I would have preferred to not write a blog about Facebook this week, since I know the topic has been brought up so much already this semester. I wonder how different this class was before social networking! :) But this article popped up on Yahoo today and it was way too good to pass up.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Prompt-punishment-for-Pittsburgh-pierogi-who-pil?urn=mlb,249782
So the pierogi guy who makes $25 a game/4 times a month running in the mascot race goes on facebook and says this about the Pittsburgh Pirates, who write those checks,"(His message was) aimed at team president Frank Coonelly, general manager Neal Huntington and manager John Russell. It read: 'Coonelly extended the contracts of Russell and Huntington through the 2011 season. That means a 19-straight losing streak. Way to go Pirates.””
As a fan he has every right to write that message. As an employee he does not have that right in my opinion. It is one thing to talk bad about your boss, because we all have done it, it is another thing to post it on your facebook profile. It would be interesting to know if employees have to sign a confidentiality clause or agree to not make disparaging remarks against the team. Not sure if the page was set to private and a “friend” ratted him out, or his was open to the public. So needless to say he lost his job over it.
I am sure these cases happen every single day and you just wonder why? I know I often vent frustration through status updates, but I would never write anything derogatory about my boss or another employee. Best case scenario: people read your message and move on. Then was it really worth posting online? Worst case scenario: the wrong people read the comment and you end up losing your job. Then it really wasn’t woth posting it. Privacy settings are there to protect users, but there comes a time when common sense about your posting practices should overshadow even the highest of privacy settings.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Blog 4: Access for all? Not in North Carolina.
I am always envious of those living in large towns where internet providers are limitless, which helps keep the bill down. Living in a town with EXACTLY ONE option for high speed internet and phone service I am always excited when I read about new national broadband initiatives. Well the opposite was the case this week. North Carolina State Senate passing a new broadband bill that places a 14-month moratorium on cities and towns that want to build their own high-speed broadband networks. It is so frustrating to see state representatives fighting to basically keep equal access unavailable to many of its constituents.
http://www.mountainx.com/blogwire/2010/senate_passes_broadband_bill_a_killer_for_cities
As we discuss access to technology being available to everyone this week during class, it is a shame that it probably never will be that way. When your internet connection is limited, so is your ability to communicate with the rest of the world. While I may be able to upload a PDF file in a relatively fast manner for a class assignment, many people do not have that option. Can you imagine downloading songs or apps for your new iPad if you live in rural North Carolina? It would probably be so much frustration you wouldn’t even care to buy one. I can’t imagine technology companies who require their products to have high speed connections are happy with these rulings. Sure satellite internet access is usually available in most areas, but usually at extremely high costs, which makes it unavailable for most rural communities. Before we made an offer on our current house a few months ago, I had to find out if high speed was available. I made this call before I called about any other utilities and their prices, so I know it becomes one of the top priorities in many families’ day to day lives.
So why would you the North Carolina Senate pass this bill (it has not been passed in the House yet)? If I had to guess I would say it is the doing of the telecommunications companies. The telecom companies want to keep competitors out of the area, so they grease the hands of the senators to ensure ideas of broadband expansion go nowhere. There are so many hoops to jump through that it would be an almost useless fight for smaller cities and towns to even try to get such measures approved.
The biggest shame in it for me is the realization that while we can talk about expanding our horizons and making technology available to everyone, big business still controls our country and probably always will. So much for “equal and unlimited access.”
Christine
http://www.mountainx.com/blogwire/2010/senate_passes_broadband_bill_a_killer_for_cities
As we discuss access to technology being available to everyone this week during class, it is a shame that it probably never will be that way. When your internet connection is limited, so is your ability to communicate with the rest of the world. While I may be able to upload a PDF file in a relatively fast manner for a class assignment, many people do not have that option. Can you imagine downloading songs or apps for your new iPad if you live in rural North Carolina? It would probably be so much frustration you wouldn’t even care to buy one. I can’t imagine technology companies who require their products to have high speed connections are happy with these rulings. Sure satellite internet access is usually available in most areas, but usually at extremely high costs, which makes it unavailable for most rural communities. Before we made an offer on our current house a few months ago, I had to find out if high speed was available. I made this call before I called about any other utilities and their prices, so I know it becomes one of the top priorities in many families’ day to day lives.
So why would you the North Carolina Senate pass this bill (it has not been passed in the House yet)? If I had to guess I would say it is the doing of the telecommunications companies. The telecom companies want to keep competitors out of the area, so they grease the hands of the senators to ensure ideas of broadband expansion go nowhere. There are so many hoops to jump through that it would be an almost useless fight for smaller cities and towns to even try to get such measures approved.
The biggest shame in it for me is the realization that while we can talk about expanding our horizons and making technology available to everyone, big business still controls our country and probably always will. So much for “equal and unlimited access.”
Christine
Monday, June 7, 2010
Blog 3: When Walmart Comes To Town
Whew…Blogger must have not been liking me this weekend…but now I am at work and it seems to be letting me post…so here it goes!
Take a moment and read this article. Then, really think about what you just read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280414218878150.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_business
I know we all are supposed to hate Walmart because of their business practices and everything else. (My reasoning right now is because my Walmart decided not to honor internet coupons, but let’s not get me started on that!) All that being said, I still do a majority of my shopping each month for groceries and household supplies at Walmart, because frankly I like the convenience and I like keeping more of my money than I would at other stores. But I often think about the local businesses that are negatively affected each time a new Walmart Supercenter is opened.
Well the town of Mundelein, Illinois did their best to keep Walmart out. Even though all of the protests and petitions were held by concerned citizens, it was really major corporations that are Walmart’s competitors in the area funding all of the lawsuits. I think the residents truly were concerned about the negative effects of a Walmart, but the fired was really fueled by Saint Consulting doing the dirty work for the companies they represented. All that ended up happening out of this was three years of legality play, lost revenue for the city, citizens having the wool pulled over their eyes, and the Walmart still was built.
Many of our discussions this week centered around Facebook and I wonder if it has the same type of situation. Facebook is there, but you don’t have to join if you don’t like it or are opposed to their stands on issues such a privacy rights. But everyone should have the right to join if they so wish. I know plenty of people who NEVER go to Walmart and that is their choice, but does that mean the rest of the community needs to go without? I don’t hardly think so. Walmart wasn’t breaking any laws by wanting to build, it’s not like it was a giant coal plant setting up shop in the middle of town. Maybe I am being unsympathetic to those citizens who complain, but I just feel as long as companies are able to produce the right permits, who am I to stop them from coming to town?
Thanks,
Christine
Take a moment and read this article. Then, really think about what you just read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280414218878150.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_business
I know we all are supposed to hate Walmart because of their business practices and everything else. (My reasoning right now is because my Walmart decided not to honor internet coupons, but let’s not get me started on that!) All that being said, I still do a majority of my shopping each month for groceries and household supplies at Walmart, because frankly I like the convenience and I like keeping more of my money than I would at other stores. But I often think about the local businesses that are negatively affected each time a new Walmart Supercenter is opened.
Well the town of Mundelein, Illinois did their best to keep Walmart out. Even though all of the protests and petitions were held by concerned citizens, it was really major corporations that are Walmart’s competitors in the area funding all of the lawsuits. I think the residents truly were concerned about the negative effects of a Walmart, but the fired was really fueled by Saint Consulting doing the dirty work for the companies they represented. All that ended up happening out of this was three years of legality play, lost revenue for the city, citizens having the wool pulled over their eyes, and the Walmart still was built.
Many of our discussions this week centered around Facebook and I wonder if it has the same type of situation. Facebook is there, but you don’t have to join if you don’t like it or are opposed to their stands on issues such a privacy rights. But everyone should have the right to join if they so wish. I know plenty of people who NEVER go to Walmart and that is their choice, but does that mean the rest of the community needs to go without? I don’t hardly think so. Walmart wasn’t breaking any laws by wanting to build, it’s not like it was a giant coal plant setting up shop in the middle of town. Maybe I am being unsympathetic to those citizens who complain, but I just feel as long as companies are able to produce the right permits, who am I to stop them from coming to town?
Thanks,
Christine
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
