Interesting, but you are discussing a different issue. The article is about worse kinds of threats than "go fuck yourself" and it is not about workplace behavior.
Don't you own a cell phone?
I think there is an important distinction here.
Circuits and GUIs are graphical by themselves. To specify them graphically is to specify them in their own terms. Such graphical representations are natural and compact. They are not really abstractions. (For circuits, their behavior can be added to the graphics using a minimal set of graphical conventions. For GUIs, this is not possible; hence, the behavior of GUIS isn't usually specified in a graphical way.)
Most things in programming are not graphical. C functions aren't. Algorithms aren't. Data structures aren't. Databases aren't. Contracts on what a function may or may not do aren't. Communication protocols aren't. Etc.
Graphical languages can be used as an aid in explaining or specifying these things, but the results will be symbolic representations, just like textual representations are. This is a fundamentally different way of using graphics.
Such symbolic graphical languages certainly have their use (UML diagrams, database model diagrams, state machines, etc.) but they take up a lot more space than equivalent textual representations. Take natural numbers, for instance. It's perfectly OK to replace them with a graphical representation (dots and circles on a screen) when introducing them, but only a textual representation such as the decimal representation will scale to larger sizes. This holds for pretty much all aspects of programming. For instance, when specifying program flow logic, a flowchart is a very space-inefficient way to do so when compared to textual code. It also takes much more time to create. There is no way to specify the equivalent of 10 million lines of code in less than 1 million pages of flowcharts, and they would cover only the control flow, not all other things that the code specifies. Therefore, graphics will only be used for those aspects of a program that are easy to visualize, and usually, only as a secondary representation, next to a textual one. Text is a lot more compact and usable.
There is no such thing as 'on your own time' when you're doing work for a company: they are responsible for the results and the working conditions (proper payment, working environment, insurance, supervision, etc.) Not living up to those responsibilities is illegal. The company can ask you whether you're willing to put in more hours at the same salary, and if you agree, that arrangement may be legal. They cannot ask you to do work 'on your own time'.
But it's limited, because I uninstalled their app from my phone the moment they wanted a list of the running apps on my device. I still interact with FB, but using a separate browser app that only talks to FB. With location turned off.
I tried to to that, but the smartphone says the Facebook app is a standard app and cannot be uninstalled.
Read Don't Program on Fridays.
I don't know if there has been a similar study saying Don't Program After 8 Hours, it's a little harder to measure.
(Something wrong with the c on this keyboard apparently. Sorry.)
I too believe it's partly due to the asinine name. The department I work for used to call it Computing Sience (which makes a lot more sense) but changed it to Computer Sience a while back. All this while we do have a different department that is in fact involved in the science of computer hardware: Electrical Engineering. Next thing you know they rename geometry to Earth Science.
Thanks for explaining what the OP should have done.
Smalltalk's creators didn't agree with you - I wonder if they do today.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'civilization'. I think it's fairly well accepted that language is much much older than our evidence for it: people can speak for a long time before they have any inclination to start writing their words down.
While they're at it, why don't they create a Brainfucks database. Now that would be useful.
Looking forward to see the API bindings on Google Code.
Nowadays, it takes more than five minutes to raise the quality of most articles I could, in principle, improve (and there are lots of them). It takes more thought and research. I can no longer indulge in drive-by editing as much as I used to. "Raising the bar", they called it on everything2.com, where the same thing has happened, with a rating system. I think the other things we're seeing, such as the diminishing number of active editors, are largely a side effect.