they can have managers that actually check on their workers. or, if the organization provides phone numbers for each employee, they can tell the employees that they will be reprimanded if their cell phones are seen; they have office phones & email if they need to communicate with the outside.

or they can provide some mechanism for employees to let managers know when someone is dicking around on their phone too much (anonymously). i get irate when i'm working my ass of on issues, but a coworker spends all day on his phone (and then turns around and complains about his salary and whatnot).

first of all, 90% of companies out there can't really benefit from FB whatsoever. there is no financial benefit whatsoever. so block it, and tell your employees to shut up and quit wasting time. and companies need to quit making FB pages for themselves. you can't promote your own FB page as a company, and then get pissy if people spend time on FB within your organization. not having a FB account is wonderful. it is such a stupid thing.

this is a crap argument.

it's not the "stealing of jobs" that is the problem with mexican immigration (anyone who uses that as a reason for strict immigration control is a tool).

the problem is the perpetual poverty that is created by such immigration. when you have extremely poor people flooding into a country, and all they are going to do is get jobs that pay fractions of what it costs to survive in the economy of that country, you will get poverty. poverty perpetuates crime (particularly violent crime).

if you don't believe me, find the poorest neighborhood in the nearest major city and hang out there for a while. how long until you get nervous for your safety?

the fact is, a non-english speaking immigrant with little-to-no education is going to get a bad job (if he/she finds one), and has a good chance of either turning to crime, or to being a burden on the US welfare system. not 100% of them fall into a live of poverty/crime/welfare, but there is a good portion who do.

i don't know the solution, but there has to be some control.

i agree.

unfortunately, it's not that easy when it comes to gov't. to choose an in-house system in the gov't, you have to go through a ton of red tape (specs, bids, security...).

companies can run themselves according to their own rules. when i work with companies at their own offices, they often use chat/IRC or other tools. but they can implement as they see fit without the need for red tape.

most people won't post sensitive stuff to places like FB, because it is so easily tracked back to the account (no anonymous posting). but outside email is an easy way to spread info, and that is why it is often blocked. this is where Google might be in a tough spot.

the government is weird when it comes to outside email.

there are a few reason:
- they want to be able to stop the sharing of sensitive information
- the government requires that all emails be kept for a certain amount of time (2-4 years, i think), and they dont want people using private emails to subvert the record keeping (coinciding with the first reason given)
- but mostly, the main reason is because people are so stupid that they constantly download viruses. they want all emails to go through the in-house system so that they can do their filtering. most gov't places don't deal with really sensitive info, so the first 2 points aren't that big. keeping people from being stupid is actually a lot harder than keeping them from being honest.

FB is only as much of a time-sink as any other site (such as tech forums...). in the end, it is down to how much time the worker feels like wasting that day. if he/she wants to waste time, he/she will find a way to do it.

but many gov't agencies & companies are trying to include themselves in the social media networks, and it would be odd for them to lock workers out of sites/networks that the agencies are promoting (i.e. if you run a gov't research facility, it would be nice to see some activity from the actual researchers/scientists on that agencies' FB fan page).

google has a tough uphill battle.

first of all, they already tried to have a somewhat social networking site (remember Orkut), and it failed.

second, Gmail is blocked at many places of business (especially gov't installations), while Facebook and Twitter is not. FB & Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other and really not waste too much time (I may spend 3-5 minutes on FB in a workday), whereas Gmail tends to focus on communication with the outside world (outside of work).

therefore just getting access to Buzz is hard, because Gmail is not as accessible as FB or Twitter.

third, it is hard to convert. i was a twitter user, and recently switched to FB because i realized it was a superior product. with the filters allowed on FB, the ability to post to select groups, and the pics and things like that (screw the apps, never used a single one), I think it's nice. to convert people from FB to Buzz means a superior product with superior features; integration with Gmail is not enough. plus, Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.

those concerned about privacy are idiots. there is no privacy on the Internet, and anything you post is fair game to everyone. you pick your poison, and continue on carefully.

it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.

it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood). i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.

they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.

people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.

"For years analysts have been insisting that Apple must introduce a cheaper iPhone, and soon.

i'm not going to read this story based upon the above quote. the iphone has been out for almost 2 years. you don't get to use the phrase "for years" when talking about something that technically isn't 2 years old. this is an attempt to make this story a bigger deal than what it really is.

with most of this stuff, it is not the drug that countries/governments are worried about. it is the culture that drugs generate and the crime that can be associated with it.

drugs seem to attract organized crime, and turn neighborhoods into very dangerous places. alcohol doesn't seem to attract crime, but it seems to bring out the idiot in people. i tend to think the idiot is less dangerous (in most cases)

personally, i don't do drugs. i enjoy a good drink from time to time, but i do so responsibly. but i know a lot of people who do drugs, and they are not quality people. they steal, lie & cheat their way through life. personally, i don't want that in my neighborhood.

if you would like to see what drug culture can do, visit the south-central or south-east side of a major american city (NYC, LA, St Louis, Atlanta, Chicago).

it's not the drugs i have a problem with. it is the culture that comes with them.

are you kidding me?

compared to the sausage-fest that makes up the typical IT office, this sounds awesome!

what happened to bicycles?

when i was in college (not too long ago), people still rode bikes. the only problem was in the snow, as people would try to ride up a steep hill and bust their ass. you wouldn't catch me in one of these segway things on a steep, snowy hill either tho.

this seems a little too "road 2.0" to me.

You can get better mileage out of a small CC motorcycle engine, go faster, and not look as much like an idiot.

I know a motorcycle is still gas, but a battery will be using up other energy somehow, and if you live in Oklahoma like I do, it's just coming from coal or oil.

better yet, just get a horse.

and to add, i love the idea that we (the US) give away a bunch of Chinese-made products, made by people who are probably in not-so-good working conditions. we can't even give away something made in America.

just wait till she plugs that iPod into a computer in the Buckingham network. i bet China has some sort of virus embedded in that thing. they are about to own MI6!!!

first, he gives the British PM a stack of DVDs (ultra lame). next, he gives the queen of england a friggin ipod (i'm sure she is really suave on computers...probably has a 24" iMac all modded out).

maybe next Obama will show up in Japan with some 20" rims for the PM there. "Runnin on dubs!!!"

this is so embarrassing. i would've expected it out of President Bush. i bet he got the queen a handgun (big ol' desert eagle), and he probably got Tony Blair a shot-glass set. but Obama? why is he pulling this crap?

i can understand where Google Reader can effectively block a bit of ad revenue, but Google Reader is only as good as the RSS feeds that feed it. if BBC, Guardian, or anyone else are pissed off about it, well, disabling their RSS feeds seems like a place to start.

i would also expect them to pay Google lots of money for using Google's search engine. that is a "free" service that Google provides, and it seems a bit hypocritical to want to boost revenue in advertising, yet not want to pony up money for services rendered.

i like the Guardian UK website too, but now i will avoid them.