Or time-consuming, like eBay and Livejournal and, yes, FR. The fact that the rule cited is "block pornography" may just mean that the administrator added sites to an existing rule rather than bother setting up a new one.
What I expect from my employer is an assignment and a deadline. Tell me what to do and count on it getting done. In between, if I want to spend a little time doing some personal Web surfing or e-mailing at my desk -- especially over lunch, which I've eaten at my desk nearly every day for 12 years -- back up out of my face.
In exchange for that flexibility, I'm willing to come early, stay late and work at home, within reason. If there's a lot of stuff going on, enough that I have to work 24 hours straight, it won't be the first time. If nothing's going on, there's plenty of staff and it's a pretty day, let me knock off early. Basically, all I ask of my boss is that he act like a person.
Of course, many employers don't see it that way, and limit their employees' access to sites that don't relate to their jobs, treating their employees like children who need Daddy to remove distractions. These tend to be the same officious a-holes who are sticklers for when people arrive and leave, the number and duration of breaks, and the overuse of office supplies.
I know that some jobs require that someone be there, and that some companies don't have a lot of redundancy; you've got to get there on time so the last guy can go home and stay until the next guy comes on. I'm not talking about that. Not am I talking about assembly line-type jobs -- both blue collar and white collar -- where there's a fairly steady and predictable stream of work coming in that has to get done. But there's no sense in a policy that makes you stare at the wall or do busy work instead of reading FR or listening to some music or writing a letter to your mom or going home.
I got fired from one temp assignment for flipping through a magazine at my desk for a few minutes. I politely explained that they, not I, chose the slow computer and printer I was using, which made it impossible to do anything else while printing. Nor was it my fault that in order to use the faster printer, I would have had to boot a coworker off of his computer -- something that I, as a temp, had a problem doing to an employee -- and then we'd both be idle while waiting for the print job to finish.
If I'd sat with my hands on the keyboard, facing front, doing an equal amount of nothing, that would have been no problem; but reading a magazine, I didn't look busy.
At one job, back in about 1992-93, my boss actually told me informally during new employee orientation that it was a good idea to look busy. I worked in the art department, and Rod -- my boss -- knew full well that it was a feast-or-famine work environment. He understood the downtime. But some of the suits who occasionally walked through our area didn't understand that, and if they saw anyone looking idle they were sure to bring that up when we asked for more people and equipment.
I had the good fortune to have a modem and a dedicated line, and I had AOL and Compuserve accounts. So I could go on the message boards and sit there, peering intently at the screen and typing like mad, and boy, howdy did I look busy.
I like your philosophy.
As you alluded to, there is a difference between “at work” and “supposed to be working” in some types of jobs.
When I had employees, when it was work time I expected work. If it was a slow day we all goofed off together. And sometimes that meant going in to my office and surfing.