It is all about degree's of security, I would feel rather uncomfortable putting large amounts of data on the border of any network, the cost of not doing so is minimal (in terms of hardware and power utilisation) and the decrease in risk is, in my opinion, significant.
No, quite simply a 5 - 10 - 15 year term would be just that, if the creator dies the copyright stands, any royalties could be paid to the heirs or a foundation for promoting whatever arts were being produced by the creator, or they could go to a charity nominated at the time the copyright was registered, hell for all I care they could be used to fund copyright enforcement, the point at which something becomes or ceases to be culturally significant will not be impacted significantly by the creators death (although its value (in cultural and/or monetary terms) may rise). The important thing is to get some sort of reform, and reduce the period works are locked away, especially if we can prevent the current dilemma where works are out of print (or otherwise not produced) not easily available and (as they are under copyright) not easily reproducible.
I wonder what current/future legal/technical restrictions will prevent the movement of material that is public-domain in one jurisdiction but under copyright in another will appear. There are already issues surrounding Australia (which IIRC at least up until recently had a more limited copyright term).
My greatest fear however is still that an effective DRM mechanism will add massively to the usual problems involved in the long term accessibility of culturally relevant material. After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.
I would suggest that (parts) of the EU, or rather elements of the apparatus that make up the Frankenstein-esque quasi-federal EU 'government' are considerably more pro-consumer and anti-monopolist than most other similar bodies. I am not surprised that this has come from the EU, it is in line with many of their better idea's (although there still appear to be quite a few stinkers hanging around in the system.)
My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.
I wontget into a lengthy discussion of your points, mainly because I generally agree with the direction (if not the specifics). However there is one glaring problem:
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try) Firstly I don't think that copyright should be about terms of life + X years, it should be about a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), but short enough that material is still culturally relevant when it becomes public domain (IMHO this would be far shorter for software due to the pace of change, especially when compared to other arts, probably longest for books as they seem to endure). It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection:) .
Hmm, personally I prefer my routers not to have too many potential vulnerabilities, yours sounds like a nightmare from that perspective. What you are telling me is that a box on the edge of your network, a box that presumably is very open to abuse also happens to hold a huge volume of data, not too bright, even if it is just TV shows. Personally I'd grab a modest piece of hardware suited to the role and ensure it was locked down as tightly as possible.
Just out of interest, what OS is this monster router running?
Does it really matter what the political affiliation of those who support and encourage this are? I would have thought that in the "Land of the Free" the limitation of freedom would be frowned upon. Moreover what worries me with these free-speech zones is that I have no idea what is permissible outside of them. I hope they don't catch on anywhere else, small protest exclusions zones in sensitive areas are bad enough but the reverse (i.e. small protest-zones with protests banned everywhere else) are frightening and potentially catastrophic for a democracy.
It's a cultural problem, if enough people wanted to use public transport some entrepreneurial sort would provide some, unfortunately it would seem that compared to other places around the world, the US places a disproportionate value on owning a car whilst at the same time stigmatising the use of public transport.
Hell one of the parent posts even suggests that the 20 minutes he drives to work is important to him as it provides solitude, something that he feels he does not have enough of, personally, I'd rather save the petrol money (petrol prices being what they are) and take a walk in the evening/morning.
In my experience the only way to ensure value comes down to the processes involved in the planning, acquisition and implementation of any given project.
Ensure you have a process for identifying the requirements of any new service or equipment acquisition and do it without focusing on a specific system or product, if you limit yourself initially because you have formed a preconception of what you think you need, or you simply copy what others have done before, you will not get a solution that meets your needs.
Acquisitions of any type should always solve a business problem, whether you are addressing poor or suboptimal communications, the lack of external access, the rigidity of an existing system, scalability, security or stability issues or the lack of proper redundancy and disaster planning. You should not be buying things for the sake of it, or because someone simply thinks it might be a good idea, most of all don't buy things because other people have them. Justification is everything, otherwise you end up with things you don't need or want (but need to support) that don't provide business benefit, but do drain budgets which in turn makes it harder to address real issues. The identification of problems should come from within the business (that's what management is there for to a degree) or from independent consultants brought in for that purpose, it should never come from a vendor who (as it happens) also provides a solution. If a vendor makes a suggestion then assess the need and see if there is a business requirement, but do it independently.
Make sure you have a decent tendering process when you are sourcing equipment or services (for smaller businesses, that basically means you need to shop around, and tell your existing suppliers that you are doing so). Make sure that there is input not only from management and finance but also from end users and IT staff (sounds basic but not always the case...). You should also have a well thought out budget (after all you are solving a problem and problems should be quantifiable in cash terms), stick to it.
I don't even want to think about the number of times I have seen needless upgrades, additions and total changes to IT infrastructures for no good reason and more importantly with no real benefit. Resist it if you can (but don't resist change for the sake of resisting change, that is just s bad as doing the opposite.
As the parent suggests, price is not an indicator of performance. If your specifications and requirements are met, and you are within budget then great, if you are under budget then you are ahead of the game! With that in mind though, do thoroughly check out your suppliers (its inexpensive and easy enough to do), if a supplier is cheap and has a bad reputation then avoid them, make sure your suppliers can deliver before you sign contracts, sure you may be able to sue them (if you have all the information and the budget to do so) after the event, but it will be much cheaper to get it right first time.
Finally, I have found that the law of diminishing returns seems rather applicable to IT, as things get more and more expensive, the benefit from obtaining them becomes less and less. For example, a email system of some kind in a necessity in most businesses and generally speaking they are fairly inexpensive (relatively at least), whilst electronic whiteboards (my per hate) or upgrading cat5 to cat6 cable (without changing anything else, - something suggested to me by a vendor recently to improve network performance..) bring only marginal benefits but are relatively expensive.
Hmm, that was probably all totally offtopic - never mind.
I would argue that salaries would drop across the board, my point wasn't that a union would prevent any of this, it was to point out that skilled positions are no more secure, nor less prone to abusive practice than any other. Unions should in practice prevent unfair, abusive and exploitative behaviours whilst providing other benefits, that is useful to most people, as such unions are still relevant.
as to whether you would feel the need to join is a personal matter, something I couldn't comment on as it presumably depend on your circumstances, I would certainly encourage anyone to take a look what is on offer and make an informed decision as to membership, preferably without assuming that it is unpatriotic/communist/economic-terror etc... that includes my own staff, although I currently don't seem to have anyone knocking on the door asking to negotiate a collective agreement with regard to conditions or pay.
I prefer not to have half my co-workers be un-firable idiots or to be paid less than them despite doing twice as much work (as a result of being less senior). 1) Don't hire idiots, 2) Fire people who don't pull their weight at work.
I'm not sure how a union would prevent you from doing either. I have never personally seen a union act against the interests of its members, the situation you are describing does damage its members, mainly because the employers companies would be uncompetitive.
I would suggest that you have experience with labour cartels rather than unions, either that or unions that are fairly incompetent and not fit for purpose. I cant help with that, and its a shame if true. Although it does tally with what I have heard about union actions in the US specifically relating to postal type services and ports, that's fairly inexcusable and I certainly wouldn't allow that kind of situation to develop within my organisation.
Yeah, that I have seen, both in organisations in general (I've been doing the same job for 25 years, I must be better than you) and within unions. In both cases it can be perpetuated by the fact that benefits often accrue based on time rather than merit.
As for researching and responding, this is Slashdot!!
Most of what I have said applys to things I have seen and my general opinion of the unions I have dealt with, I doubt it is the same accross the board, there is a lot of scope for abuse, especially if the legislative framework surrounding union organisation isn't up to scratch.
I do hope however that I have in some way made you feel more positive toward the idea of unions, if not the reality as it exists in some places.
Why is there this overriding assumption that people *must* join a union if they exist?
If in any industry unions are mandatory then that industry (and especially the unions within it) are so broken as to be unfit for purpose.
My point is simply that unions provide value and support, if your employer sues you tomorrow a union could probably (should) help you to fight back, without crippling yourself, not to mention that they will have experience doing it, that is potentially worth it. Obviously if you dont want any part of that, then you are free to do what you want.
Hmm, if everyone decided tomorrow train to become an engineer, how much do you think engineers would be getting paid in three years time? The idea that unions are there to protect stupid people who can't do any better is rather idiotic. Then again, bloggers requiring a union does seem rather daft, unless it is structured more along the lines of a student union....
Very true, that isn't really related to unions though, in a market where there is an under supply of quality staff *and* a tendency to over pay people, unions don't tend to be popular, and frankly since the workforce have sufficient choice and opportunity, they are probably not needed. That's not true in most sectors now though and frankly even if it where there are still additional benefits to being part of a large group with some political and/or economic power.
Now again, this probably has something to do with where you come from and the kind of union activities you have seen or experienced but either way, I will try and explain why:
The internet internet is a good way of getting information out to people who are looking for it, or in some cases for bringing injustices to the attention of someone interested enough to take a stand, but only if whatever information is being put out there in a blog or article is interesting, you are literate enough to communicate it, *and* you have the technical skills to publish at all.
Now, most people are employed by small company's, unfortunately small company's are generally only interesting to the communities they serve, even then not always.
So lets assume an individual, lets call him John has been unfairly dismissed by Smith and Smith textiles of Notown, Manchester. If John blogs about Smith and Smiths' unfair treatment of him, who is going to listen? No one. Even on the off chance that someone who uses Smith and Smith textiles as a supplier reads the blog the chances are that they will assume (or will be told by S&S) that John is disgruntled and bitter for having lost his job and now wants to get his own back. No one is going to pick up his story, no one is going to expose it to millions of people.
OK so that is one case where a real union could have helped. Lets look at another.
Lets say a J&S Steel in Nothere, Sheffield, decide that they can make a bigger profit if they don't replace out of date, but still technically legal milling machines. How do the employee's talk to and put pressure on the company? Do they blog about it and find that either no-one cares? A potentially worse scenario is that people do pick up the story, it is well publicised, and then the employee's find that the company's S&J Steel supply terminate their contracts because they don't want to be associated with the bad press surrounding S&J Steel.
The point is, when a problem occurs, you don't want the first response to be punitive, whether its legal action or whether it is some sort of publicity campaign. To start with you need to negotiate, to negotiate you need some sort of leverage. The most realistic option for the staff of S&J Mills would have been a discussion between the workforce and the employer, of course that would involve sorting out a structure (find a speaker, list demands, decide what is acceptable etc..) all tasks a union could have done and would have had experience in doing.
Now your last paragraph is interesting, mainly because what you are suggesting is setting up a union. A limited one but still a union. As I said before, unions are not about strikes, or even about industrial action of any kind, they are about collective bargaining, providing leverage to the average worker and communicating with employers before things get too bad.
Lastly, a word about paying to be part of a union, primarily because you stated that you thought union dues were a bad thing; If you organise a forum or any other grouping that hopes to be taken seriously and act professionally, you will need some funds (even if its just for hosting and maybe paying a moderator), rather than allowing outside organisations to gain leverage by fund-raising through sponsorship or advertising, paying for membership allows you to stay in control of your funds. Most union membership fee's are pittance anyway (where I am in any case), and if they are not, well then there is an indication of a union that probably isn't working properly.
Finally, lets not forget that just because there is a Teachers union, or a Telecommunications union etc.. it doesn't mean (shouldn't mean) that everyone is a member, it is still a personal choice. If there are mandatory unions within any industry, then that again is an indication that the unions serving the workers of that industry are inadequate and probably not fit for purpose (assuming of course that the unions themselves support the fact that membership is mandatory).
The reasons many of these laws exist is because of the work done by unions in the past. Moreover the fundamental problem that an employer usually has more power and resources than an employee still stands, this means that if you are subject to unfair or illegal treatment it is still a case of you (with limited resources) against your employer (with more resources), a fight that you may find hard to start let alone win. Unions are supposed to address this imbalance by providing you with the resources and support you need to take an errant employer on.
It should also be noted that there are still issues that unions are fighting on, obviously what these issues are depends on where you look, but they exist. A simple situation that unions can and do address is pay, employers often do not want to pay employee's (especially at the lowest level) what they are worth, sure they will pay the minimum legal wage, they may even pay more than the minimum possible wage, however for an employee to take unilateral action (i.e. protest or demand extra pay on threat of leaving) would be pointless, they would be dismissed and the situation would remain the same, the dismissal serving as a disincentive for any other employee considering the same path. Obviously a union makes it possible for the entire workforce (or the group affected) to take action.
Now that example in the context of the US is usually seen as negative, it is usually assumed that this pressure by unions for higher pay (and often job protection) is unfair on the employer, and in some cases it is, especially when an employer *is* paying a fair wage, or where an employer *Cannot* pay more. In these cases the union should always be looking to protect its members interest, that is to say to safeguard the jobs of its members and achieving the best possible collective agreements, not to harm its members by forcing an employer to become uncompetitive in the marketplace (leading to potential job cuts or insolvency).
So in short, unions are valuable and useful, if, the members of a union have sufficient sway within it (so as to be able to present their views, usually by way of a ballot), and also if the union organisation is rational and reasonable when dealing with employers. Most importantly there should always be good communication between unions and employers, strikes should be avoided and used only as a last resort against uncooperative and abusive employers.
Modern unions also generally provide additional protections and services to members, things like legal advice (not just related to employment) and insurance, due to the fact that they (generally) represent a large pool of employed individuals, they are also in a position to use their size to arrange preferential prices for goods and services (in some cases housing) for their members. Finally they are also a potential ally for an employer who has issues with a particular employee, they are after all a third party and therefore able to give (one would hope) rational and informed (and partially independent) advice and guidance with regard to disciplinary action.
Anyway, unions are a good thing, as long as they are reasonable, every one I have dealt with has been professional and showed common sense in their dealings, although I must say some of the stories I hear coming from the US are that the unions that exist there are not quite set up in the same manner, in some cases apparently acting more a labour cartel than an organisation geared to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation (I hope that that is not a correct picture but simply that horror stories are more fun to tell than stories about successes).
Short answer "Yes". Long answer "Yes, but not too many and preferably when they are in a position to look after them properly. I am assuming this is easier in Europe (not sure about Scandinavia) than anywhere else in the world (free education and health). What you don't want is an unhealthy, unsupported, ageing population, that will end in tears".
Its fairly simple, much like the crapware you get when (if) you buy a new computer, it makes your purchase cheaper.
If the supermarket is making $X every time you visit by providing advertising then you may find that a portion of that advertising revenue is used (one would hope) to reduce the cost of the products.
The problem is that, as with loyalty cards, savings clubs, software registration etc.. you are giving up a little bit of personal data (or a lot depending on the T&C's you agree to when you sign up). Most people assume that the purpose of this is to help whoever you are dealing with at the time to provide you with a better service (after all that is usually the stated intent) whilst really that information is 'shared' with (or sold) to other interesting parties.
We are not there yet (I hope) but I can see that insurance companies and health providers (for those of you unfortunate enough not to have a national health system) get hold of that data and, on the basis of your booze/tabacco/junk food/petrol/car stereo etc.. purchases, decide to up your premium. There are many organisations that would love to have very finely grained information about their customers and the ability to verify what their customers are telling them, the vehicle that can be used to obtain this information is a very small saving to the customer.
This kind of 'savings' mentality, which, lets face it is a fallacy anyway, given that people will spend £50 on petrol so that they can shop round to save £10 on a £1500 TV and then buy it on finance at 19%, is what will lead to the acceptance of more and more unregulated breaches of privacy. The idea of an implanted RFID tag that tracks your movements when shopping, unfettered access to you bank records, access to your email and mobile phone records would seem an evil one at best to most people here, however if it was sold as a method of saving 10% across the board whilst shopping, at the same time making you eligible for $10,000 of interest free credit (25.9% after 6 months, secured on your first born) would seem a great idea, and at most a minor concession to many others.*
What will be interesting to see is whether cheap credit and expensive advertising disappear with the looming recession, or whether they are retained as a sure fire way of providing a short term boost to various economies.
*Tin foil hat firmly in place on my part obviously
This isn't just about the OS upgrades though, the huge difference between updating a windows box and (for example) a Debian box is that you update *everything* when you update. On top of that you can (as with windows, just go for security updates, use a local mirror (I assume windows does this) and automate updates.) Of course that's a home environment, for corporate environments it is even easier as your local mirror and update system (WSUS equivalent) is also handily your software repository and RIS service.
On a home windows box you may have to configure 5-8 different update systems (sometimes different, or at least separate systems for different packages from the same vendor) *and* make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do, not to mention that some software doesn't even have an automated update facility and needs manual upgrading. In a corporate settings you should be able to apply most updates in an automatic way (Although some probably wont be easily automated) and WUS takes some of the strain for the OS, other Microsoft Software and Drivers etc..)
Strangely even my ISP offers a Debian mirror these days so downloads are blindingly fast (I actually manage to reach the DSL download 'speeds' I am paying for).
The minimum system requirements are a 1Ghz or better x86 processor and 512Mb RAM, so whilst they should be easy to meet they are higher than the absolute minimum you could make do with (and obviously you are going to need a x86 box, no using a nice little ARM box or an old PPC Mac). Having said that is apparently runs very well at close to the minimum system requirements. There also seems to be a requirement for a DVD drive and a monitor, which I assume is for the install, so you can probably get rid of both once your 'server' is up and running.
However according to the FAQ's on MS's own website;
*Why aren't you releasing the software standalone to consumers?
We want to help ensure customers have a simplified, quality experience with Windows Home Server. The best way to do this is to deliver Windows Home Server on integrated hardware/software solutions through OEMs and system builders that are tested and meet system requirements. So buying it and installing it is apparently not what you are supposed to be able to do. (not saying you can't, obviously, if you can get hold of the software legitimately). That presumably means that anyone *buying* a Windows Home Server as a package, is going to end up with hardware of a higher specification that absolutely necessary, and probably pay a higher price.
Personally I would say that if you are running (or planning to run) Vista *and* have a requirement for the features provided *and* are not too interested in flexibility *and* have the budget for it, then this is probably a nice and simple approach. For anyone else there are lots and lots of options that (with various degrees of work) will do the same or more for less.
Slashdot Mirror
It is all about degree's of security, I would feel rather uncomfortable putting large amounts of data on the border of any network, the cost of not doing so is minimal (in terms of hardware and power utilisation) and the decrease in risk is, in my opinion, significant.
No, quite simply a 5 - 10 - 15 year term would be just that, if the creator dies the copyright stands, any royalties could be paid to the heirs or a foundation for promoting whatever arts were being produced by the creator, or they could go to a charity nominated at the time the copyright was registered, hell for all I care they could be used to fund copyright enforcement, the point at which something becomes or ceases to be culturally significant will not be impacted significantly by the creators death (although its value (in cultural and/or monetary terms) may rise). The important thing is to get some sort of reform, and reduce the period works are locked away, especially if we can prevent the current dilemma where works are out of print (or otherwise not produced) not easily available and (as they are under copyright) not easily reproducible.
I wonder what current/future legal/technical restrictions will prevent the movement of material that is public-domain in one jurisdiction but under copyright in another will appear. There are already issues surrounding Australia (which IIRC at least up until recently had a more limited copyright term).
My greatest fear however is still that an effective DRM mechanism will add massively to the usual problems involved in the long term accessibility of culturally relevant material. After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.
I would suggest that (parts) of the EU, or rather elements of the apparatus that make up the Frankenstein-esque quasi-federal EU 'government' are considerably more pro-consumer and anti-monopolist than most other similar bodies. I am not surprised that this has come from the EU, it is in line with many of their better idea's (although there still appear to be quite a few stinkers hanging around in the system.)
My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.
But then I am a pessimist, happy Hanukkah.
Hmm, personally I prefer my routers not to have too many potential vulnerabilities, yours sounds like a nightmare from that perspective. What you are telling me is that a box on the edge of your network, a box that presumably is very open to abuse also happens to hold a huge volume of data, not too bright, even if it is just TV shows. Personally I'd grab a modest piece of hardware suited to the role and ensure it was locked down as tightly as possible.
Just out of interest, what OS is this monster router running?
If that's a dedicated router then its overkill.
Does it really matter what the political affiliation of those who support and encourage this are? I would have thought that in the "Land of the Free" the limitation of freedom would be frowned upon. Moreover what worries me with these free-speech zones is that I have no idea what is permissible outside of them. I hope they don't catch on anywhere else, small protest exclusions zones in sensitive areas are bad enough but the reverse (i.e. small protest-zones with protests banned everywhere else) are frightening and potentially catastrophic for a democracy.
It's a cultural problem, if enough people wanted to use public transport some entrepreneurial sort would provide some, unfortunately it would seem that compared to other places around the world, the US places a disproportionate value on owning a car whilst at the same time stigmatising the use of public transport.
Hell one of the parent posts even suggests that the 20 minutes he drives to work is important to him as it provides solitude, something that he feels he does not have enough of, personally, I'd rather save the petrol money (petrol prices being what they are) and take a walk in the evening/morning.
I totally agree.
In my experience the only way to ensure value comes down to the processes involved in the planning, acquisition and implementation of any given project.
Ensure you have a process for identifying the requirements of any new service or equipment acquisition and do it without focusing on a specific system or product, if you limit yourself initially because you have formed a preconception of what you think you need, or you simply copy what others have done before, you will not get a solution that meets your needs.
Acquisitions of any type should always solve a business problem, whether you are addressing poor or suboptimal communications, the lack of external access, the rigidity of an existing system, scalability, security or stability issues or the lack of proper redundancy and disaster planning. You should not be buying things for the sake of it, or because someone simply thinks it might be a good idea, most of all don't buy things because other people have them. Justification is everything, otherwise you end up with things you don't need or want (but need to support) that don't provide business benefit, but do drain budgets which in turn makes it harder to address real issues. The identification of problems should come from within the business (that's what management is there for to a degree) or from independent consultants brought in for that purpose, it should never come from a vendor who (as it happens) also provides a solution. If a vendor makes a suggestion then assess the need and see if there is a business requirement, but do it independently.
Make sure you have a decent tendering process when you are sourcing equipment or services (for smaller businesses, that basically means you need to shop around, and tell your existing suppliers that you are doing so). Make sure that there is input not only from management and finance but also from end users and IT staff (sounds basic but not always the case...). You should also have a well thought out budget (after all you are solving a problem and problems should be quantifiable in cash terms), stick to it.
I don't even want to think about the number of times I have seen needless upgrades, additions and total changes to IT infrastructures for no good reason and more importantly with no real benefit. Resist it if you can (but don't resist change for the sake of resisting change, that is just s bad as doing the opposite.
As the parent suggests, price is not an indicator of performance. If your specifications and requirements are met, and you are within budget then great, if you are under budget then you are ahead of the game! With that in mind though, do thoroughly check out your suppliers (its inexpensive and easy enough to do), if a supplier is cheap and has a bad reputation then avoid them, make sure your suppliers can deliver before you sign contracts, sure you may be able to sue them (if you have all the information and the budget to do so) after the event, but it will be much cheaper to get it right first time.
Finally, I have found that the law of diminishing returns seems rather applicable to IT, as things get more and more expensive, the benefit from obtaining them becomes less and less. For example, a email system of some kind in a necessity in most businesses and generally speaking they are fairly inexpensive (relatively at least), whilst electronic whiteboards (my per hate) or upgrading cat5 to cat6 cable (without changing anything else, - something suggested to me by a vendor recently to improve network performance..) bring only marginal benefits but are relatively expensive.
Hmm, that was probably all totally offtopic - never mind.
I would argue that salaries would drop across the board, my point wasn't that a union would prevent any of this, it was to point out that skilled positions are no more secure, nor less prone to abusive practice than any other. Unions should in practice prevent unfair, abusive and exploitative behaviours whilst providing other benefits, that is useful to most people, as such unions are still relevant.
as to whether you would feel the need to join is a personal matter, something I couldn't comment on as it presumably depend on your circumstances, I would certainly encourage anyone to take a look what is on offer and make an informed decision as to membership, preferably without assuming that it is unpatriotic/communist/economic-terror etc... that includes my own staff, although I currently don't seem to have anyone knocking on the door asking to negotiate a collective agreement with regard to conditions or pay.
I'm not sure how a union would prevent you from doing either. I have never personally seen a union act against the interests of its members, the situation you are describing does damage its members, mainly because the employers companies would be uncompetitive.
I would suggest that you have experience with labour cartels rather than unions, either that or unions that are fairly incompetent and not fit for purpose. I cant help with that, and its a shame if true. Although it does tally with what I have heard about union actions in the US specifically relating to postal type services and ports, that's fairly inexcusable and I certainly wouldn't allow that kind of situation to develop within my organisation.
Yeah, that I have seen, both in organisations in general (I've been doing the same job for 25 years, I must be better than you) and within unions. In both cases it can be perpetuated by the fact that benefits often accrue based on time rather than merit.
As for researching and responding, this is Slashdot!!
Most of what I have said applys to things I have seen and my general opinion of the unions I have dealt with, I doubt it is the same accross the board, there is a lot of scope for abuse, especially if the legislative framework surrounding union organisation isn't up to scratch.
I do hope however that I have in some way made you feel more positive toward the idea of unions, if not the reality as it exists in some places.
Why is there this overriding assumption that people *must* join a union if they exist?
If in any industry unions are mandatory then that industry (and especially the unions within it) are so broken as to be unfit for purpose.
My point is simply that unions provide value and support, if your employer sues you tomorrow a union could probably (should) help you to fight back, without crippling yourself, not to mention that they will have experience doing it, that is potentially worth it. Obviously if you dont want any part of that, then you are free to do what you want.
Hmm, if everyone decided tomorrow train to become an engineer, how much do you think engineers would be getting paid in three years time? The idea that unions are there to protect stupid people who can't do any better is rather idiotic. Then again, bloggers requiring a union does seem rather daft, unless it is structured more along the lines of a student union....
Very true, that isn't really related to unions though, in a market where there is an under supply of quality staff *and* a tendency to over pay people, unions don't tend to be popular, and frankly since the workforce have sufficient choice and opportunity, they are probably not needed. That's not true in most sectors now though and frankly even if it where there are still additional benefits to being part of a large group with some political and/or economic power.
I have to say that I totally disagree with you.
Now again, this probably has something to do with where you come from and the kind of union activities you have seen or experienced but either way, I will try and explain why:
The internet internet is a good way of getting information out to people who are looking for it, or in some cases for bringing injustices to the attention of someone interested enough to take a stand, but only if whatever information is being put out there in a blog or article is interesting, you are literate enough to communicate it, *and* you have the technical skills to publish at all.
Now, most people are employed by small company's, unfortunately small company's are generally only interesting to the communities they serve, even then not always.
So lets assume an individual, lets call him John has been unfairly dismissed by Smith and Smith textiles of Notown, Manchester. If John blogs about Smith and Smiths' unfair treatment of him, who is going to listen? No one. Even on the off chance that someone who uses Smith and Smith textiles as a supplier reads the blog the chances are that they will assume (or will be told by S&S) that John is disgruntled and bitter for having lost his job and now wants to get his own back. No one is going to pick up his story, no one is going to expose it to millions of people.
OK so that is one case where a real union could have helped. Lets look at another.
Lets say a J&S Steel in Nothere, Sheffield, decide that they can make a bigger profit if they don't replace out of date, but still technically legal milling machines. How do the employee's talk to and put pressure on the company? Do they blog about it and find that either no-one cares? A potentially worse scenario is that people do pick up the story, it is well publicised, and then the employee's find that the company's S&J Steel supply terminate their contracts because they don't want to be associated with the bad press surrounding S&J Steel.
The point is, when a problem occurs, you don't want the first response to be punitive, whether its legal action or whether it is some sort of publicity campaign. To start with you need to negotiate, to negotiate you need some sort of leverage. The most realistic option for the staff of S&J Mills would have been a discussion between the workforce and the employer, of course that would involve sorting out a structure (find a speaker, list demands, decide what is acceptable etc..) all tasks a union could have done and would have had experience in doing.
Now your last paragraph is interesting, mainly because what you are suggesting is setting up a union. A limited one but still a union. As I said before, unions are not about strikes, or even about industrial action of any kind, they are about collective bargaining, providing leverage to the average worker and communicating with employers before things get too bad.
Lastly, a word about paying to be part of a union, primarily because you stated that you thought union dues were a bad thing; If you organise a forum or any other grouping that hopes to be taken seriously and act professionally, you will need some funds (even if its just for hosting and maybe paying a moderator), rather than allowing outside organisations to gain leverage by fund-raising through sponsorship or advertising, paying for membership allows you to stay in control of your funds. Most union membership fee's are pittance anyway (where I am in any case), and if they are not, well then there is an indication of a union that probably isn't working properly.
Finally, lets not forget that just because there is a Teachers union, or a Telecommunications union etc.. it doesn't mean (shouldn't mean) that everyone is a member, it is still a personal choice. If there are mandatory unions within any industry, then that again is an indication that the unions serving the workers of that industry are inadequate and probably not fit for purpose (assuming of course that the unions themselves support the fact that membership is mandatory).
Anyway, just my thoughts.
The reasons many of these laws exist is because of the work done by unions in the past. Moreover the fundamental problem that an employer usually has more power and resources than an employee still stands, this means that if you are subject to unfair or illegal treatment it is still a case of you (with limited resources) against your employer (with more resources), a fight that you may find hard to start let alone win. Unions are supposed to address this imbalance by providing you with the resources and support you need to take an errant employer on.
It should also be noted that there are still issues that unions are fighting on, obviously what these issues are depends on where you look, but they exist. A simple situation that unions can and do address is pay, employers often do not want to pay employee's (especially at the lowest level) what they are worth, sure they will pay the minimum legal wage, they may even pay more than the minimum possible wage, however for an employee to take unilateral action (i.e. protest or demand extra pay on threat of leaving) would be pointless, they would be dismissed and the situation would remain the same, the dismissal serving as a disincentive for any other employee considering the same path. Obviously a union makes it possible for the entire workforce (or the group affected) to take action.
Now that example in the context of the US is usually seen as negative, it is usually assumed that this pressure by unions for higher pay (and often job protection) is unfair on the employer, and in some cases it is, especially when an employer *is* paying a fair wage, or where an employer *Cannot* pay more. In these cases the union should always be looking to protect its members interest, that is to say to safeguard the jobs of its members and achieving the best possible collective agreements, not to harm its members by forcing an employer to become uncompetitive in the marketplace (leading to potential job cuts or insolvency).
So in short, unions are valuable and useful, if, the members of a union have sufficient sway within it (so as to be able to present their views, usually by way of a ballot), and also if the union organisation is rational and reasonable when dealing with employers. Most importantly there should always be good communication between unions and employers, strikes should be avoided and used only as a last resort against uncooperative and abusive employers.
Modern unions also generally provide additional protections and services to members, things like legal advice (not just related to employment) and insurance, due to the fact that they (generally) represent a large pool of employed individuals, they are also in a position to use their size to arrange preferential prices for goods and services (in some cases housing) for their members. Finally they are also a potential ally for an employer who has issues with a particular employee, they are after all a third party and therefore able to give (one would hope) rational and informed (and partially independent) advice and guidance with regard to disciplinary action.
Anyway, unions are a good thing, as long as they are reasonable, every one I have dealt with has been professional and showed common sense in their dealings, although I must say some of the stories I hear coming from the US are that the unions that exist there are not quite set up in the same manner, in some cases apparently acting more a labour cartel than an organisation geared to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation (I hope that that is not a correct picture but simply that horror stories are more fun to tell than stories about successes).
Nah, Betty's mate just used Al as a pseudonym.
Short answer "Yes".
Long answer "Yes, but not too many and preferably when they are in a position to look after them properly. I am assuming this is easier in Europe (not sure about Scandinavia) than anywhere else in the world (free education and health). What you don't want is an unhealthy, unsupported, ageing population, that will end in tears".
That name was already taken.
Its fairly simple, much like the crapware you get when (if) you buy a new computer, it makes your purchase cheaper.
If the supermarket is making $X every time you visit by providing advertising then you may find that a portion of that advertising revenue is used (one would hope) to reduce the cost of the products.
The problem is that, as with loyalty cards, savings clubs, software registration etc.. you are giving up a little bit of personal data (or a lot depending on the T&C's you agree to when you sign up). Most people assume that the purpose of this is to help whoever you are dealing with at the time to provide you with a better service (after all that is usually the stated intent) whilst really that information is 'shared' with (or sold) to other interesting parties.
We are not there yet (I hope) but I can see that insurance companies and health providers (for those of you unfortunate enough not to have a national health system) get hold of that data and, on the basis of your booze/tabacco/junk food/petrol/car stereo etc.. purchases, decide to up your premium. There are many organisations that would love to have very finely grained information about their customers and the ability to verify what their customers are telling them, the vehicle that can be used to obtain this information is a very small saving to the customer.
This kind of 'savings' mentality, which, lets face it is a fallacy anyway, given that people will spend £50 on petrol so that they can shop round to save £10 on a £1500 TV and then buy it on finance at 19%, is what will lead to the acceptance of more and more unregulated breaches of privacy. The idea of an implanted RFID tag that tracks your movements when shopping, unfettered access to you bank records, access to your email and mobile phone records would seem an evil one at best to most people here, however if it was sold as a method of saving 10% across the board whilst shopping, at the same time making you eligible for $10,000 of interest free credit (25.9% after 6 months, secured on your first born) would seem a great idea, and at most a minor concession to many others.*
What will be interesting to see is whether cheap credit and expensive advertising disappear with the looming recession, or whether they are retained as a sure fire way of providing a short term boost to various economies.
*Tin foil hat firmly in place on my part obviously
OK Maybe original would be a more accurate description, although to be honest I dont think its aimed at kids....
This isn't just about the OS upgrades though, the huge difference between updating a windows box and (for example) a Debian box is that you update *everything* when you update. On top of that you can (as with windows, just go for security updates, use a local mirror (I assume windows does this) and automate updates.) Of course that's a home environment, for corporate environments it is even easier as your local mirror and update system (WSUS equivalent) is also handily your software repository and RIS service.
On a home windows box you may have to configure 5-8 different update systems (sometimes different, or at least separate systems for different packages from the same vendor) *and* make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do, not to mention that some software doesn't even have an automated update facility and needs manual upgrading. In a corporate settings you should be able to apply most updates in an automatic way (Although some probably wont be easily automated) and WUS takes some of the strain for the OS, other Microsoft Software and Drivers etc..)
Strangely even my ISP offers a Debian mirror these days so downloads are blindingly fast (I actually manage to reach the DSL download 'speeds' I am paying for).
However according to the FAQ's on MS's own website; *Why aren't you releasing the software standalone to consumers?
We want to help ensure customers have a simplified, quality experience with Windows Home Server. The best way to do this is to deliver Windows Home Server on integrated hardware/software solutions through OEMs and system builders that are tested and meet system requirements. So buying it and installing it is apparently not what you are supposed to be able to do. (not saying you can't, obviously, if you can get hold of the software legitimately). That presumably means that anyone *buying* a Windows Home Server as a package, is going to end up with hardware of a higher specification that absolutely necessary, and probably pay a higher price.
Personally I would say that if you are running (or planning to run) Vista *and* have a requirement for the features provided *and* are not too interested in flexibility *and* have the budget for it, then this is probably a nice and simple approach. For anyone else there are lots and lots of options that (with various degrees of work) will do the same or more for less.