Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:You were hired to work for THEM (Score 0) 88


Obviously if it's authorised 20% time or something then it's fine (but watch the IP agreements, because anything you create on that basis might well belong to your employer legally).

Otherwise, if you want to be paid for your results and not your time, become a freelancer or start your own company and work business-to-business, and have appropriate clauses in your contract about the basis of payment and what is included and not included. Don't be an employee and then try to not be an employee.

Some of the rationalisations of this that you can see on the original Quora discussion and the related discussions today on sites like Reddit are just bizarre, and there seem to be a disturbing number of people who are mighty confident about their legal position but who probably ought to have checked with a lawyer themselves before getting into this.

Comment Re:That's actually debateable (Score 1) 223

Manual-labor jobs they can. Office jobs require some downtime to refactor, and the 8-hour work day theoretically lets you mix that in so you can optimize it.

The more-scientific approach I've seen is to schedule high-effort, complex work in the mid-morning and around 2-5pm, with low-effort work put between 1pm and 3pm. The slump cripples your ability to perform productively, and so spending that time returning calls, checking e-mail, writing changelogs, and so forth lets your brain relax and recover so you can get back to designing rocket engines and writing complex computer code later in the afternoon. You wind up productive all day, doing the simple shit when you can't handle the heavy lifting.

The moral of the story? Do your code reviews and merge windows between 1pm and 3pm. It's less work than writing new code, and it keeps your head in the code so you're ready to hit the ground running right after.

Comment Re:Pay your fucking taxes instead (Score 1) 165

The proportional amount of work requires increases as you increase your income relative to your starting assets

Now that's comedy gold, do you have more jokes like this? Since when is the amount of money you make in any relation to your workload? How much more work do you think Allen did compared to, say, a single mother working 3 jobs to make ends meet?

Comment Re:Scoff at me all you want (Score 1) 148

The problem here is that you can't expect much rational and intelligent discourse on Slashdot these days, so that comment calling you paranoid is no surprise at all. Remember, this site is chock-full of far right-wing nationalists and objectivist libertarians, like much of the tech industry only much more concentrated here.

Comment Re:But will it mark gmail and as spywar (Score 2) 63

Why would Google have any control or visibility of anyone's connections, unless either that person also independently uses Google services in some sort of ISP capacity or the sites they are visiting independently use Google services in some sort of hosting capacity?

Comment Re:But will it mark gmail and as spywar (Score 2, Insightful) 63

Since then, Google has seen a 23 percent reduction in the fraction of navigations to HTTP pages with password or credit card forms on Chrome for desktop.

Just ask yourself how Google can possibly know that and you can get a pretty good idea of where it really stands on the spyware/privacy issue.

Comment Re:This is retarded conservatism to help 'coal' (Score 1) 469

The advantage for Americans is we expend our labor making other things, and we end up with more stuff being bought per person. That is to say: the import of cheap goods from China has made every single American--from the poorest class to the richest class--more-wealthy, improving our standards-of-living immensely. We would have to pay greater amounts of money for the same goods otherwise, and thus we would live at a lower standard--it'd be as if we were all substantially-poorer--to no advantage to the American worker or the American economy.

Comment Re:prediction... more good comments... not (Score 1) 469

Morality is irrelevant; minimum wage is an efficiency model. More to the point, though, minimum wage espouses a particular goal, and it cannot meet that goal if its purchasing power becomes continuously lesser.

If it were about morality, we'd have an unresolvable conflict: implementing a minimum-wage increase throws some of the poorest of poor out into the unemployment line to starve; while not implementing a minimum-wage increase lets all of those poorest of poor continuously face greater hardship until they begin to starve. QED, who gets randomly executed because fuck it?

Your labor force is made of adults. Children don't produce; they simply consume. Your laborers work for forty years--from age 18 to age 58, roughly, although it's longer now--and if one of them dies, you need eighteen years to begin replacing them. That assumes you can pop out a baby, feed it, clothe it, give it medical care, grow it to an adult, and then dump it right into a job without investing any more in preparation which you could have avoided by not killing your previous laborer. The other side of this is we expect retirees to be essentially cheaper than children, or at least we want the full ROI of their employable lifetime before they become an economic burden.

Minimum wage is a type of welfare. We have a minimum wage and public aid system, which ensures that the working-class at least get a minimum viable income, while the reserve labor force (the unemployed and underemployed--not working full-time) gets aid to keep them alive and healthy. It's spotty, and worked as best anything could before a Universal Social Security became technically and politically viable; now the United States can now end all hunger and homelessness at a $1 trillion reduction in total costs to the taxpayer--without raising taxes on anyone--and so that's technically-better.

These aren't feel-good moral actions. These are efficiency. When you come up short on efficiency in an economy, people die unnecessarily. You have the capacity to care for the sick, to feed the hungry, to supply the means to live, to stabilize lives; and you squander it, you waste it, and so people die of disease, they starve, they become homeless. The more-efficient your economy is, the greater the standard of living; and the more-stable your economy is, the less-likely people are to have good savings, a good income, insurances, everything to keep them ready for any sudden life crisis and still suddenly end up poor, homeless, and dying of diseases we should have eradicated decades ago.

We trade efficiency away for moral reasons. We accept more death, more poverty, and more suffering so that we can pursue things which we enjoy, and so we can go through life without living in constant fear. The ideals for efficiency by central command simply don't work; but efficient control through constant surveillance, state-controlled information to shape political opinions, and other means of crushing out freedoms can bring strictly-better prosperity. That's bland and it takes away peoples's humanity, or something along those lines; it's the kind of world nobody wants to live in unless they're in charge--and often not even then. Those are the things of which we accept the costs, although to be fair they're usually costs paid by someone else--most of us don't end up the one starving in the streets because of a little loss of efficiency, so we'll gladly trade it away.

You can't claim "morality" if you're going to be blind to what pain and suffering you do and do not cause taking your high ground. That gets you such brilliant, morally-sound ideals as cutting off trade with China, condemning hundreds of millions of people to joblessness, homelessness, and starvation, because we think their wages are too low and want to equate Chinese labor to slave labor. Murder on a grand scale far beyond anything Hitler ever did is what a surprising number of people believe would be "morally-correct" and "The Right Thing To Do(TM)", so long as they can stand far enough back from the carnage to claim their hands are clean.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller