But eventually, as the standard of living rises in the area being outsourced to, the corporations are forced to move on and eventually the standard of living in the entire world is more or less on the same level, at least on the physical plane.
You have it backwards. Outsourcing lowers the standard of living in countries that are exporting in order to retain SOME of those jobs. All one has to do is look at the arguments the right is putting forward for blocking climate change legislation or the breakup of the unions in the US to see this in action. And the standard of living never will rise in those totalitarian countries due extreme corruption forcing us to lower our standard even further. In short, it's a race to the bottom.
There is an easier alternative and one I would take if I were president of a college. Simply not provide students internet access. Let them get it on their own. If a student wants access to the internet in their dorm room, allow the local provider to wire it in. That will take care of this legislation because the network is no longer the college network.
I beg to differ. A company can survive without shareholders at all if they have enough loyal customers built through great customer service. On the other hand, a company that is shedding customers through poor customer service is likely to trigger a huge stock sell off. In either event, customer service is VERY important.
I expected something like this. In West Virginia, they sold their landlines to Frontier after being hit with huge fines by the PSC for poor customer service and long outages. The sale was bitterly contested since it is highly unlikely Frontier can carry the load.
US law prohibits the unauthorized accessing of computers, but it is unclear whether the script that the Goatse group used violated the law, said Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'The question is, when you do an automated test like this, [are you] getting any type of unauthorized access or not,' she said. If it turns out the data in question was not misused, it is unlikely that federal prosecutors will press charges, she added."
There is a problem with that line of logic. As I see it,IANAL and all, they got them on at least one violation of the law. That violation was the initial intrusion which they can't argue was a script. Also, since when is an intrusion with the intent to obtain information they should know they are not entitled to considered a "test"?
Those folks are doing all the right things.,/blockquote>
That would be true if the information they were putting out wasn't intended to limit liability. Grossly underestimating the amount of crude spewing forth was a liability reduction scam that I hope lands someone in jail. Using weasel words like "legitimate claims" means a huge multi-year legal fight trying to get some sort of compensation out of them.
I agree that the most legitimate use of this software would be for employers to monitor their employees. An employer who owns the computers its employees are using has a right to install spyware without employee's knowledge... duh. They are handing out paychecks and if they don't want their employees farting around on Facebook all afternoon, it's their right to "spy" and verify that rules are not being broken.
There are far more efficient ways than installing a rootkit on computers to "catch" employees. And no, I don't agree that an employer has the right to spy on employees without their consent as a condition of using the computer. If you are so worried that an employee is going to goof off, then maybe you don't have a clue how to manage your employees. In short, if an employee can maintain a satisfactory enough output that they retain their job, and have time to goof off, then you evidently don't have enough for them to do.
If you don't want your employees using facebook, then block access to facebook. Better yet, instead of blacklisting, employ whitelisting. Only allow work related sites through. That beats the spying.
Lastly, any organization that has that much distrust of their employees that they have to employ rootkits isn't a company I am willing to work for. Trust, like respect, is a two way street. If you don't trust me to do the job I was hired to do, then say so and I'll leave.
If you leave everything set to auto-login, then you are asking for trouble. Amazingly, many still seem to do this, even though they are often young enough to have never been brought up to the bad habits people acquired with DOS.
That really can't be blamed on the user. The blame rests squarely on both Microsoft who encouraged it with their "Home edition" and large scale computer distributors (HP in particular) where the default is auto-login. And not just any auto-login but administrator auto-login. It comes from the dumbing down of the OS to gain the dollars of the unwashed masses. We all know grandpa is too dumb or will get too frustrated having to enter passwords (much less really secure passwords).
And I bet you can't identify the US on a globe either. Go back to school and pay attention to your history teacher when they cover Pearl Harbor. Here's a hint: Hawaii is one of the fifty states and was one in 1942. Japan most certainly did bomb the US when they sank our pacific Fleet. Just what do you think made the Arizona (among others) blow up?
And I don't count the WTC terrorist attacks as a bombing. More like a human guided missile than a bombing.
The oil from this rig wasn't being sold yet so this has no effect on the current oil supply. It is causing a delay in additional US offshore production, but that's a very long-term issue, not an immediate one.
No, the immediate concern is the oil commodities speculators. Remember when gas hit $4.00+/gal? That was the effect of speculators post Katrina. This has that same potential especially if Congress does its typical knee-jerk reaction and decides to curtail offshore drilling for an extended period of time. Don't get me wrong, I think nothing would be better for alternative transportation than to have higher gas prices.
Meanwhile, companies who expect staff to spend their own time and money on compulsory company-related activities that weren't part of the original deal are likely to find that, regardless of the legal position, the reality is high employee turnover, few staff having the qualities the company is looking for, and ultimately a less successful business. That is also the way it's supposed to work.
So let's take this to the next level. How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training. They can always negotiate salary and worst case scenario have to let the employee go who demands too much. It is far easier requiring a certified new hire than to go to the expense of training someone who will only leave after they are trained.
I see continuing education as an employee responsibility. It goes with wanting to better yourself in your chosen profession. If you don't care enough to keep on top of it, why should the company? After all, it is YOUR career, not theirs.
How about if it was a group of recent divorcees or depressed teenagers?
What about them? The whole idea that society should protect you from yourself has led to many an invasive, ineffective and inane law. Let me ask you, if a person is bent on suicide, do you really think a law is going to stop them? If someone is that committed to killing themselves then no amount of banning, blocking or outlawing information is going to stop them.
The federal government should only pay for what only the federal government can pay for. As for everything else, if the people want it, they should have their local and state governments pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for swamp conservation in Florida, a big hole in Boston and E-Coli cleanup in the Michigan when I live in Texas!
So that means you are willing to repay the millions in federal assistance Texas receives every year? You would be perfectly happy having no federal assistance the next hurricane that hits your coast? That's a relief that the rest of the nation won't have to foot that huge bill any more.
You sir evidently aren't in the boonies deep enough. Come to Mingo County WV where cell service is non-existent, satellite service is spotty on the clearest days and DSL is a big dream because of rotten copper lines. It is also one of the poorest most rural counties in the state. It has one (1) broadband provider and that is the cable company.
So again I ask, where is this supposed "competition" at least in Mingo County?
But if you look back through your newspaper headlines about fraud by people with no past record, you'll see a frequent (but not universal) indicator - the person committing fraud had debt problems, and began stealing to try to pay off debts.
Then how do you account for Bernie Madoff who had impeccable credit before his arrest and conviction? So I guess you would like for him to manage your finances?
Credit checks are just one way of finding out *something* about a candidate.
Do you honestly believe that? All that a credit check shows is that they are in a database maintained by others. That database was intended to see if a person was profitable to lending institutions. Put aside identity theft for an instant. All the things that are considered "irresponsible" are profitable and give you a higher score. Paying off credit cards fully every month for example is a negative on your credit score. You are not profitable to the lending institutions when you do that. Hell, even not getting anything on credit (meaning you live well within your means and don't need credit) is a negative.
Employers that abuse credit reports like this should be held liable. That isn't its intended purpose unless they plan on giving the employee his pay all up front. Then it becomes a credit issue.
But to answer your question of "how do employers find out about employees" that is already solved. It is called "the probationary period". You know, that time when an employee first starts where either can get rid of the other without notice.
There are ways of making buying something more desirable than stealing it, both by creating incentives to buy and disincentives to steal. The problem today is that rather than do either, the argument is made that they simply need to keep control over the work longer and longer. And each time, they'll use the excuse that people are still stealing it, because the point is that they realize that this means they can milk it forever.
It is greed on the part of the copyright owners for sure. I'm not arguing that. By the same token though, it is greed on the part of infringers that keeps it going providing the argument you are putting forward. They want the content but don't want to abide by the wishes of the holder even for a shorter limited time. I notice you didn't define even one of the ways you are claiming to make buying the content more attractive or providing disincentive to illegal downloading. You simply stated there are ways. Please define exactly how a copyright holder can control their content even for a day once it is released. That is the problem.
That limited time is and should always be that, limited. If you can't (or won't) monetize your products in that time, then that is on you. Not us.
And we should not be expected to limit our own rights and abilities outside of that specific right of yours to control who can copy your work for a limited time, simply because you've failed to keep up with technology enough.
I am going to play devil's advocate here. I agree with what you are saying that the public domain is the sole purpose of copyright regardless of what the distributors want to portray. That said, here we go...
It is hard for an owner to control for that limited time when whole works are leaked to torrent sites even before they are released. How does that situation play in your scheme of things? How about the infringed content when someone walks into a theater with a camera then posts it online? How about the latest Photoshop version showing up on torrent sites hours after (or even before) their release? The point is, in a connected world, content owners don't get even that limited time you are referring to. Are current copyright limits too long? Sure. Can you guarantee if the limit is reduced to say 7 years it won't be shared on the torrent sites in two weeks after release or before? I thought not.
However, ANY program requiring activation and re-authorization would run against the server not being up. I know many such DRM schemes in the closed source world that simply won't run without the authorization from the company's activation server.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but too many iterations of changes in the VM and the OS wants to re-activate. It is == changing too much hardware and the OS re-activating syndrome. Again, you run up against an activation server that isn't likely to be there 10-20 years down the road.
ummm...no. They can get a version of the distro it was built on and install it on that computer in the museum. That's the strength of open source. Every version back to the beginning is, and will be, available somewhere. Given the DRM contained in most closed source programs, good luck finding an activation server around that will allow the program to run.
To take your car analogy to the state of Windows today...
Would you be upset if your car was built with door locks and windows as an added option that can be repossessed if you don't pay a yearly fee? With the hood welded shut so every time you needed that oil you had to go to the manufacturer to get it done? How about a kill switch that other drivers control? Although that last one is appealing sometimes, I think you would be upset if your car died on you because of it. How about you having to go to 15 different manufacturers to get a basic car because the guy that made the engine doesn't make the rest? Lastly, how about the manufacturer disabling the car because they thought you were driving it illegally and demanded proof that you were legal?
That is the state of a Windows OS these days. You are at the mercy of the vendor for software bug fixes even if that fix is a simple one. You are at differing vendors mercy for securing the OS vendor's product. You are locked into that vendor's product not because of technical reasons but for reasons of greed. Lastly, you are treated as a thief right from the start with mandatory product activation. That is the state of closed source software these days.
Slashdot Mirror
You have it backwards. Outsourcing lowers the standard of living in countries that are exporting in order to retain SOME of those jobs. All one has to do is look at the arguments the right is putting forward for blocking climate change legislation or the breakup of the unions in the US to see this in action. And the standard of living never will rise in those totalitarian countries due extreme corruption forcing us to lower our standard even further. In short, it's a race to the bottom.
There is an easier alternative and one I would take if I were president of a college. Simply not provide students internet access. Let them get it on their own. If a student wants access to the internet in their dorm room, allow the local provider to wire it in. That will take care of this legislation because the network is no longer the college network.
I beg to differ. A company can survive without shareholders at all if they have enough loyal customers built through great customer service. On the other hand, a company that is shedding customers through poor customer service is likely to trigger a huge stock sell off. In either event, customer service is VERY important.
I expected something like this. In West Virginia, they sold their landlines to Frontier after being hit with huge fines by the PSC for poor customer service and long outages. The sale was bitterly contested since it is highly unlikely Frontier can carry the load.
There is a problem with that line of logic. As I see it,IANAL and all, they got them on at least one violation of the law. That violation was the initial intrusion which they can't argue was a script. Also, since when is an intrusion with the intent to obtain information they should know they are not entitled to considered a "test"?
Oh, I agree. Again though, it comes from trying to dumb down the OS for the unwashed masses.
There are far more efficient ways than installing a rootkit on computers to "catch" employees. And no, I don't agree that an employer has the right to spy on employees without their consent as a condition of using the computer. If you are so worried that an employee is going to goof off, then maybe you don't have a clue how to manage your employees. In short, if an employee can maintain a satisfactory enough output that they retain their job, and have time to goof off, then you evidently don't have enough for them to do.
If you don't want your employees using facebook, then block access to facebook. Better yet, instead of blacklisting, employ whitelisting. Only allow work related sites through. That beats the spying.
Lastly, any organization that has that much distrust of their employees that they have to employ rootkits isn't a company I am willing to work for. Trust, like respect, is a two way street. If you don't trust me to do the job I was hired to do, then say so and I'll leave.
That really can't be blamed on the user. The blame rests squarely on both Microsoft who encouraged it with their "Home edition" and large scale computer distributors (HP in particular) where the default is auto-login. And not just any auto-login but administrator auto-login. It comes from the dumbing down of the OS to gain the dollars of the unwashed masses. We all know grandpa is too dumb or will get too frustrated having to enter passwords (much less really secure passwords).
No. Next...
All one has to do is look at AT&T. It is every bit as much the behemoth it was in its hay-day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/nyt060199.htm
Last but not least, the law itself:
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/cp/004.00.000096.00.html
And I bet you can't identify the US on a globe either. Go back to school and pay attention to your history teacher when they cover Pearl Harbor. Here's a hint: Hawaii is one of the fifty states and was one in 1942. Japan most certainly did bomb the US when they sank our pacific Fleet. Just what do you think made the Arizona (among others) blow up?
And I don't count the WTC terrorist attacks as a bombing. More like a human guided missile than a bombing.
No, the immediate concern is the oil commodities speculators. Remember when gas hit $4.00+/gal? That was the effect of speculators post Katrina. This has that same potential especially if Congress does its typical knee-jerk reaction and decides to curtail offshore drilling for an extended period of time. Don't get me wrong, I think nothing would be better for alternative transportation than to have higher gas prices.
So let's take this to the next level. How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training. They can always negotiate salary and worst case scenario have to let the employee go who demands too much. It is far easier requiring a certified new hire than to go to the expense of training someone who will only leave after they are trained.
I see continuing education as an employee responsibility. It goes with wanting to better yourself in your chosen profession. If you don't care enough to keep on top of it, why should the company? After all, it is YOUR career, not theirs.
What about them? The whole idea that society should protect you from yourself has led to many an invasive, ineffective and inane law. Let me ask you, if a person is bent on suicide, do you really think a law is going to stop them? If someone is that committed to killing themselves then no amount of banning, blocking or outlawing information is going to stop them.
So that means you are willing to repay the millions in federal assistance Texas receives every year? You would be perfectly happy having no federal assistance the next hurricane that hits your coast? That's a relief that the rest of the nation won't have to foot that huge bill any more.
I am going to throw semantics at you and ask:
Just how does someone "consume content"?
This is the problem with the whole copyright argument. Trying to assign a value to the expression of an idea is wrong.
You sir evidently aren't in the boonies deep enough. Come to Mingo County WV where cell service is non-existent, satellite service is spotty on the clearest days and DSL is a big dream because of rotten copper lines. It is also one of the poorest most rural counties in the state. It has one (1) broadband provider and that is the cable company.
So again I ask, where is this supposed "competition" at least in Mingo County?
Then how do you account for Bernie Madoff who had impeccable credit before his arrest and conviction? So I guess you would like for him to manage your finances?
Do you honestly believe that? All that a credit check shows is that they are in a database maintained by others. That database was intended to see if a person was profitable to lending institutions. Put aside identity theft for an instant. All the things that are considered "irresponsible" are profitable and give you a higher score. Paying off credit cards fully every month for example is a negative on your credit score. You are not profitable to the lending institutions when you do that. Hell, even not getting anything on credit (meaning you live well within your means and don't need credit) is a negative.
Employers that abuse credit reports like this should be held liable. That isn't its intended purpose unless they plan on giving the employee his pay all up front. Then it becomes a credit issue.
But to answer your question of "how do employers find out about employees" that is already solved. It is called "the probationary period". You know, that time when an employee first starts where either can get rid of the other without notice.
It is greed on the part of the copyright owners for sure. I'm not arguing that. By the same token though, it is greed on the part of infringers that keeps it going providing the argument you are putting forward. They want the content but don't want to abide by the wishes of the holder even for a shorter limited time. I notice you didn't define even one of the ways you are claiming to make buying the content more attractive or providing disincentive to illegal downloading. You simply stated there are ways. Please define exactly how a copyright holder can control their content even for a day once it is released. That is the problem.
I am going to play devil's advocate here. I agree with what you are saying that the public domain is the sole purpose of copyright regardless of what the distributors want to portray. That said, here we go...
It is hard for an owner to control for that limited time when whole works are leaked to torrent sites even before they are released. How does that situation play in your scheme of things? How about the infringed content when someone walks into a theater with a camera then posts it online? How about the latest Photoshop version showing up on torrent sites hours after (or even before) their release? The point is, in a connected world, content owners don't get even that limited time you are referring to. Are current copyright limits too long? Sure. Can you guarantee if the limit is reduced to say 7 years it won't be shared on the torrent sites in two weeks after release or before? I thought not.
I stand corrected...;-)
However, ANY program requiring activation and re-authorization would run against the server not being up. I know many such DRM schemes in the closed source world that simply won't run without the authorization from the company's activation server.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but too many iterations of changes in the VM and the OS wants to re-activate. It is == changing too much hardware and the OS re-activating syndrome. Again, you run up against an activation server that isn't likely to be there 10-20 years down the road.
ummm...no. They can get a version of the distro it was built on and install it on that computer in the museum. That's the strength of open source. Every version back to the beginning is, and will be, available somewhere. Given the DRM contained in most closed source programs, good luck finding an activation server around that will allow the program to run.
To take your car analogy to the state of Windows today...
Would you be upset if your car was built with door locks and windows as an added option that can be repossessed if you don't pay a yearly fee? With the hood welded shut so every time you needed that oil you had to go to the manufacturer to get it done? How about a kill switch that other drivers control? Although that last one is appealing sometimes, I think you would be upset if your car died on you because of it. How about you having to go to 15 different manufacturers to get a basic car because the guy that made the engine doesn't make the rest? Lastly, how about the manufacturer disabling the car because they thought you were driving it illegally and demanded proof that you were legal?
That is the state of a Windows OS these days. You are at the mercy of the vendor for software bug fixes even if that fix is a simple one. You are at differing vendors mercy for securing the OS vendor's product. You are locked into that vendor's product not because of technical reasons but for reasons of greed. Lastly, you are treated as a thief right from the start with mandatory product activation. That is the state of closed source software these days.