Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Amusing? sentence before the redaction: (Score 1) 132

The best workers do it for love, and are treated with the best resources. The mediocre does do it for money, and are thrown money.

The problem with this specific quote is... I can't tell if you are being genuine and really mean this, or are cynically saying this to reduce how much you would have to pay employees.

I hope you can see that, from my point of view, based on this comment, there is no way for me to tell what kind of person you are. Because someone who wants to manipulate their employees would say the exact same thing.

Finally, I hardly think it's wrong to ask employers to return even a small part of their VAST fortunes to their employees who creates the opportunity for the profit to be made.

Comment Re:There is a major difference (Score 4, Interesting) 132

I encourage anyone with skin in the game to read the court documents, they are easy to read and really lay out the case for how anti-recruitment agreements (whereby Google agreed not to directly recruit from Apple and vice versa) directly affect overall pay scale. It is laid out clearly, concretely, and isn't just a wishful case. There are a few solid narratives which I think will put google under severe pressure at trial (eg: giving EVERY employee a 10% raise because of Facebook's aggressive recruiting).

First off, it's a FACT that Google's (and other companies) agreements are illegal. That isn't even what this case is about - the DOJ came to a settlement and Google is no longer allowed to make such agreements. This case is about wage impact and class impact. Now that the class action was certified by a judge, there is good chance that in a trial a connection between the illegal activities the companies in question were conducting and class-impact and wages were affected.

Since you used to work at Google, presumably you're a smart person, I hope you can see how your own personal feelings about how recruiters from other companies should or should not behave have little bearing on the actual illegal activities that Google was undertaking.

Now, as a Google employee, you certainly know about the pay bands, right? That your pay is not at the sole discretion of your hiring manager or your manager, but set in a company wide policy that employees of job title X get paid between $A - $B with GSU/RSU/option grants in a specific range as well. There are pay bands for every single title in the company (except maybe executives). Google (and Intel, and many companies) make it a high priority to keep internal equity between employees at given titles (eg: SRE II), so if too many employees were being recruited away and retained they would have to adjust pay, either by giving promotions or adjusting pay bands.

As we know, Google had to elect to do the latter. In response to Facebook recruiting, Google gave across the board 10% raises, and specific raises to SRE titles as well. This is all laid out in court discovery, and is a fact, even Google's lawyers dont deny that.

The class filing has a lot of discovery, a strong narrative, and statistical modeling to demonstrate there was "class wide impact" (aka YOU were affected by your coworkers inability to discover their true worth via getting unsolicited job offers).

Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is ... why is this justified? Where's the legal basis for such a strict restriction? Also how does it affect overall market dynamics? Maybe if there was an country-wide law for this, but what purpose would it serve? In a market based economy wages are set by companies bidding for employees. Since a lot of people in this field have jobs nearly all the time, the only way to find out they are unpaid is to be offered a job with a higher pay. There are only 2 ways for this to happen, one is for the employee to seek, the other is for companies to reach out. Why restrict companies?

I think a lot of your arguments are around the notion of definitions of "aggressive", polite or decorum. Legally speaking there isnt any distinction here, and I am not sure the common good is benefited by restricting the function of the market of jobs and employees.

Comment Shit happens (Score -1) 894

If those instruments were this important to him, then they should have been insured. What if they're stolen? Destroyed in a fire? The customs official should be fired for being an idiot too, but this doesn't doesn't change anything. The point of the article is for us to get all worked up over the evil USA -- and it's succeeding. If this guy lost the instruments some other way, it wouldn't be newsworthy.

Submission + - E-Waste to jump to 60 million ton annually, by 2017 (

Taco Cowboy writes: By 2017, global e-waste (electronic waste) production will jump to more than 60 million ton per year, an equivalent to almost 200 Empire State buildings.

The definition of "E-Waste" differs from country to country. In Europe, "E-waste" includes end-of-life white goods, such as refrigerator or washing machine, but in the United States of America, the term "E-Waste" is specified as purely "electronics", such as smartphones, batteries, computers and tee-vee.

Although there have been "recycling programs" set up by various governments throughout the world, the problem of "E-Waste" is not dealt with. The biggest reason for the failure of dealing with "E-Waste" is mainly related to the word "recycling" itself.

Instead of "Repair" and/or "Reuse", the word "Re-cycling" gave the consumer a sense that whatever they threw away can be safely "recycled".

Most of the items ended up in the "E-Waste" pile are actually repairable. Most of the time the culprit is a blown capacitor or a shorted wire.

PC world carries an article regarding the increasing problem of global "E-Waste" in which they identify US and China as the two main contributor to the problem. The article is located at

Submission + - Rise Of The Super High Res Notebook Display (

MojoKid writes: Mobile device displays continue to evolve and along with the advancements in technology, resolution continues to scale higher, from Apple's Retina Display line to high resolution IPS and OLED display in various Android and Windows phone products. Notebooks are now also starting to follow the trend, driving very high resolution panels approaching 4K UltraHD even in 13-inch ultrabook form factors. Lenovo's Yoga 2 Pro, for example, is a three pound, .61-inch thick 13.3-inch ultrabook that sports a full QHD+ IPS display with a 3200X1800 native resolution. Samsung's ATIV 9 Plus also boast the same 3200X1800 13-inch panel, while other recent releases from ASUS and Toshiba are packing 2560X1440 displays as well. There's no question, machines like Lenovo's Yoga 2 Pro are really nice and offer a ton of screen real estate for the money but just how useful is a 3 or 4K display in a 13 to 15-inch design? Things can get pretty tight at these high resolutions and you'll end up turning screen magnification up in many cases so fonts are clear and things are legible. Granted, you can fit a lot more on your desktop but it begs the question, isn't 1080p enough?

Comment Re:Do these projects OpenBSD, FreeBSD matter anywa (Score 0) 280

Yes, but why? Just because Netflix chose to use it doesn't in any way justify anything. BSD (2 flavors) vs. Linux: How should I decide? They're all Unix-like, open source, and supported. Which is faster? More stable? Reliable? Secure? In all cases, anecdotes are not useful. Where's the evidence? Is it the license that matters?

Slashdot Top Deals

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley