71–80 of 120 posts
This is pretty simple. If you work for one of those companies, quit.
How is this a simple solution? What does an individual value more, income stability or their information access? With a little less snark, employee's should consider alternative employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them. Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with…
>I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed. Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's n…
There's no story here. The alternative to "supporting SOPA in virtue of membership in the BSA" is "leaving the BSA over the BSA generally lobbying government to enforce copyright protections." That's kind of the point of the organization. If you don't expect AutoDesk and MathWorks and SolidWorks to leave the BSA just to avoid this kind of second-rate muckraker reporting, then ignore the fact that Microsoft, CA, and A…
The BSA actively states it speaks for all that list of companies, if the companies both remain a member and do not state otherwise thats _exactly_ what they do.
I mean you are falling for their trick if you chose not to blame the member corporations of their BSA for the actions/statements of the BSA, that is exactly its purpose, to take positions that are unpopular/anti consumer, and shield their members from criticism.
It works for the RIAA/MPAA, it works for the BSA too...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this a simple solution? What does an individual value more, income stability or their information access? With a little less snark, employee's should consider alternative employment.
What do you value more, freedom or material comfort?
Finally a list you can use as a computer science graduate to know for which companies you are absolutely not going to work.
Why wouldn't you work there? Does trying to protect your IP and business ( albeit in a completely inappropriate and detrimental way ) indicate a poor employer?
Its like the zinga incident in which they forced employees to give back their unvested stock. I can totally understand it from a business view, but its a "bad smell". If I worked for Microsoft now,I would really feel bad
Finally a list you can use as a computer science graduate to know for which companies you are absolutely not going to work.
Why wouldn't you work there? Does trying to protect your IP and business ( albeit in a completely inappropriate and detrimental way ) indicate a poor employer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed. Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's n…
Corporations' only moral code is greed. And I'm not talking abstractly, I've been part of discussions at companies where people adamantly say it is wrong to leave money on the table no matter what. The only time it is OK not to grab all money you can is if it might prevent the company from grabbing even more money in the future.
Yeah, how about that. In short, Microsoft is using a front group to throw its support behind SOPA, while publicly saying and doing nothing, thus avoiding our rancor and displeasure. Well, no, that won’t do at all. Note that the article provides no support whatsoever for the claim that BSA is a Microsoft front group, or that Microsoft is using it to intentionally support SOPA. I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged to…
All Microsoft has to do is to publicly state they don't support SOPA. This is hard to believe because they supported PIPA. The conclusion Microsoft suports SOPA by helping support an organzation that supports it is inescapable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations' only moral code is greed. And I'm not talking abstractly, I've been part of discussions at companies where people adamantly say it is wrong to leave money on the table no matter what. The only time it is OK not to grab all money you can is if it might prevent the company from grabbing even more money in the future.
The REALLY long term game is helping your country be prosperous so that you have an educated workforce to draw from and people and people and companies wealthy enough to pay high prices for your products. That requires a pretty pervasive altruistic/moral attitude to make it work, though... tragedy of the commons and all that, otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please) Exactly. No bill should be longer than a couple of pages. The Constitution is less than 15 pages, no bill should be longer than that. (Or you can pick another arbitrary number as long as it is low). Special interests are unintentionally creating a worse world for all of us…
Just make lots of short bills instead, or make a sort bill granting vast regulatory authority to another group. Congressmen are clever and they will get around arbitrary restrictions like that.