Thanks. That seems like it's not bad. Still, it's not free, it requires you to have an account.
Also it gets some things wrong. For example, it tells me there are updates to my Adobe applications because I'm running CS3 and CS4 is available. It'd be nice if there were a common infrastructure where Adobe you support their own application and decide what updates were sensible instead of relying on someone else to guess.
I'd maintain it's still something that should be done by the OS.
My policy for a long time was that if I had a salaried position where they expected me to respond to work calls/emails outside of work ours, then they needed to get me a separate work phone for that. I didn't want people calling my personal phone. Part of the idea is maintaining a small barrier between personal time and work time-- essentially that I know when an email is a work email is a work email and I can choose to ignore it. I didn't want people calling my personal cell phone unless there was an emergency.
These days, I might resort to that if necessary, but with as nice as smartphones are getting I think there's real value in being able to carry a single device that's your all-in-one PDA/Phone/MP3-player/everything device. I think the real trick would be to set up a Google Voice account and use that with my phone to allow some control over how my calls get routed.
I'm kind of looking forward to having a Google Voice enabled phone. Not there yet, but it's coming.
Funny, I don't worry about the 200 odd distros when I work on a Linux desktop. Admittedly I stick to common distributions, but I think the fragmentation is a non-issue.
On OSX, a lot of applications have been using Sparkle. Programs check for updates when they launch, and if an update is available, it throws up a window notifying that an update is available. If you choose to "Update and relaunch", it will automatically update the program, install the update, and relaunch the program.
All in all, it's not bad. On the other hand, it means every application pops up with its own update notifications. If I haven't used a system for a while or I reinstall from an image, I get a pop-up on just about every application I run. I'd much rather have something that just checks every so often and runs updates for all my programs at once.
I've been thinking for quite a long time that Apple and Microsoft to come up with package managers for their operating systems. It's ironic because after all the talk of it being hard to install things in Linux, it's much easier to keep a Linux system up to date. In most cases, you can upgrade every application on your computer with a single line in the command line.
Microsoft has "Microsoft Update" and Apple has "System Update", so they basically have the system in place already for their own software, but then 3rd party software all installs their own updaters or expect you to hunt down updates on the web. It seems to me their built-in updaters could be expanded for 3rd party updates through one of two methods:
Microsoft and Apple could each create repositories for approved/certified applications which would be updated through "Microsoft Update" and "System Update", respectively. This has the advantage of being more secure (repositories would have known-good software in them) but would create a lot of additional work for Microsoft and Apple. Additionally, this wouldn't address the issue comprehensively since there would be applications which would never become certified.
The other option would be to create an open set of standards that would allow each software developer/publisher to create their own repositories, and programs could add their repositories to the update system at install time. Then the update system would have a list of separate repositories for each publisher which could be managed by the user. The main downside I can think of for this is the possibility of malware getting into the repository list.
What's more, according to the background philosophy of our system, there's basically nothing that overrides morality. Read Adam Smith and John Locke, or even the Declaration of Independence. Basic idea: morality is morality. People should be moral. There isn't a law or a contract that can invalidate that.
The idea that corporations should increase their profit is fine. The idea that they have no moral obligations is not fine.
Web apps really aren't good enough. Operation often isn't quite as smooth, there isn't the possibility of offline operation, and AFAIK you can't have push notifications from a web app. All that stuff is fairly important when talking about something like Google Voice.
Of course, this also raises another problem with Apple's model-- not allowing 3rd party apps to run in the background means that Google voice can't do things like, "check for updates every [x] minutes (or by push) and then download any new voicemail messages for offline listening seamlessly without user interaction."
Anyway, even if particular problems can be overcome, it's just not a great solution. I'm an Apple fan too, but let's not make excuses.
You're right, it's not evil. It's merely troubling and problematic. On the plus side, requiring distribution to go through Apple's store creates a central known-good repository of apps, allows Apple to provide a consistent and controlled user experience, and helps Apple maintain their relationship with AT&T.
On the other hand, it prevents developers from distributing applications that they want to distribute, and prevents users from getting applications that they might want. I have an iPhone. I'd like to try out this Opera browser. I'd like to try out Google's "Google Voice" application too. They developed it but Apple wouldn't distribute it. There are a number of perfectly valid applications that have been developed, but that I can't get because Apple decided they didn't want me to have it. It's power that Apple doesn't need to have and which is bound to be abused.
What I find much more chilling, though, is the idea of the applications that are not even being developed because of the approval process. Apple has created an environment where a developer might pour a lot of time and money into creating an application only to find that Apple rejected it. If I were a developer, that would give me pause.
Since I'm an Apple fan, I'd like to think that Apple is forced into this sort of thing because their agreement with AT&T prevents them from allowing people to install certain types of apps (e.g. tethering). After all, even the Nexus One, a Linux phone which isn't locked to any carrier, doesn't allow you to simply install any application you want. Either way, this setup is bad for users, bad for developers, and ultimately it's even bad for Apple.
Well I've known people who have >100GB of music ripped at rates between 128kbps and 256kbps. They just had that much music. I just don't even want that much music on my laptop even if it were free. After a while, I feel like it just becomes too much to sort through and maintain.
But different strokes for different folks, right? Still, I don't know what's "typical".
Yeah, but how much music? I know some people who have several hundred gigabytes of music, which I find unimaginable since I only have around 12 GB. (It's not like I'm new to this stuff, but music is expensive and I don't pirate.) I can get by on a 40 GB hard drive in my laptop.
So definitely part of the question is, what's "typical"?
On the other hand, I'm just talking about my laptop; my home server is a different story. There I have >4TB of storage hooked up. So maybe there's a place for both for the time being.
Paying anything more would be rather evil... I'm not paying full price for the finished product AFTER ALREADY HAVING PAID THEM
I bought Fallout for my PS3. There have been a bit of updates since release, in addition to 5 DLC products. I paid $60 at launch, and now they release the GoY edition, also $60, which includes the DLC. However, for me to buy the DLC costs $50. It doesn't really make sense. Hell, it's cheaper to sell my original game and then buy the GoY edition. Buying the DLC online also has the disadvantage that I can't resell it later.
If they're pulling that stuff already, then I don't doubt that they'll try to make you buy the demo, then buy the full game at full price, and then buy the DLC at full price. There was even a case recently (I don't remember the game) where the DLC was already included on the original retail disc. It wasn't DLC at all, but the end of the game had been locked and was only unlocked when you paid an additional fee.
I expect this will only get worse. Eventually they'll have you paying a separate fee for every level and every weapon, and when you add it all up, a game that used to cost $50 will cost $150.
If it's as simple as that, then it seems ok. I fear, however, that it will be more like they'll charge you $15 for the demo, then $60 for the full game, then an additional $40 for all the DLC-- and if you were to add all of it together, you'd get the same amount of content that would have been in a $50 game 10 years ago.
Maybe it's just paranoia, but I feel like the days of businesses being innovative to find a way to provide more to their customers is over. Now all the innovation is aimed at getting customers to pay more for less.
Most open source projects are democracies, although not all votes are equal.
Ultimately the question is, who controls checking code in for the official release? Whoever has the power to do that is running things. They may choose to honor the votes of the community (or some subset of the community), but you could argue that it's still not a democracy. If a king decides to go along with a popular vote for a particular decision, is that a democracy?
I'd also argue with the idea that "open source is communism".
Capitalism is an economic system which enables people to allocate their economic resources how they see fit. The fact that individuals and companies participating in open source projects voluntarily share their work does not mean that they're operating outside of the framework of capitalism. Capitalism does not dictate that a person cannot choose to share, nor does it imply that sharing is inappropriate.
It's also worth noting that many open source projects are run by companies which are run for profit.
Well it's my understanding that Carbon simply wasn't supposed to stick around this long. Cocoa was supposed to replace it, but there were some major developers (e.g. Adobe and Microsoft) who refused to transition.
There was even a dust up in the last year or so when 10.6 was released, and Apple made it clear that they weren't ever going to update Carbon to support 64-bit applications. Adobe pretty much flipped out, and is only now working on migrating over to Cocoa in CS5. Microsoft is finally releasing a Cocoa version of Office in 2010.
So in essence, we're 10 years out and the transition from OS9 still isn't done.
Don't get me wrong-- in the past 10 years, Apple has transitioned to an entirely new OS and a different chip architecture (PowerPC->x86), and overall both transitions went fine. I still wouldn't want to keep doing it every couple of years.
People who bought the "paperless office" fad years ago were living in a dreamland.
I don't know... completely paperless? Completely paperless seems impractical, yes. I like having a paper notebook so I can scribble some things out, draw out diagrams, and take it with me everywhere. If you had something like the iPad with the right set of apps, I might be able to use that, but it's expensive and I doubt the right apps are forthcoming.
On the other hand, I remember a couple decades ago when the "paperless office" idea was being circulated as a hot new idea, and at the time paper was used for *everything*. Even small memos typed up in a word processor got printed out by the hundreds and passed out by admin assistants. That sort of thing would seem crazy by today's standards. People are sending emails instead of paper memos. They're emailing PDFs instead of faxing. Younger people, being comfortable with computers, don't print nearly as much as the old guys. Some of it is generational.
But yes, sometimes paper is useful for something. You can't scribble very well on computers. Paper documents also make for good backups-- it's lossy and unsearchable, but they're reliable. And even for the tech savvy non-programmers, sometimes the low-fi solution is easier than trying to whip something up. I still print out procedural checklists. Yes, I could theoretically try to find a program (haven't found a good one) or develop a little web app, but it's easier to just create a word document with a bullet-pointed list and check it off with a pen. It's the little things.
I don't know if you had to support Mac users during the years of transition, but it wasn't quite as easy as you made it sound. It was pretty smooth for such a drastic change, but I wouldn't want to repeat it any more than necessary.
Like I said, I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says. Still, I don't think the point was that writing complex sentences is necessarily a bad thing, but more that writing unnecessarily complex sentences is generally a bad thing.
It would be silly to claim that English speakers should never use words with Latin roots; it would mean throwing away too many wonderful word. I don't think the article I had cited was seriously advocating anything so radical as that. He was pointing out that English has a formal tone that we slip into when we're trying to sound important and official, and many people associate that tone with "good writing". However, writing in that tone is often much less clear, as well as being needlessly pompous.
Eeek. Yes, that's exactly what I was taught. I know my writing is still crappy, but at least I've managed to avoid letting all of those bad habits stick. Some food for thought:
The English language is derived from two main sources. One is Latin, the florid language of ancient Rome. The other is Anglo-Saxon, the plain languages of England and northern Europe. The words derived from Latin are the enemy—they will strangle and suffocate everything you write. The Anglo-Saxon words will set you free.
How do those Latin words do their strangling and suffocating? In general they are long, pompous nouns that end in -ion—like implementation and maximization and communication (five syllables long!)—or that end in -ent—like development and fulfillment. Those nouns express a vague concept or an abstract idea, not a specific action that we can picture—somebody doing something. Here’s a typical sentence: “Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” That means “Before we fixed our money problems.”
Believe it or not, this is the language that people in authority in America routinely use—officials in government and business and education and social work and health care. They think those long Latin words make them sound important. It no longer rains in America; your TV weatherman will tell that you we’re experiencing a precipitation probability situation....
...Those long Latin usages have so infected everyday language in America that you might well think, “If that’s how people write who are running the country, that’s how I’m supposed to write.” It’s not.
I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says, but I agree with this much: we're all taught to use English very badly. Journalists and government officials set a bad example; teachers teach us the wrong things. It's a wonder there are good writers at all.
It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"
Nope. Viacom realized the value of marketing their shows on youtube, which HELPS VIACOM MAKE MONEY.
Worse than that: I think it was both. They basically got viral advertising at the same time that they were able to damage the credibility of the Internet as the future of media distribution. Big media companies like old forms of media distribution.
If it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"? Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?
Yeah, it actually seems to be pretty good. It's lightweight, simple, doesn't include any random junk, and doesn't try to up-sell you to any other products. As far as I know, it's even free to businesses (most other "free" AV software is technically only free for personal use).
I've been using it more or less since its release, and no complaints so far.
Re:Internet on TV? Really?
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 1
Well maybe it would be better?
I mean... I don't know, what kind of an answer do you want? Evidently you have a set top box, so your question strikes me a little like saying, "Why is Toyota offering cars? I already have a car, and it does everything I need a car to do." Well... great. You're all set then.
Well depends on if you mean real/solid science theory, or the the set of beliefs (often referred to as "science") that are held by reductionists.
I'd agree that good science should reserve judgement on what can't be measured, but I would say, "If science can't measure something, then science can't be used to draw any conclusions about it. That doesn't mean that the scientist can't draw conclusions." The scientist is a person, after all, and people draw conclusions and make decisions based on other processes. Science is not the only route to knowledge or decision-making.
But the reality is that sometimes businesses just aren't run very well. There's not always a justification for failing to take employee well being into account.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. That seems like it's not bad. Still, it's not free, it requires you to have an account.
Also it gets some things wrong. For example, it tells me there are updates to my Adobe applications because I'm running CS3 and CS4 is available. It'd be nice if there were a common infrastructure where Adobe you support their own application and decide what updates were sensible instead of relying on someone else to guess.
I'd maintain it's still something that should be done by the OS.
My policy for a long time was that if I had a salaried position where they expected me to respond to work calls/emails outside of work ours, then they needed to get me a separate work phone for that. I didn't want people calling my personal phone. Part of the idea is maintaining a small barrier between personal time and work time-- essentially that I know when an email is a work email is a work email and I can choose to ignore it. I didn't want people calling my personal cell phone unless there was an emergency.
These days, I might resort to that if necessary, but with as nice as smartphones are getting I think there's real value in being able to carry a single device that's your all-in-one PDA/Phone/MP3-player/everything device. I think the real trick would be to set up a Google Voice account and use that with my phone to allow some control over how my calls get routed.
I'm kind of looking forward to having a Google Voice enabled phone. Not there yet, but it's coming.
Funny, I don't worry about the 200 odd distros when I work on a Linux desktop. Admittedly I stick to common distributions, but I think the fragmentation is a non-issue.
All in all, it's not bad. On the other hand, it means every application pops up with its own update notifications. If I haven't used a system for a while or I reinstall from an image, I get a pop-up on just about every application I run. I'd much rather have something that just checks every so often and runs updates for all my programs at once.
Windows is just a mess.
I've been thinking for quite a long time that Apple and Microsoft to come up with package managers for their operating systems. It's ironic because after all the talk of it being hard to install things in Linux, it's much easier to keep a Linux system up to date. In most cases, you can upgrade every application on your computer with a single line in the command line.
Microsoft has "Microsoft Update" and Apple has "System Update", so they basically have the system in place already for their own software, but then 3rd party software all installs their own updaters or expect you to hunt down updates on the web. It seems to me their built-in updaters could be expanded for 3rd party updates through one of two methods:
What's more, according to the background philosophy of our system, there's basically nothing that overrides morality. Read Adam Smith and John Locke, or even the Declaration of Independence. Basic idea: morality is morality. People should be moral. There isn't a law or a contract that can invalidate that.
The idea that corporations should increase their profit is fine. The idea that they have no moral obligations is not fine.
Web apps really aren't good enough. Operation often isn't quite as smooth, there isn't the possibility of offline operation, and AFAIK you can't have push notifications from a web app. All that stuff is fairly important when talking about something like Google Voice.
Of course, this also raises another problem with Apple's model-- not allowing 3rd party apps to run in the background means that Google voice can't do things like, "check for updates every [x] minutes (or by push) and then download any new voicemail messages for offline listening seamlessly without user interaction."
Anyway, even if particular problems can be overcome, it's just not a great solution. I'm an Apple fan too, but let's not make excuses.
You're right, it's not evil. It's merely troubling and problematic. On the plus side, requiring distribution to go through Apple's store creates a central known-good repository of apps, allows Apple to provide a consistent and controlled user experience, and helps Apple maintain their relationship with AT&T.
On the other hand, it prevents developers from distributing applications that they want to distribute, and prevents users from getting applications that they might want. I have an iPhone. I'd like to try out this Opera browser. I'd like to try out Google's "Google Voice" application too. They developed it but Apple wouldn't distribute it. There are a number of perfectly valid applications that have been developed, but that I can't get because Apple decided they didn't want me to have it. It's power that Apple doesn't need to have and which is bound to be abused.
What I find much more chilling, though, is the idea of the applications that are not even being developed because of the approval process. Apple has created an environment where a developer might pour a lot of time and money into creating an application only to find that Apple rejected it. If I were a developer, that would give me pause.
Since I'm an Apple fan, I'd like to think that Apple is forced into this sort of thing because their agreement with AT&T prevents them from allowing people to install certain types of apps (e.g. tethering). After all, even the Nexus One, a Linux phone which isn't locked to any carrier, doesn't allow you to simply install any application you want. Either way, this setup is bad for users, bad for developers, and ultimately it's even bad for Apple.
Do you rip in MP3 or FLAC is the question.
Well I've known people who have >100GB of music ripped at rates between 128kbps and 256kbps. They just had that much music. I just don't even want that much music on my laptop even if it were free. After a while, I feel like it just becomes too much to sort through and maintain.
But different strokes for different folks, right? Still, I don't know what's "typical".
Yeah, but how much music? I know some people who have several hundred gigabytes of music, which I find unimaginable since I only have around 12 GB. (It's not like I'm new to this stuff, but music is expensive and I don't pirate.) I can get by on a 40 GB hard drive in my laptop.
So definitely part of the question is, what's "typical"?
On the other hand, I'm just talking about my laptop; my home server is a different story. There I have >4TB of storage hooked up. So maybe there's a place for both for the time being.
You don't even want to know what went into Uranus.
Paying anything more would be rather evil... I'm not paying full price for the finished product AFTER ALREADY HAVING PAID THEM
I bought Fallout for my PS3. There have been a bit of updates since release, in addition to 5 DLC products. I paid $60 at launch, and now they release the GoY edition, also $60, which includes the DLC. However, for me to buy the DLC costs $50. It doesn't really make sense. Hell, it's cheaper to sell my original game and then buy the GoY edition. Buying the DLC online also has the disadvantage that I can't resell it later.
If they're pulling that stuff already, then I don't doubt that they'll try to make you buy the demo, then buy the full game at full price, and then buy the DLC at full price. There was even a case recently (I don't remember the game) where the DLC was already included on the original retail disc. It wasn't DLC at all, but the end of the game had been locked and was only unlocked when you paid an additional fee.
I expect this will only get worse. Eventually they'll have you paying a separate fee for every level and every weapon, and when you add it all up, a game that used to cost $50 will cost $150.
If it's as simple as that, then it seems ok. I fear, however, that it will be more like they'll charge you $15 for the demo, then $60 for the full game, then an additional $40 for all the DLC-- and if you were to add all of it together, you'd get the same amount of content that would have been in a $50 game 10 years ago.
Maybe it's just paranoia, but I feel like the days of businesses being innovative to find a way to provide more to their customers is over. Now all the innovation is aimed at getting customers to pay more for less.
Most open source projects are democracies, although not all votes are equal.
Ultimately the question is, who controls checking code in for the official release? Whoever has the power to do that is running things. They may choose to honor the votes of the community (or some subset of the community), but you could argue that it's still not a democracy. If a king decides to go along with a popular vote for a particular decision, is that a democracy?
I'd also argue with the idea that "open source is communism".
Capitalism is an economic system which enables people to allocate their economic resources how they see fit. The fact that individuals and companies participating in open source projects voluntarily share their work does not mean that they're operating outside of the framework of capitalism. Capitalism does not dictate that a person cannot choose to share, nor does it imply that sharing is inappropriate.
It's also worth noting that many open source projects are run by companies which are run for profit.
Well it's my understanding that Carbon simply wasn't supposed to stick around this long. Cocoa was supposed to replace it, but there were some major developers (e.g. Adobe and Microsoft) who refused to transition.
There was even a dust up in the last year or so when 10.6 was released, and Apple made it clear that they weren't ever going to update Carbon to support 64-bit applications. Adobe pretty much flipped out, and is only now working on migrating over to Cocoa in CS5. Microsoft is finally releasing a Cocoa version of Office in 2010.
So in essence, we're 10 years out and the transition from OS9 still isn't done.
Don't get me wrong-- in the past 10 years, Apple has transitioned to an entirely new OS and a different chip architecture (PowerPC->x86), and overall both transitions went fine. I still wouldn't want to keep doing it every couple of years.
People who bought the "paperless office" fad years ago were living in a dreamland.
I don't know... completely paperless? Completely paperless seems impractical, yes. I like having a paper notebook so I can scribble some things out, draw out diagrams, and take it with me everywhere. If you had something like the iPad with the right set of apps, I might be able to use that, but it's expensive and I doubt the right apps are forthcoming.
On the other hand, I remember a couple decades ago when the "paperless office" idea was being circulated as a hot new idea, and at the time paper was used for *everything*. Even small memos typed up in a word processor got printed out by the hundreds and passed out by admin assistants. That sort of thing would seem crazy by today's standards. People are sending emails instead of paper memos. They're emailing PDFs instead of faxing. Younger people, being comfortable with computers, don't print nearly as much as the old guys. Some of it is generational.
But yes, sometimes paper is useful for something. You can't scribble very well on computers. Paper documents also make for good backups-- it's lossy and unsearchable, but they're reliable. And even for the tech savvy non-programmers, sometimes the low-fi solution is easier than trying to whip something up. I still print out procedural checklists. Yes, I could theoretically try to find a program (haven't found a good one) or develop a little web app, but it's easier to just create a word document with a bullet-pointed list and check it off with a pen. It's the little things.
I don't know if you had to support Mac users during the years of transition, but it wasn't quite as easy as you made it sound. It was pretty smooth for such a drastic change, but I wouldn't want to repeat it any more than necessary.
Like I said, I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says. Still, I don't think the point was that writing complex sentences is necessarily a bad thing, but more that writing unnecessarily complex sentences is generally a bad thing.
It would be silly to claim that English speakers should never use words with Latin roots; it would mean throwing away too many wonderful word. I don't think the article I had cited was seriously advocating anything so radical as that. He was pointing out that English has a formal tone that we slip into when we're trying to sound important and official, and many people associate that tone with "good writing". However, writing in that tone is often much less clear, as well as being needlessly pompous.
The English language is derived from two main sources. One is Latin, the florid language of ancient Rome. The other is Anglo-Saxon, the plain languages of England and northern Europe. The words derived from Latin are the enemy—they will strangle and suffocate everything you write. The Anglo-Saxon words will set you free.
How do those Latin words do their strangling and suffocating? In general they are long, pompous nouns that end in -ion—like implementation and maximization and communication (five syllables long!)—or that end in -ent—like development and fulfillment. Those nouns express a vague concept or an abstract idea, not a specific action that we can picture—somebody doing something. Here’s a typical sentence: “Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” That means “Before we fixed our money problems.”
Believe it or not, this is the language that people in authority in America routinely use—officials in government and business and education and social work and health care. They think those long Latin words make them sound important. It no longer rains in America; your TV weatherman will tell that you we’re experiencing a precipitation probability situation....
...Those long Latin usages have so infected everyday language in America that you might well think, “If that’s how people write who are running the country, that’s how I’m supposed to write.” It’s not.
- Writing English as a Second Language by William Zinsser
I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says, but I agree with this much: we're all taught to use English very badly. Journalists and government officials set a bad example; teachers teach us the wrong things. It's a wonder there are good writers at all.
It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"
Nope. Viacom realized the value of marketing their shows on youtube, which HELPS VIACOM MAKE MONEY.
Worse than that: I think it was both. They basically got viral advertising at the same time that they were able to damage the credibility of the Internet as the future of media distribution. Big media companies like old forms of media distribution.
If it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"? Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?
Yeah, it actually seems to be pretty good. It's lightweight, simple, doesn't include any random junk, and doesn't try to up-sell you to any other products. As far as I know, it's even free to businesses (most other "free" AV software is technically only free for personal use).
I've been using it more or less since its release, and no complaints so far.
Well maybe it would be better?
I mean... I don't know, what kind of an answer do you want? Evidently you have a set top box, so your question strikes me a little like saying, "Why is Toyota offering cars? I already have a car, and it does everything I need a car to do." Well... great. You're all set then.
Well depends on if you mean real/solid science theory, or the the set of beliefs (often referred to as "science") that are held by reductionists.
I'd agree that good science should reserve judgement on what can't be measured, but I would say, "If science can't measure something, then science can't be used to draw any conclusions about it. That doesn't mean that the scientist can't draw conclusions." The scientist is a person, after all, and people draw conclusions and make decisions based on other processes. Science is not the only route to knowledge or decision-making.
But the reality is that sometimes businesses just aren't run very well. There's not always a justification for failing to take employee well being into account.