Your words are drastically more intensive than the reality. It's like saying I'm required to keep my fingernails clipped (let's assume I'm a surgeon) and so that pretty much eliminates the value of having fingers. Seriously? No.
Most people who are in public-facing positions have disclaimers on personal accounts that their view does not reflect that of their employer. Most won't even talk about their work on their personal accounts. They still talk about life, their family, new babies, non-work-related news, etc.
They're only disallowing posts about things that directly relate to the employee role. If you do restaurant reviews for a newspaper then you would be allowed to post links about the California Drought to your personal feeds. You would also be allowed to continue posting things about your family, friends, and newest babies... or the weather. Or whatever that isn't an official restaurant review. If you did want to talk about a restaurant review on your personal feed then you'd simply post it to the official one and retweet it from the personal one. Seems simple enough and not too restrictive.
Again, not being required to turn over personal social media accounts.
I seem to be the only person who realizes that the company doesn't want your personal social media account. They want you to have a company-specific account on Twitter in addition to your personal account (for instance).
Let me repeat that: Nothing in here says they are forcing you to turn over your PERSONAL social media account. Seriously.
To me this stance makes perfect sense. I recently worked at a company that used Github to do internal private development. I was given the option of using my personal account but decided to create one linked to my work email. This way when I left I wouldn't have lingering ties to the company, they wouldn't be able to mess with my personal account, and they couldn't say I messed up their stuff after I left since I would no longer have access to that account. No liability for me, no liability for them, and a clean break when the time comes. Win-win.
Some employees did use their personal account (which then exposed their personal information, their personal views, websites, company reputation, etc etc etc).
If the company in the original article wants to specify that what I did is what everyone does, win-win. Clearer separation of work and personal life.
You don't have to live in Michigan to use the mail forwarding address in Michigan. Mailboxforwarding scans the outside of all mail and allows customers to optionally open and scan the contents to view online before either forwarding it to anywhere else in the world or shredding it. I've been using them for years while I've technically been homeless traveling the country or living in Georgia or Washington or wherever.
I noticed the city similarity in one of the article links and looked closer at the address. Thanks for posting this as I was also going to say it's just a mail forwarding service. You can call it "apt" "#", "ste" or anything else as long as it contains the box number.
I've been using them for years and they've been really good. I wouldn't encourage blaming them for anything this company is doing as that would just be like blaming the Post Office for delivering a rotten tomato to someone without knowing what it was.
Given that their search term is for "craft" instead of "minecraft" it has me wondering if they're planning on releasing some product based on 'craft' in relation to their name sake, only to find out that there are already results for that search term and thus their potential product.
This reminded me of the "If you've got nothing to hide then..." response we often get. Maybe we should use that back on them? If their methods are all on the up-and-up then they don't have anything to hide and it should be okay if we go digging through all their dirty laundry until we find something to incriminate them on, right? :-D
If they're hosting it on a shared server, or even a Virtual or Dedicated server, the authorities will just go after the host. It's pretty well documented that the government doesn't consider these private servers.
If they own the server and keep it in their domicile (house, apartment, etc) then the authorities will go to the uplink provider and routers to trace it en-route. It's not like email magically appears on the recipient server without going through the same network as all other traffic (man-in-the-middle attack).
People are already flagging these posts and they get collapsed. What I'd like to see is the option to also hide all replies in threaded view. Sometimes the responses are interesting, but more often than not I'd like to skip the entire thread and avoid a headache.
patents don't really last for very long, so it's not a big issue
Patents are for 20 years! (14 if non-functional)
If I expect to live to 80 then I'll only see 4-5 iterations of an idea within my lifetime. If it takes hundreds of iterations to get to the point of a spaceship you can walk on flying around in space at near light speed, and all the doohickeys required, then we'll be lucky to get there in 1000 years.
That sounds like an awful long time for an exclusive right to me.
Given my recent thoughts on the state of the patent and copyright system, and how they're legally setting back the speed of technological advancement to a pace at which the bronze age could beat, this statement probably has some inkling of truth to it. I know a lot of advancement back in the day was held back due to various religious views, so we're well on our way back to that.
I did notice that, but I also noticed some other oddities. For a car that was supposed to just run through the intersection, and potentially run the old lady over, it still seemed slow down at the stop sign and/or by the old lady, so the framing and cutting of the video makes me think, a little, that it did actually stop but they cut that out of the video!
Unfortunately that consumer base that can't self-regulate a free market is precisely what elects our government officials. If it's going to be a lose/lose situation at least we can prevent the government from making it a law. Maybe.
This comment is hilarious in an ironic way. It repeats the theme of almost every article on TechDirt regarding copyrights and patents, which makes the lack of that theme in this article so much starker.
"Where's the data that there is a real problem here?"
Here's anecdotal evidence for you: Every technology workplace I've been in was weighted numerically in favor of men. There was no bias against women in them; I was in charge of interviewing for a programming position and almost no women applied. Those that did were not up to par. The women who were part of the company weren't ignored or otherwise disfavored; there just weren't that many.
So here's my two cents to this topic: Make however many number of lists that are nothing but biased toward showing off the top thinkers/developers/designers/CEOs/etc that are not white and/or male. There's your source material to inspire the next generation of those people to be great in those areas.
This is precisely what I was thinking. It wouldn't amount for much in a monetary comparison, but it would add to the number of victories for copyright infringement procedures even though they actually lost. 1-0 wins, or whatever their count is. They could then turn that into an extortion letter for any company that doesn't read the full ruling or pay attention to the news.