I think the site has done a good job on the analysis. Gizmodo was a greedy site who wanted more hits, the author's an asshole who just wanted to cause more trouble for that guy for kicks.
Sure, he lost a prototype, but does he deserve his career ruined at other firms too? Definitely not. Especially problematic in the tech industry where employers are sure to run a Google search on prospective employees.
Or maybe another competitor might take him in since his name was published. It would be a bad idea for them to fire him:). I am willing to bet he will be better off in the long run with his name published.
I think the site has done a good job on the analysis. Gizmodo was a greedy site who wanted more hits, the author's an asshole who just wanted to cause more trouble for that guy for kicks.
Sure, he lost a prototype, but does he deserve his career ruined at other firms too? Definitely not. Especially problematic in the tech industry where employers are sure to run a Google search on prospective employees.
If he doesn't deserve that, it won't happen.
If potential employers consider that relevant, and are willing to take that action, on what basis can you allege it is undeserved?
Why is a tech blog expected to be understanding of the fact that a guy needs a job even if he does lose an expensive prototype telephone if the company that gave it to him isn't, and other companies that do similar work aren't? Why is the website's profit motive less sacrosanct than that of Apple or other prospective employers for this
A sheet of paper is an ink-lined plane. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"
Profit Motives (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the site has done a good job on the analysis.
Gizmodo was a greedy site who wanted more hits, the author's an asshole who just wanted to cause more trouble for that guy for kicks.
Sure, he lost a prototype, but does he deserve his career ruined at other firms too? Definitely not.
Especially problematic in the tech industry where employers are sure to run a Google search on prospective employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas on Slashdot you get modded +5, Insightful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the site has done a good job on the analysis.
Gizmodo was a greedy site who wanted more hits, the author's an asshole who just wanted to cause more trouble for that guy for kicks.
Sure, he lost a prototype, but does he deserve his career ruined at other firms too? Definitely not.
Especially problematic in the tech industry where employers are sure to run a Google search on prospective employees.
If he doesn't deserve that, it won't happen.
If potential employers consider that relevant, and are willing to take that action, on what basis can you allege it is undeserved?
Why is a tech blog expected to be understanding of the fact that a guy needs a job even if he does lose an expensive prototype telephone if the company that gave it to him isn't, and other companies that do similar work aren't? Why is the website's profit motive less sacrosanct than that of Apple or other prospective employers for this