wwwOnce again I’m sitting in the office wasting my life away. Not by strength nor by might but by their fucking grace. Thanks to the brilliant people working here. I’ve either a, not gotten the schedules for me to work on. B, have not got the correct schedules or C, have received the right schedules, only to be told that there are changes to the schedules. But they all have the same impact, resulting in me slacking.

Anyway, the toilets here are locked and you obviously need a key to enter. Since there is some form of security, it’s safe to assume that there is a certain scarcity to the key, or else there would be no need for a key to unlock the locked toilet. There are only 2 keys in the office. 1 is held by the receptionist and the other is held by I-dunno-who.

While taking the key from the receptionist, or more accurately, while I was taking a piss. I was wondering why not duplicate more keys. Which lead me to the conclusion that they probably duplicated the key resulting in more keys (2 more be precise). So imagine, one day your boss goes up to you and tells you to duplicate the toilet key, the 1st thing I would say would be who’s paying for it? Being MNCs that most companies are now a days, the answer would be obvious. I pay 1st, they pay me back later. Which is not a problem. what happens when the company refuses to pay you back? is the key urs or the companies? should the key be yours then the fundamentals of this arguement is that ownership does not transfer until payment is made. which is fine.

but then you have to consider what right does an employee have to own something that belongs to the company just because the company has not paid for it yet. a key to the toilet might be a small thing but imagine a computer or something more sensitive, say the a new computing software. when it belongs to the employee, can he install it and use it at home although it is registered by the company just because it is his till the company reimburses him?



over the issue of mooching, why should people be penalised over using wireless networks? i've heard views that just because one does not take steps to protect a possession does not mean that others have a right to take it or use it. which is something i can appreciate. for example, say i own a bicycle and park it at the park (pun not intended). should some mother fucker come and use my bike without my permisson (in this case i would consider it stealing), that mother fucker is going to get a hurt real bad.

but how can the setup of a wireless network be compared to the purchasing of movable property. while, immovable property is used as a comparison as well, this analogy is quite spot on. i own a house and while i did not lock the gate, there is a social norm that just because the gates to a house is not locked, it does not mean that strangers are welcomed into the house and one should mind their own business and not enter the house. which is true. and something i agree to.

However, the difference is that with a house and a wireless network, a house is a physical structure with a gate. While it is just a gate, it gives people the impression that permission is to be granted before entering is allowed. it's just human nature. with a wireless network, there is no gate unless you consider clicking connect to be the gate.

a wireless network should be compared to an open field. while you might buy part of a field, no one pays attention to who owns that field. if the field is not fenced, the field is fair game and everyone can use it. and that is what an unprotected wireless network is like. naming your network while not placing a password is akin to buying an open patch and then placing a sign on it that says owned by iamdamnfuckingnaive, which has not much effect unless you are the PAP which gives you the right to say transpassers will be prosecuted and more importantly enforce it by suing chee soon juan to hell. not that i'm a supporter of chee soon juan. i think that it is a damn good thing that he's getting his ass sues and they should lock him away and throw awayy the keys or just deport him or make him leave for good. like francis seow or tan lian hong (what ever his name is). and if you could change your network name, i'm pretty sure your not that far away from placing a password.

but then again, that's a problem for lawyers to solve which i believe they already have. what the shit man...

i saw a place that has a name called pasta manna. they sell... well... pasta. what a name. i sense an impending lawsuit from you know who and probably a certain out of favour country manna. that's if they're still in business in singapore.

there's a ong joo joo pig farm pte ltd which has sent a letter of notice, saying that it's name has been changed to ong joo joo food industries... to think that he might have been a distant relative of mine makes me sick. but then again, i'll be a sort-of-heir to a food industry. haha.