Either "The Woz's" argument is accurate, or it isn't. Trashing a person based on their position vis-a-vis the mainstream doesn't detract from that, and in fact, smacks of elitism.
"Don't listen to him! He hasn't participated in a Perl Obfuscation Contest in *ages*! He ain't L337 no more!":-(
As a matter of fact, in most of the occasions I've left a job, I needed to keep access to the last minute to assist with a smooth handover of my work.
That would certainly be a rational - maybe even honourable! - response to the situation, on the part of the company hierarchy. A quick perusal through the antedotes, however, would suggest that the greatest probability lies in the "higher-ups" adopting one of two course:
1) React with paranoia. The former underling might now be out to get you, ruin your company, and endanger your own employment status. Lock them out of the system, and have security escort them from the building.
2) React like a jerk. The former underling has personally insulted you by not appreciating what you and the company have done for them. Make their lives difficult while you still can - lock them out of the system immediately, and have security escort them from the building.
The security rationalisations that some have suggested don't really work - if a resigning employee wanted to do damage, they would leave a few software timebombs laying around. They wouldn't start deleting random directories the minute after handing-in their papers. For my part, I've encountered both responses, and they seemed to both boil down to a "me-alpha", "you-beta" mentality. Both of the above response-types assume that the resignee has some sort of intent to disrupt the feudal order of the company...
As other posters have alluded to, such outlooks may result from a lack of respect for both other human beings, and basic liberal values.
Whatever happened to being polite when visiting somebody?
Whatever happened to being polite to one's guests?
I think that rule was qualified as a result of 50-years worth of incidents of UN workers being murdered by insurrgents/terrorists/gov't militias/warlords/freedom fighters by means of small-arms fire/bombs/machetes/concentrated heavy-artillery fire. JMO.
The project also has some big name supporters on board, including Google, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch...
In related news, shares in Fox News fell on the revelation that the Dark Lord, Rupert Murdoch, had involvement in a project will not conveivably forward the cause of Evil.
When asked to comment from atop his firey throne of bronze in the smoldering pits of Gehenna, Lucifer the Evening Star was quoted as saying, "I don't like this. I don't like this at all."
Hey, shouldn't people be allowed to produce pollution they breathe themselves? Do you care if I smoke and ruin my own lungs, so long as you don't have to breathe it? That is, doesn't the offense of pollution, if offense there be, come from producing pollution that other people have to breathe?
A better metric for determining the acceptible levels of pollution might be to measure it's generalized impact on the effected parties. That would include impact assessments on quality-of-life degradation, direct medical impacts, resource & infrasturture degradation due to corrosion and local ecological changes, etcetera.
In the case of solid-waste being dumped in landfills (and disregarding off-gassing), it's usually just a matter for local citizens to contend with. In the case of water & air contamination though, you very often have cross-jurisdiction, cross-border, international, or even global effects. In those cases, it's usually time to break out the diplomats...
It's greedy, sure, but isn't that the entire point of capitalism?
Just my understanding mind you, but I think that the point of capitalism is to offer the greatest and most efficient distribution & exchange of resources to individuals at the lowest possible cost. If that were to be taken as a given, we might observe that the music industry is very, very broken, and anti-capitalist.
It does seem to be stuck on distributing its resource in a comparatively inefficient manner (shipping CDs), through limited channels (contracted retail stores), at a higher cost of production, and a higher price for the buyer...
Slashdot Mirror
Either "The Woz's" argument is accurate, or it isn't. Trashing a person based on their position vis-a-vis the mainstream doesn't detract from that, and in fact, smacks of elitism.
:-(
"Don't listen to him! He hasn't participated in a Perl Obfuscation Contest in *ages*! He ain't L337 no more!"
As a matter of fact, in most of the occasions I've left a job, I needed to keep access to the last minute to assist with a smooth handover of my work.
That would certainly be a rational - maybe even honourable! - response to the situation, on the part of the company hierarchy. A quick perusal through the antedotes, however, would suggest that the greatest probability lies in the "higher-ups" adopting one of two course:
1) React with paranoia. The former underling might now be out to get you, ruin your company, and endanger your own employment status. Lock them out of the system, and have security escort them from the building.
2) React like a jerk. The former underling has personally insulted you by not appreciating what you and the company have done for them. Make their lives difficult while you still can - lock them out of the system immediately, and have security escort them from the building.
The security rationalisations that some have suggested don't really work - if a resigning employee wanted to do damage, they would leave a few software timebombs laying around. They wouldn't start deleting random directories the minute after handing-in their papers. For my part, I've encountered both responses, and they seemed to both boil down to a "me-alpha", "you-beta" mentality. Both of the above response-types assume that the resignee has some sort of intent to disrupt the feudal order of the company...
As other posters have alluded to, such outlooks may result from a lack of respect for both other human beings, and basic liberal values.
I think they had problems scaling their budget.
Whatever happened to being polite when visiting somebody?
Whatever happened to being polite to one's guests?
I think that rule was qualified as a result of 50-years worth of incidents of UN workers being murdered by insurrgents/terrorists/gov't militias/warlords/freedom fighters by means of small-arms fire/bombs/machetes/concentrated heavy-artillery fire. JMO.
The project also has some big name supporters on board, including Google, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch...
In related news, shares in Fox News fell on the revelation that the Dark Lord, Rupert Murdoch, had involvement in a project will not conveivably forward the cause of Evil.
When asked to comment from atop his firey throne of bronze in the smoldering pits of Gehenna, Lucifer the Evening Star was quoted as saying, "I don't like this. I don't like this at all."
Hey, shouldn't people be allowed to produce pollution they breathe themselves? Do you care if I smoke and ruin my own lungs, so long as you don't have to breathe it? That is, doesn't the offense of pollution, if offense there be, come from producing pollution that other people have to breathe?
A better metric for determining the acceptible levels of pollution might be to measure it's generalized impact on the effected parties. That would include impact assessments on quality-of-life degradation, direct medical impacts, resource & infrasturture degradation due to corrosion and local ecological changes, etcetera.
In the case of solid-waste being dumped in landfills (and disregarding off-gassing), it's usually just a matter for local citizens to contend with. In the case of water & air contamination though, you very often have cross-jurisdiction, cross-border, international, or even global effects. In those cases, it's usually time to break out the diplomats...
Just my understanding mind you, but I think that the point of capitalism is to offer the greatest and most efficient distribution & exchange of resources to individuals at the lowest possible cost. If that were to be taken as a given, we might observe that the music industry is very, very broken, and anti-capitalist.
It does seem to be stuck on distributing its resource in a comparatively inefficient manner (shipping CDs), through limited channels (contracted retail stores), at a higher cost of production, and a higher price for the buyer...