Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re: WTF (Score 1) 337

So, any data about any piece of property you own should be available to the government - such as your computer and all the data on it?

Remember, the Federal Government is one of limited powers. The only thing they are allowed to do is detailed in the United States Constitution. In that document, the people granted the Federal Government certain limited powers.

However, that matters little -- Corporations are state entities. The Constitution grants the Federal Government no power whatsoever over them beyond what may follow on from the powers that the Constitution may have relinquished to the Federal Government over the owners of those corporations. A corporation is as much an "effect" of the individual owners ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...") as a computer owned by such a person is.

Comment Re: WTF (Score 1) 337

A corporation always has owners who are human -- sometimes they are indirect. How many corporations other than ones owned by the government or entirely by an entity like a pension fund (who, has parties they have obligations to, but not real "owners") who is not owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more humans? That list certainly does not include hardly any of the entities referenced in this /. article.

When an owner dies, another owner ends up with their share. When a corporation dies, the owners are either compensated in some way (such as in a merger) or their property becomes valueless (such as after some forms of bankruptcy - no different if your car, which you own, becomes valueless after it burns to a crisp).

For example, an owner of a house, like an owner of a corporation, has the right not to have their property (house or shares of stock) seized without just compensation (at least in theory, although the government sometimes stretches that - such as in the case of GM and forfeiture laws).

Comment Re:Negotiating salaries is for the birds. (Score 1) 430

I was only referring to the interview/recruiting process - not for existing employees.

The big problem with exposing individual salaries is that most people overestimate their own worth (except, interestingly, some of the most productive people). It's similar to the phenomena that well over 1/2 the drivers think they are better drivers than the median skill driver -- which of course is impossible.

I suppose open salaries could help in one way if managers are bad at giving feedback and taking action. Those employees who think they are better than another employee who, in fact, is much more productive than they are may eventually quit just because they are angry that they are not making as much money as the other employee. However, I've never had a big problem with housecleaning though so likely I got rid of them already in a convenient layoff or other personnel action.

Of course in an environment with little salary diversity based on merit, there's less reason not to disclose salaries.

I do believe in exposing salary grades (low, mid, high for example) but not individual salaries and title:grade relationships if those formally exist.

Comment Re:Negotiating salaries is for the birds. (Score 2) 430

And the inverse. I've wasted time talking to a few companies who were very interested but didn't ever ask what I was currently making -- until they casually asked the question after a couple of hours, and you could feel the oxygen leave the room and their interest plummet. I was talking to VPs of development at small growing companies and by looking at my resume I assumed they knew what I was probably making, but they seemed to be hoping that I was underpaid and that I would happily remain so. I just wish they had asked the question on the phone if they were going to play that game so I wouldn't waste my time. Lesson learned.

However, salaries and roles at small companies are often fluid -- you have a need and you have a candidate, the candidate is very strong and perhaps more than you need right now, but you'll have a hard time doing better when you DO need that person. I've always tried to hire opportunistically in those situations and sometimes end up pushing the "grade" of the position up a notch. This is harder to do at large companies -- esp. if you can't find some other manager in your department who has had a hard time hiring for their position at that level in which case chatting with a VP can sometimes get reqs swapped on the "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" grounds. Thus, being totally "open" about what a position pays up front may be a mistake and result in a lost opportunity for all.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

I'm a current customer of Comcast and am have/use this very service - both on my Comcast router and other customers Comcast routers.

Where did I claim the activity wasn't tied to the MAC address of the device? It is also easily tied to the Comcast subscriber that authenticated the device to Comcast's network and it's inconceivable to me that they don't keep this info - esp. since they claim that data caps on a subscriber's account include their usage from devices using the xfinitywifi hotspots (I've not validated empirically that this is true however).

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.