Porn Surfing Rampant At US Science Foundation 504
schwit1 writes "The Washington Times reports, 'The problems at the National Science Foundation (NSF) were so pervasive they swamped the agency's inspector general and forced the internal watchdog to cut back on its primary mission of investigating grant fraud and recovering misspent tax dollars.' One senior executive at the National Science Foundation spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer, records show. The cost to taxpayers: up to $58,000. Why aren't they running a product like Websense?"
Best Intentions (Score:5, Funny)
It all started out as innocent research on "Black Holes" and "Uranus"...
Certain Alibi (Score:3, Funny)
"But officer, it's research!"
NSFw (Score:5, Funny)
I guess they'd better create an internal division called the National Science Foundation Watchdog, or NSFW for short...
Re:This article is misleading at best (Score:3, Funny)
Your analysis is well thought out, informative, and factually accurate.
Are you sure you meant to post it here on slashdot?
Re:Not too surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This article is misleading at best (Score:3, Funny)
It's a scam perpetrated by the Republican created NSFW tag.
It makes them think the link is for National Science Foundation Work.
Billions and Billions... (Score:3, Funny)
of boobs.
Re:This article is misleading at best (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot's headline "Porn Surfing Rampant" is exactly the kind of exaggeration that the Washington Times was hoping secondary media would slap on this story.
Aren't you an editor?
Re:bad idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds to me like he was tugging on something else.
Re:bad idea... (Score:5, Funny)
(Porn causes phych issues).
Citation & spellchecker needed.
Re:This article is misleading at best (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Porn at work should be encouraged (Score:3, Funny)
oligitary sketch featuring Simon Pegg [youtube.com]
Re:bad idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best Intentions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:bad idea... (Score:1, Funny)
this is just fancy medical talk for "boner"
Proof or retract (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not too surprised (Score:2, Funny)
Re:bad idea... (Score:5, Funny)
it usually causes a physiological response
Well, um, yes, that's the idea [wikipedia.org].
What nonsense hysteria (Score:3, Funny)
Give us a break: "Spent 331 days looking at porn"! This isn't the fault of the summary, the article itself has the same silliness. I am certain that the executive in question didn't *spend* 331 days looking at porn, but rather that there were 331 days *when* he looked at porn. Not sure the time interval, but even assuming a year, sure he looked at some porn every day. So what?!
If the guy (or any employee) isn't performing is job duties, worry about that. But that's a matter of specifying duties, not of stupid prurience about pornography. It's no better if he's looking at Facebook, or Slashdot, or a vacation planning site, or (god forbid) Fox News... nor even if he's just spending all day sharpening pencils.
I actually mostly agree that porn seems banal and boring, and fairly pointless. But unless employees expose other employees to what they're looking at unwillingly, it makes no differences whatsoever *what* someone is wasting time on. And it's not obvious that looking at porn actually means wasting time. In the real world, humans can't concentrate on work for 10 hours a day without interruption, or at least a lot of otherwise excellent employees can't. Taking little breaks to distract oneself "during work time" is just the human condition and part of our mental limits.
Re:bad idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Boy, you are really asking for it [youtube.com]. (Safe for work [slashdot.org] as long as you have your goggles on).
So they're trying to say that... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:bad idea... (Score:3, Funny)
It is proven that milk(excessive) will kill you.
So does water and oxygen in excessive amounts.
So does love. After all, it is like oxygen.