beyond "exercising a Constitutional right". Or do you believe that sticking a gun in $RANDOM_PERSON'S_FACE is exercising some sort of constitutionally-protected freedom of expression?
The guy is just as guilty of illegality as InfoSys:
So here we have this guy placing people as full-time programmers (something he knew was illegal), managing them for 2 years, and suddenly he gets cold feet when it starts to go pear-shaped and he's asked to help cover it up by writing some letters.
And then he whines about how cruel the company is paying him almost $1,800.00 a week to stay home and do nothing??? Sign me up, baby!
This wasn't a whistle-blower story.