Actually, if you're paying based on hours, you're paying someone for arriving on time (clocking in) and not leaving before the appropriate time (clocking out). So, if the employer spends 10 hours playing angry birds, or 10 hours rearranging Excel worksheets, you're getting your moneys worth: the amount of hours that the employee was at the company.
So no, you're not "losing productivity" if the employee goofs off. You're paying him to be at work, not to do work.
Whether you think it's a good investment or not has nothing to do with whether he missed work or didn't (since the only measure of that is that he clocked in and out, therefore he didn't miss work).
"Alas, all the government did was remove the name off the front of the printing press, and left the press intact. Rojo continues to publish their works, unimpeded."
Wrong. Since the people reading what comes out of a printing press don't care about a little plaque with the press' "name" on it, it's a very, very poor analogy.
This is more like taking away the HEADING LETTERS of the publication, basically stealing the type that is used to print say heading (they can always use another name for their pamphlets! Unimpeded!).
Or like arresting the delivery boy that offers said pamphlets on the streets for everyone to read (after all, they can always hire a different person and send him to somewhere else where people won't read it! Unimpeded!)
Or taking 3/4ths of the paper that they use to print it. (after all, SOME people will still be able to get the publication! Unimpeded!)
If I used a giant "laser" to write the content of these documents on the surface of the Moon, would the Air Force and/or other government agencies be forbidden from looking at the Moon?
If nobody complains that the Apple Store is an unfair walled garden, how are people going to understand that they should go elsewhere?
Basically you're saying that people shouldn't say anything since they accepted those rules. But then, people wouldn't find out that these rules suck and things would never change, even if that just means helping others realize they should abandon the platform.
I imagine this troll just skims the comments without bothering about the article, finds the first one saying something like "article is misleading" (whether from one of his fellow tribe or not) or whatever, then writes a generic whiny post from his templates of "Mike IS FUD! Soylent Green is people!" and makes an ass of himself.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
It was nothing but a cheapshot. Just admit it, it's ok.
On the post: Arthur Alan Wolk Settles Lawsuits With Various Sites
Re: Things were better when....
On the post: DailyDirt: I Would Never Tell A Lie...
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: Big IS bad.
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So no, you're not "losing productivity" if the employee goofs off. You're paying him to be at work, not to do work.
Whether you think it's a good investment or not has nothing to do with whether he missed work or didn't (since the only measure of that is that he clocked in and out, therefore he didn't miss work).
On the post: Cocaine Ring Used Universal Music's Interscope Label To Ship Drugs & Cash
Re: Re:
On the post: Puerto 80 Explains How Rojadirecta Domain Seizures Violated The First Amendment
Re:
Wrong. Since the people reading what comes out of a printing press don't care about a little plaque with the press' "name" on it, it's a very, very poor analogy.
This is more like taking away the HEADING LETTERS of the publication, basically stealing the type that is used to print say heading (they can always use another name for their pamphlets! Unimpeded!).
Or like arresting the delivery boy that offers said pamphlets on the streets for everyone to read (after all, they can always hire a different person and send him to somewhere else where people won't read it! Unimpeded!)
Or taking 3/4ths of the paper that they use to print it. (after all, SOME people will still be able to get the publication! Unimpeded!)
On the post: Full List Of Sites The US Air Force Blocked To Hide From Wikileaks Info; Includes NY Times & The Guardian
On the post: EU Commissioner Asks Big Copyright To Increase Their Lobbying Efforts For More Draconian Copyright Law
On the post: British Transport Police: Illegal Downloading Kills Babies [Updated]
On the post: iPhone Developer Creates App Criticizing The iPhone; App Is Quickly Pulled
Re:
Basically you're saying that people shouldn't say anything since they accepted those rules. But then, people wouldn't find out that these rules suck and things would never change, even if that just means helping others realize they should abandon the platform.
On the post: More Intellectual Property Fights Over Who Gets To Do What In New Orleans And Mardi Gras
Re:
On the post: It's Only A Miracle If You're Not In The Business Of Selling Loaves & Fishes
Re:
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Headline and article is misleading
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re: Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re: Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
We're talking thousands if not millions of 5 1/4 diskettes, filled using a Hayes modem at 300 bauds!
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Confusion & Lack Of Clarity In Copyright Law Make Reviewing Poems Difficult
Re:
On the post: Accused Of Copyright Infringement For Reprinting Images Produced In 630 A.D.
Re: Re: Re:
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
It was nothing but a cheapshot. Just admit it, it's ok.
Next >>