[ale] OT: Well it is going to hit the list sooner or later.

[Geoffrey]

Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 06:18, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
>>Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>>First, I don't think that the equation the guy makes about his boss
>>>"stealing" is valid.  It's a rhetorical trick that I don't buy into;
>>>what the boss does is no more stealing in any real material sense than
>>>if he was sitting in his chair staring out the window.
>>
>>If we want to take this to the extreme, there is a difference.  Network 
>>resources and system resources are being taken up by playing the game 
>>and researching stocks.  He is stealing these resources.
> 
> 
> I know and freely admit that there's a lot about my IT sensibilities
> that's old-school, but it seems to even me that cycle-based chargeback
> was something whose days are LONG gone!

Regardless, he's being paid to work for a company, not play.  He could 
be reading a book on how to better manage his people.

> 
> It is true that *some* network and system resources are being taken up,
> but we have here both a huge amount of not just available but almost
> certainly otherwise unused resources and a very tiny amount of
> consumption relative to that resource headroom.  You might argue that
> stealing five dollars from a multibillion-dollar corporation is still
> stealing, and you'd be right, but dollars aren't *like* cycles and
> transferred bytes.  The guy's PC will be sitting there with its clock
> cycling away regardless, even if it's just repainting its screen, and
> unless their T1, T3, or what have you is 100% maxxed out AND they're
> paying by the byte, then maybe you can make the case that his stock
> checking delayed some important e-mail by a few milliseconds and cost a
> few micropennies.

 From an ethical standpoint, there are better choices he could make.

> If you hold to this line of reasoning that a person's computer and
> network/Internet usage equates to some monetary value per cycle or byte
> of throughput, then you risk bumping into some absurdities that you
> cannot ignore lest you flirt with hypocrisy.  Water *is* billed by unit
> volume; someone who compulsively flushes the toilet before sitting down
> in the washroom is wasting far more money than the Solitaire-playing,
> stock-checking boss.  And, you know, body heat has to be removed by the
> building HVAC and that cooling load costs money; come to work with a
> fever and you're wasting money.
> 
> You say he is "stealing" these resources.  If he runs some spreadsheet
> totals that he really doesn't need to, the CPU has to work extra too; is
> there any difference between that and playing Solitaire?

Yes, if the spreadsheet effort was work related, regardless of the extra 
work caused by useless data.

If he surfs to
> a Web site that has JPEGs with unnecessarily high resolutions, isn't he
> every bit as guilty as if he checked his stocks?  That he might not KNOW
> about the high-res JPEGs is irrelevant; the theft of resources is still
> the same regardless of intent or lack thereof.

It is clearly black and white, 0 or 1.  You can take your free time at 
work that you're getting paid for and better your skills or you can 
waste that time away playing games.  It's an ethical question really. 
But it is very clear to me that playing solitare is not in his 'job 
description.'  Enhancing his skills certainly is.

> 
> What I'm saying is that you can't provide many many times more
> "resources" than people actually need and then chisel people about
> "waste" and "theft."

Yes, I can.  Playing solitaire is wasting company time.  It's very clear 
to me.  It's more about doing something that benefits the company 
because you are getting paid at that point in time.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey       Registered Linux User #108567
                             AT&T Certified UNIX System Programmer - 1995