Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:At least someone appreciates work-life balance (Score 1) 477

by therealkevinkretz (#46732749) Attached to: New French Law Prohibits After-Hours Work Emails

When I've had a job where I've felt that either wasn't what it was promised, or in which I wasn't being compensated for what I was worth, I left and found another job.

That's what you do when a transaction or arrangement is not (or no longer) acceptable to you.

Comment: Re:At least someone appreciates work-life balance (Score 1) 477

by therealkevinkretz (#46715659) Attached to: New French Law Prohibits After-Hours Work Emails

While at this particular moment it's a buyer's market as far as labor is concerned (in the US), off-hours responsibility is hardly a "race to the bottom" and, as I pointed out, many jobs don't require it.

Are you in your 20s? To call being available by phone "exploitation" is pathetic.

Comment: Re:At least someone appreciates work-life balance (Score 2, Insightful) 477

by therealkevinkretz (#46714071) Attached to: New French Law Prohibits After-Hours Work Emails

In a fair world you'd be able to accept more responsibilty in exchange for a set of benefits (salary, etc) you considered fair. I've interviewed for (and been offered and variously accepted) jobs ranging from a 9-to-5 position for a utility company that would be very stable and practically permanent to one at a startup with a small staff that meant only a couple of people were responsible for crucial 24/7 infrastructure. The former paid less but was, again, stable. The latter paid more, with promise of reward should the company succeed (it didn't).

If I'm willing to carry a mobile device outside of business hours, what bureaucrat's business is it to tell me I can't?

Comment: Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score 4, Insightful) 312

by therealkevinkretz (#46679121) Attached to: Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?

"Doing stuff for a friend" is friendly and altruistic when I *choose* to do it. When something's forcibly confiscated from me to be given to a stranger, it's not me "doing stuff", it's not for a "friend" and it's certainly not altruistic. It's also not altruistic to vote for a bill that does that, or to vote for the guy who votes for that bill.

Comment: Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score 3, Informative) 312

by therealkevinkretz (#46679091) Attached to: Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?

Actually, the *are* recording a lot of phone calls. That's just a different program Snowden released info about - and there have been dozens of them.

And "just metadata" allows them to track your location, see who you speak to, and much more:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

Comment: For money, you mean? (Score 0) 167

by therealkevinkretz (#46670481) Attached to: A Rock Paper Scissors Brainteaser

With no such restriction, random choices on both sides lead to 33% win, 33% draw, 33% loss, right? With the opponent throwing Rock 50% of the time, assuming the other 50% is evenly divided between Paper and Scissors, if I always throw paper I'll win 50% of the time, lose 25% of the time, and draw 25% of the time.

So depending how the betting works, I'd be pretty willing.

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

Working...