"I can see them (the pixels). Turning on MSAA helps, but kills framerates (I really need a second GPU but AMD has had horrible issues with frame pacing in Crossfire, might do it with a pair of 290X cards if those issues are worked out) "
You're breaking one of the fundamental rules of working with digital monitors: if you can see the individual pixels, then you're sitting too close. Resolution is not the only monitor spec; pixel size is another. If the pixels are large enough for you to easily see, then the monitor was either made to be used at a longer distance, or it was cheaply made. The latter does happen sometimes.
"A 1920x1200 monitor is great for more workspace, but too few care about the extra 180 pixels to overcome the massive momentum. And the 2560x1440/1600 screens never got out of being an expensive niche product for a very small group of computer users. Video looked worse with upscaling."
You're missing the point. It isn't the few extra pixels. It is: WHY is the resolution LESS THAN it was 5 years ago? WHY did top-mid monitor resolution go DOWN, while prices kept going up? For about 6 years now. That is NOT the way it was before. We had monitors always improving in resolution AND price.
Then this progress suddenly stopped. A decent 1080p monitor today costs more than my higher resolution monitor did 6 years ago. WHY is this so? The rest of computing machinery has kept getting better and cheaper during that period.
But it shouldn't be by now. Were you paying attention to the point?
"The point beyond which component price starts rapidly increasing. This is partly due to an economy of scale issue."
Nonsense. A good 1080p monitor today costs more than the 1920 x 1200 monitor I bought 6 years ago. Why? Until the last few years, monitors were continually improving, just like computers. Then suddenly they stopped, and the "high-end" desktop resolution has actually gone DOWN for a few years, while prices kept going up.
The rest of the computing industry hasn't gone that way.
"Is Dell enough of a major manufacturer for you? I just got a replacement 27" Dell 2560x1440 monitor delivered today after a big electricity spike blew out my previous Dell 27" monitor a few days ago."
I often get a rough feel for a market by looking on Ebay. There were thousand upon thousands of 1080p monitors. A few hundred 1920 x 1200, just a few of which were Dell.
There are about 600 or 700 monitors at 2560 x 1440 resolution, all of them far more expensive than they should be today, had the market kept improving over the last 6 years.
There is absolutely no reason to have 1080p as a "standard" max resolution. 5 years ago I got a nice Princeton 24", 1920 x 1200 monitor at a good price. And I expected resolution to keep going up from there, as it always had before. Imaging my surprise when 1920 x 1200 monitors became harder to find, as manufacturers settled on the lower "standard" of 1920 x 1080 and seemed to be refusing to budge.
It's great and all that a 1080p monitor will handle 1080p video. BUT... when it does, there is no room for video controls, or anything else, because it's in "full screen" mode, which has limitations. I can play the same video on my monitor, using VLC, and still have room for the controls and other information, always on-screen.
Now certain forces seem to want us to "upgrade" to 4k, which uses an outrageous amount of memory and hard drive space, super high bandwidth cables, and is more resolution than the eye can discern anyway unless the screen is absolutely huge AND around 10 feet away.
Whatever happened to the gradual, step-wise progress we used to see? I would not in the least mind having a 26" or 27", 2560 x 1440 monitor on my desk. That should have been the next reasonable step up in monitor resolution... but try to find one from a major manufacturer! There are some on Ebay, mostly from no-names, and most of them are far more expensive than they should be. They should be cheaper than my 24" monitor from 5 years ago. But they aren't. Everything else in the computer field is still getting better and cheaper at the same time. But not monitors. Why?
"A juries duty is to determine guilt. Not determine punishment. They may take the punishment of the crime in their consideration to determine guilt, but they don't determine the punishment. Otherwise a jury becomes nothing more then an legalized lynch mob."
I've already replied to this same assertion by someone else.
That only refers to most criminal cases, in most states. It is far from an absolute. There are exceptions.
Lawsuits, and even some criminal cases in some circumstances, DO allow the jury to decide punishment within certain guidelines, AFTER the verdict is reached and announced. Sometimes it's the same jury, sometimes it's a different jury.
It all depends on the kind of case, and the jurisdiction.
I am constantly amazed by people who think their state laws are universal across the country. Or even worse, court practices on TV.
"A Volga GAZ 3110, which is basically a 90ies facelift of a 70ies mid-size car frontally crashed into a Daewoo Lanos (a 90ies subcompact). Both drivers died, the passengers of the Lanos (a mother with her child) have survived."
That doesn't prove ANYTHING. I referred to a particular model car, for particular reasons. Showing me the results of a crash between unfamiliar vehicles under unknown circumstances is not proof of anything at all.
For the sake of correctness I should add that it also bent the end of the front bumper back on the struck side about 2". It was the bumper that bent the fender.
"It is your body, and your choice what car to stick it in. Too bad you are doing so with dangerously misguided information. It's funny to think people say natural selection is not relevant in modern society!"
Easy to say when you don't bother refuting any of that "misguided information".
What about what I wrote do you assert is false? Let's see, was it the part about a significantly more massive car experiencing less acceleration in a collision than the smaller car? (F = ma) Was it the part about the deliberately offset collision into a car with an X-frame and no side rails)? Do you know what the speed of the collision was?
I'll go further: do you dispute that when a crumple zone is hit, the vehicle that is striking the crumple zone is also accelerated less than if there had been no crumple zone?
Do you think that when you combine these things, it is just might be possible that the person in the more massive vehicle might not experience as much acceleration as the person in the smaller car? (Remember, other than the body construction we're assuming the same safety equipment. In the video, there was an airbag in the Malibu, but not in the Bel Air.)
Have you ever picked up a physics book?
The video is deceiving in many ways. For one thing, the older type of car chosen was "ideal" for this demonstration, because its chassis had no side-rails, plus the firewall, dashboard and steering wheel were all of sheet metal construction. Hitting that particular car in that fashion is pretty much guaranteed to pulverize anybody sitting in the driver's seat. An air bag in that situation would not help much. But in a later vehicle it could make a big difference.
The later 68 Chrysler I mentioned, in contrast, was a heavier car and had a square chassis made of heavy steel c-beams. It had door side rails. It had a padded dash and interior as opposed to the metal of the Bel Air. You know what? I saw one hit a telephone pole, and you know what it did? Bent the fender. Granted that was at a somewhat lower speed but a telephone pole has no crumple zone.
Try the identical crash, in the same position, as in that video, with a 68 Chrysler New Yorker and I will pretty much guarantee you that you will get much different results.
"It was a civil suit, there is no "charge", rather it is a "lawsuit". Likewise, there is no law or anything requiring an audit, nor is it written anywhere that you need one."
I wasn't referring to criminal charges. A lawsuit is a "charge" that you did something legally actionable.
"The company shouldn't need to go around shaking down all of it's employees - the work environment is much better that way. My boss would let me do pretty much whatever I wanted to so long as I got the job done without breaking the ethics code or any laws."
That's probably why they lost the lawsuit. First, monitoring or audits of the company's own property do not generally involve "shaking down anybody". It is simply a review of what software is on the machines, whether it is licensed, etc.
Having a review policy for these kinds of things has kept many companies from losing exactly these kinds of lawsuits. I used to be the regional systems manager ("head of IT") for a large company. I was required to catalog and track what software was on the company's computers. No other reason was necessary other than it made simple accounting sense. We had a written policy requiring it, everybody expected it, no shakedowns were necessary, and never once did anybody complain.
"If this is the attitude that most programmers today have, then it's no wonder we have so many of them who can't find a job after they graduate. As I stated earlier, 60% of the workforce is employed by small businesses. These small businesses don't have the capital to go out and buy this kind of stuff for their employees, so it would make sense."
It isn't an "attitude". I repeat: it's decades-old, common business practice. Did you read my previous post, or not? "BYOD" is what is the new and controversial thing, not the standard practices I was writing about.
"As a programmer, I'd sort of hope that you'd at least have a passion for it, which means you'd probably already own your own devices already. This is the same expectation the auto industry already has for mechanics. It therefore seems absurd for you to demand that your employer pay you for it."
I repeat, because you seem particularly dense about this point: for decades it has been common business practice for businesses to supply the office equipment necessary for the business to operate. If it's an office that does programming, then it is common for the business to supply the computer. There is absolutely nothing new or unusual about this. What is unusual is for a company to expect the employees to supply business equipment that the company needs to operate. This is a strange and rather bizarre idea indeed. Repeat, again: that is NOT standard business practice, and has not been at any time in my life. You are trying to berate me for doing what professionals normally do. That's weird, man.
"Usually when programmers are involved in startups, using their own existing equipment is just a flat out given because they're already on a very tight budget since they don't even have any revenue stream yet (nearly all of the very wealthy programmers out there start out doing exactly this in fact. Bill Gates, John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, Mark Zuckerberg...)"
First, that's a completely different situation, and second, you're wrong anyway. The founders of the company will use their own equipment, sure! Where the hell else are they going to get it? Star Trek replicators? Two hints here: first, the vast majority of businesses are NOT "startups", and second, the founders of startups have (A) a stake in the company and (B) are struggling for money. Of course they're going to use their own equipment.
"These guys also often work in an office, albeit generally a small one, with a little fridge for pizza. "
Yeah. You know why? They were founders of their own sta
"The jury's function is not to mete out punishment."
Simply not true in this case. It was, in fact, their legal duty.
"It is to determine whether the defendant committed the wrongdoing they are accused of. When a juror expresses desire to punish, it makes me wonder whether the verdict was motivated by epistemologically sound consideration or by that desire."
That depends entirely on the state laws, and the kind of case. In this (Oklahoma) case, according to TFA, part of the jury's duty was to determine punitive damages once they had reached a verdict. It was their job. So there was absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about them saying they wanted to punish Toyota. It was part of what they were there to do.
"It's not a rumor, and there's nothing to nip in the bud because it's already happened. A company I worked for got sued because a bunch of their employees installed pirated software on their company issued laptops. They had such a contract in place with their employees that they were responsible for it, but that didn't stop the company itself from being found liable by a judge. They were still found liable because the computers ultimately belonged to the company."
I suspect there was more to it than "they belonged to the company". Likely the company had no provisions to monitor or audit the software being used, or perhaps was even complicit in its use. If the company did not know about it, it is unlikely they would have been charged.
"And yes, by pirating I really do mean pirating. Nobody sues you for your definition."
You DO know what "piracy" is, yes? It is a legal term meaning to make copies (and usually selling) for profit. Who in the company was making copies for profit? Did management know about it?
"Plumbers, appliances repair men, mechanics...generally furnish their own tools."
Holy shit, dude. The term BYOD is referring to OFFICE WORK. Plumbers don't go to an office and work on computers all day! Nor do mechanics... unless they own their own mechanic shop, and if they're working on the computer all day, they aren't working as a mechanic!
"Try asking every pizzaria in the US to furnish cars to their delivery employees, or even pay for their gas. You'll get laughed at."
BYOD, as a general rule, does not refer to pizzerias, or mechanics, or plumbers, or for that matter automobiles. You're having your own little conversation here about something other than what everybody else is talking about.
BYOD generally refers to office workers or software developers who bring their own devices (iPhones, laptops) to work. And no, in that environment "bring your own tools" has never, in recent decades, been standard practice. If you work in that kind of job, historically you were supplied with the office equipment needed to do that job. And if you were a contractors (freelance programmer, for example), you might have your own equipment but the cost of the use of that equipment is part of the contract, explicit or not. That's simple economics. Otherwise you couldn't afford the equipment to do your job.
"That doesn't obligate them to do so though."
Of course not. But if they don't, they can hire somebody else. I am a programmer. If they want me to work in the office, but supply my own "tools", they can pay me for the use of them or find somebody else. No obligation... just the way contracts work. Hint: contractors generally get paid more than hourly employees, partly for that reason. That doesn't mean "rent on my computer" is explicitly in the contract. But any savvy manager who hires contractors know how it works.
"And here we are with computers that are much cheaper than cars, and they don't burn gas to use. And you're upset because your employer won't pay you for using it, particularly for a computer that you probably already owned beforehand anyways?"
Not even. As I mentioned before: if he won't pay for the cost of using it, then he can hire somebody else. And good luck to him. As I already explained, this is a standard arrangement for contractors, and it's one of the reasons contractors get paid more.
If you want me to work in the office as an employee, and you don't want to pay for the office equipment that has traditionally been supplied by the company for office work -- and yes, I mean even small businesses -- then fine. I'll bring my own, as long as you compensate me for it. Either pay to rent it, or raise my salary. Otherwise, you want something for nothing. You might get it from someone else, but not from me.
(1) At what speed was that crash test? My guess is (supported by my guess from the full-speed portion of the video) is that it was not a high-speed crash. Just as I was saying. I was referring to more of a high-speed crash, and the Chrysler is significantly heavier than either of those cars. (You probably can't answer this question because I looked at the site of the folks who made that video and it says it is not searchable right now.)
(2) The 2009 Malibu, while classed as "mid-size", is a bit larger than what I would call a "typical" commuter car today. The difference in weight between that and the Chevy is less than 200 pounds.
(3) The '59 Bel Air was the first car that used GM's "X Frame". The X-frame had no side members, leaving it more prone to damage from collisions that are not head-on. I suspect they staged that off-center crash precisely to take advantage of this fact.
I would also like to point out that the engine compartment does NOT make such a great "crumple zone", if it has an engine in it! (I will concede, though, that modern firewalls are typically angled to try to deflect the engine underneath in that kind of a crash.)
In answer to the other poster, I was referring to a 1968 New Yorker. It had solid square steel C-beams for a chassis.
"And most interestingly from TFA is the last line. Ten of the 12 jury members said they wanted to punish Toyota. "
Yeah? And so? What is your point?
The jury heard the testimony from all the witnesses. They saw and heard all the evidence. THEN they wanted to punish Toyota. Yes? So what's wrong with that?
When jurors hear a case about a vicious and brutal child molester, and decide he's guilty, the jury often wants to punish him, too. I'm wondering why you think that's a bad thing.
"When I look at it, an older driver and vehicle recording systems saying the accelerator was pressed and the brakes were not, investigators finding no evidence to support the claim of a software failure, and then the jury stating they want to punish Toyota, I don't see this as a good verdict."
This is the problem with armchair judging. You saw or read that part, and nothing else. But the jury saw that, and much more. It is almost 100% certain that they know a lot more about it than you do. So what justification do you have for second-guessing them?
"These modern cars are safer in high speed collisions, but at a large cost in value."
Actually, they're not. The major elements that make the passengers safer are somewhat better seat belts, and airbags.
"Crumple zones" protect against relatively low-speed collisions. In a "serious accident", I'd wager my old Chrysler New Yorker against your crumple-zones any day of the week. 3 times the mass and solid I-beam steel, man. Not only would I experience far lower acceleration forces than you, I won't end up crumpled in my car's own crumple zone.
If you could make it all solid-state, from top to bottom, with no mechanical components whatsoever, then maybe you could make it safer than mechanical component. Until then, not.
"This is the argument Boeing put forth about Airbus and its fly-by-wire planes...until the gave in. We cannot stop this type of progress, but it would be nice if there was still somewhere a killswitch that was manual and separate from the computer...just as a last resort if possible."
Having researched this issue not very long ago, I can tell you that the issue is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.
Boeing has been building "fly-by-wire" planes almost as long as Airbus. The major difference (which Airbus aficionados still dispute but which is supported by factual records) is that Boeing put more and better physical ("manual") backup systems in their planes than Airbus did. And the consequences, as shown in the safety record, speak for themselves. Airbus' systems in some cases led to pilots literally sitting horrified in their cockpits watching disaster happen and not being able to do a single damned thing about it.
Kill switches, manual disconnects and backups, etc. all have to be built in. Doing otherwise is just plain irresponsible.
But hey... you're talking about the automotive industry here, remember? The same guys who control engines and entertainment systems with the same CPU, and who put android systems in new vehicles with no way to upgrade them for the life of the car.
"Well that isn't the only issue. BYOD also allows your company to avoid liability if the employee does anything illegal with it that you didn't authorize, such as using pirated software."
Well, I can nip that rumor in the bud. First, if you have an agreement stating that you, rather than the company, are liable or your own transgressions, in most cases it would be binding. Second, do you mean downloaded apps? Downloading is not piracy, which is a legal term meaning something else. Despite the fact that the RIAA and MPAA have spent millions trying to get you to think it is. You do their work for them when you call it that. Simply downloading a copied app is not a crime. Piracy is. They are legally two very different things.
"If your company saves money when you work from home instead of leasing more office space, you may as well argue that they're now responsible for your mortgage payment as well."
Nonsense. That is a different situation. There are definite perks to living at home, which offset any lost revenue from "renting" the space to the company. Using YOUR equipment, however, is a different story. If they did it themselves, they'd have to buy or lease the equipment. If they hired a contractor, the contractor would buy or lease the equipment (and pass the cost on to them). In contrast, you're trying to say they can require an employee to buy or lease the equipment themselves, with no compensation.
"Oh, I don't blame the users, despite how it might sound. But that doesn't mean I enjoy the support nightmare that BYOD entails (unless management is going to say "you bring it, you support it", which isn't likely at most companies)."
Slashdot Mirror
"If you're spending time in meetings that are of no value to you and your work and you haven't pushed back, that's your fault."
No, it isn't. It's the fault of the manager who required you to be there.
When was the last time you attended a business meeting that was completely "optional"?
"They are only a waste of time because of people who arrive late, do not prepare, and spend too much time babbling about stuff that is unimportant."
So? You've still eliminated about 90% of business meetings.
Exactly why THIS meeting is a waste of time is irrelevant to the fact that 90% of them are a waste of time.
Or rather, not OP but the first link in OP. ScienceBlog's "explanation" seemed to confuse the issue more than explain.
"The abstract is a heck of a lot more clear than the description posted:"
It also actually makes sense. Looking at OP, I found myself thinking, "So? What's new about that?"
The abstract is indeed much more clear and coherent.
"I can see them (the pixels). Turning on MSAA helps, but kills framerates (I really need a second GPU but AMD has had horrible issues with frame pacing in Crossfire, might do it with a pair of 290X cards if those issues are worked out) "
You're breaking one of the fundamental rules of working with digital monitors: if you can see the individual pixels, then you're sitting too close. Resolution is not the only monitor spec; pixel size is another. If the pixels are large enough for you to easily see, then the monitor was either made to be used at a longer distance, or it was cheaply made. The latter does happen sometimes.
"A 1920x1200 monitor is great for more workspace, but too few care about the extra 180 pixels to overcome the massive momentum. And the 2560x1440/1600 screens never got out of being an expensive niche product for a very small group of computer users. Video looked worse with upscaling."
You're missing the point. It isn't the few extra pixels. It is: WHY is the resolution LESS THAN it was 5 years ago? WHY did top-mid monitor resolution go DOWN, while prices kept going up? For about 6 years now. That is NOT the way it was before. We had monitors always improving in resolution AND price.
Then this progress suddenly stopped. A decent 1080p monitor today costs more than my higher resolution monitor did 6 years ago. WHY is this so? The rest of computing machinery has kept getting better and cheaper during that period.
But they should be as cheap as a 1920 x 1200 monitor was 6 years ago... and they're not.
That's my point: monitors haven't been improving much, in terms of bang for the buck, in the last 5 or 6 years.
"It's the sweet-spot on price."
But it shouldn't be by now. Were you paying attention to the point?
"The point beyond which component price starts rapidly increasing. This is partly due to an economy of scale issue."
Nonsense. A good 1080p monitor today costs more than the 1920 x 1200 monitor I bought 6 years ago. Why? Until the last few years, monitors were continually improving, just like computers. Then suddenly they stopped, and the "high-end" desktop resolution has actually gone DOWN for a few years, while prices kept going up.
The rest of the computing industry hasn't gone that way.
"Is Dell enough of a major manufacturer for you? I just got a replacement 27" Dell 2560x1440 monitor delivered today after a big electricity spike blew out my previous Dell 27" monitor a few days ago."
I often get a rough feel for a market by looking on Ebay. There were thousand upon thousands of 1080p monitors. A few hundred 1920 x 1200, just a few of which were Dell.
There are about 600 or 700 monitors at 2560 x 1440 resolution, all of them far more expensive than they should be today, had the market kept improving over the last 6 years.
There is absolutely no reason to have 1080p as a "standard" max resolution. 5 years ago I got a nice Princeton 24", 1920 x 1200 monitor at a good price. And I expected resolution to keep going up from there, as it always had before. Imaging my surprise when 1920 x 1200 monitors became harder to find, as manufacturers settled on the lower "standard" of 1920 x 1080 and seemed to be refusing to budge.
It's great and all that a 1080p monitor will handle 1080p video. BUT... when it does, there is no room for video controls, or anything else, because it's in "full screen" mode, which has limitations. I can play the same video on my monitor, using VLC, and still have room for the controls and other information, always on-screen.
Now certain forces seem to want us to "upgrade" to 4k, which uses an outrageous amount of memory and hard drive space, super high bandwidth cables, and is more resolution than the eye can discern anyway unless the screen is absolutely huge AND around 10 feet away.
Whatever happened to the gradual, step-wise progress we used to see? I would not in the least mind having a 26" or 27", 2560 x 1440 monitor on my desk. That should have been the next reasonable step up in monitor resolution... but try to find one from a major manufacturer! There are some on Ebay, mostly from no-names, and most of them are far more expensive than they should be. They should be cheaper than my 24" monitor from 5 years ago. But they aren't. Everything else in the computer field is still getting better and cheaper at the same time. But not monitors. Why?
"A juries duty is to determine guilt. Not determine punishment. They may take the punishment of the crime in their consideration to determine guilt, but they don't determine the punishment. Otherwise a jury becomes nothing more then an legalized lynch mob."
I've already replied to this same assertion by someone else.
That only refers to most criminal cases, in most states. It is far from an absolute. There are exceptions.
Lawsuits, and even some criminal cases in some circumstances, DO allow the jury to decide punishment within certain guidelines, AFTER the verdict is reached and announced. Sometimes it's the same jury, sometimes it's a different jury.
It all depends on the kind of case, and the jurisdiction.
I am constantly amazed by people who think their state laws are universal across the country. Or even worse, court practices on TV.
"A Volga GAZ 3110, which is basically a 90ies facelift of a 70ies mid-size car frontally crashed into a Daewoo Lanos (a 90ies subcompact). Both drivers died, the passengers of the Lanos (a mother with her child) have survived."
That doesn't prove ANYTHING. I referred to a particular model car, for particular reasons. Showing me the results of a crash between unfamiliar vehicles under unknown circumstances is not proof of anything at all.
For the sake of correctness I should add that it also bent the end of the front bumper back on the struck side about 2". It was the bumper that bent the fender.
"It is your body, and your choice what car to stick it in. Too bad you are doing so with dangerously misguided information. It's funny to think people say natural selection is not relevant in modern society!"
Easy to say when you don't bother refuting any of that "misguided information".
What about what I wrote do you assert is false? Let's see, was it the part about a significantly more massive car experiencing less acceleration in a collision than the smaller car? (F = ma) Was it the part about the deliberately offset collision into a car with an X-frame and no side rails)? Do you know what the speed of the collision was?
I'll go further: do you dispute that when a crumple zone is hit, the vehicle that is striking the crumple zone is also accelerated less than if there had been no crumple zone?
Do you think that when you combine these things, it is just might be possible that the person in the more massive vehicle might not experience as much acceleration as the person in the smaller car? (Remember, other than the body construction we're assuming the same safety equipment. In the video, there was an airbag in the Malibu, but not in the Bel Air.)
Have you ever picked up a physics book?
The video is deceiving in many ways. For one thing, the older type of car chosen was "ideal" for this demonstration, because its chassis had no side-rails, plus the firewall, dashboard and steering wheel were all of sheet metal construction. Hitting that particular car in that fashion is pretty much guaranteed to pulverize anybody sitting in the driver's seat. An air bag in that situation would not help much. But in a later vehicle it could make a big difference.
The later 68 Chrysler I mentioned, in contrast, was a heavier car and had a square chassis made of heavy steel c-beams. It had door side rails. It had a padded dash and interior as opposed to the metal of the Bel Air. You know what? I saw one hit a telephone pole, and you know what it did? Bent the fender. Granted that was at a somewhat lower speed but a telephone pole has no crumple zone.
Try the identical crash, in the same position, as in that video, with a 68 Chrysler New Yorker and I will pretty much guarantee you that you will get much different results.
"It was a civil suit, there is no "charge", rather it is a "lawsuit". Likewise, there is no law or anything requiring an audit, nor is it written anywhere that you need one."
I wasn't referring to criminal charges. A lawsuit is a "charge" that you did something legally actionable.
"The company shouldn't need to go around shaking down all of it's employees - the work environment is much better that way. My boss would let me do pretty much whatever I wanted to so long as I got the job done without breaking the ethics code or any laws."
That's probably why they lost the lawsuit. First, monitoring or audits of the company's own property do not generally involve "shaking down anybody". It is simply a review of what software is on the machines, whether it is licensed, etc.
Having a review policy for these kinds of things has kept many companies from losing exactly these kinds of lawsuits. I used to be the regional systems manager ("head of IT") for a large company. I was required to catalog and track what software was on the company's computers. No other reason was necessary other than it made simple accounting sense. We had a written policy requiring it, everybody expected it, no shakedowns were necessary, and never once did anybody complain.
"If this is the attitude that most programmers today have, then it's no wonder we have so many of them who can't find a job after they graduate. As I stated earlier, 60% of the workforce is employed by small businesses. These small businesses don't have the capital to go out and buy this kind of stuff for their employees, so it would make sense."
It isn't an "attitude". I repeat: it's decades-old, common business practice. Did you read my previous post, or not? "BYOD" is what is the new and controversial thing, not the standard practices I was writing about.
"As a programmer, I'd sort of hope that you'd at least have a passion for it, which means you'd probably already own your own devices already. This is the same expectation the auto industry already has for mechanics. It therefore seems absurd for you to demand that your employer pay you for it."
I repeat, because you seem particularly dense about this point: for decades it has been common business practice for businesses to supply the office equipment necessary for the business to operate. If it's an office that does programming, then it is common for the business to supply the computer. There is absolutely nothing new or unusual about this. What is unusual is for a company to expect the employees to supply business equipment that the company needs to operate. This is a strange and rather bizarre idea indeed. Repeat, again: that is NOT standard business practice, and has not been at any time in my life. You are trying to berate me for doing what professionals normally do. That's weird, man.
"Usually when programmers are involved in startups, using their own existing equipment is just a flat out given because they're already on a very tight budget since they don't even have any revenue stream yet (nearly all of the very wealthy programmers out there start out doing exactly this in fact. Bill Gates, John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, Mark Zuckerberg...)"
First, that's a completely different situation, and second, you're wrong anyway. The founders of the company will use their own equipment, sure! Where the hell else are they going to get it? Star Trek replicators? Two hints here: first, the vast majority of businesses are NOT "startups", and second, the founders of startups have (A) a stake in the company and (B) are struggling for money. Of course they're going to use their own equipment.
"These guys also often work in an office, albeit generally a small one, with a little fridge for pizza. "
Yeah. You know why? They were founders of their own sta
"The jury's function is not to mete out punishment."
Simply not true in this case. It was, in fact, their legal duty.
"It is to determine whether the defendant committed the wrongdoing they are accused of. When a juror expresses desire to punish, it makes me wonder whether the verdict was motivated by epistemologically sound consideration or by that desire."
That depends entirely on the state laws, and the kind of case. In this (Oklahoma) case, according to TFA, part of the jury's duty was to determine punitive damages once they had reached a verdict. It was their job. So there was absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about them saying they wanted to punish Toyota. It was part of what they were there to do.
"It's not a rumor, and there's nothing to nip in the bud because it's already happened. A company I worked for got sued because a bunch of their employees installed pirated software on their company issued laptops. They had such a contract in place with their employees that they were responsible for it, but that didn't stop the company itself from being found liable by a judge. They were still found liable because the computers ultimately belonged to the company."
I suspect there was more to it than "they belonged to the company". Likely the company had no provisions to monitor or audit the software being used, or perhaps was even complicit in its use. If the company did not know about it, it is unlikely they would have been charged.
"And yes, by pirating I really do mean pirating. Nobody sues you for your definition."
You DO know what "piracy" is, yes? It is a legal term meaning to make copies (and usually selling) for profit. Who in the company was making copies for profit? Did management know about it?
"Plumbers, appliances repair men, mechanics...generally furnish their own tools."
Holy shit, dude. The term BYOD is referring to OFFICE WORK. Plumbers don't go to an office and work on computers all day! Nor do mechanics... unless they own their own mechanic shop, and if they're working on the computer all day, they aren't working as a mechanic!
"Try asking every pizzaria in the US to furnish cars to their delivery employees, or even pay for their gas. You'll get laughed at."
BYOD, as a general rule, does not refer to pizzerias, or mechanics, or plumbers, or for that matter automobiles. You're having your own little conversation here about something other than what everybody else is talking about. BYOD generally refers to office workers or software developers who bring their own devices (iPhones, laptops) to work. And no, in that environment "bring your own tools" has never, in recent decades, been standard practice. If you work in that kind of job, historically you were supplied with the office equipment needed to do that job. And if you were a contractors (freelance programmer, for example), you might have your own equipment but the cost of the use of that equipment is part of the contract, explicit or not. That's simple economics. Otherwise you couldn't afford the equipment to do your job.
"That doesn't obligate them to do so though."
Of course not. But if they don't, they can hire somebody else. I am a programmer. If they want me to work in the office, but supply my own "tools", they can pay me for the use of them or find somebody else. No obligation... just the way contracts work. Hint: contractors generally get paid more than hourly employees, partly for that reason. That doesn't mean "rent on my computer" is explicitly in the contract. But any savvy manager who hires contractors know how it works.
"And here we are with computers that are much cheaper than cars, and they don't burn gas to use. And you're upset because your employer won't pay you for using it, particularly for a computer that you probably already owned beforehand anyways?"
Not even. As I mentioned before: if he won't pay for the cost of using it, then he can hire somebody else. And good luck to him. As I already explained, this is a standard arrangement for contractors, and it's one of the reasons contractors get paid more.
If you want me to work in the office as an employee, and you don't want to pay for the office equipment that has traditionally been supplied by the company for office work -- and yes, I mean even small businesses -- then fine. I'll bring my own, as long as you compensate me for it. Either pay to rent it, or raise my salary. Otherwise, you want something for nothing. You might get it from someone else, but not from me.
"You'd lose that bet. And likely only once."
Likely not.
(1) At what speed was that crash test? My guess is (supported by my guess from the full-speed portion of the video) is that it was not a high-speed crash. Just as I was saying. I was referring to more of a high-speed crash, and the Chrysler is significantly heavier than either of those cars. (You probably can't answer this question because I looked at the site of the folks who made that video and it says it is not searchable right now.)
(2) The 2009 Malibu, while classed as "mid-size", is a bit larger than what I would call a "typical" commuter car today. The difference in weight between that and the Chevy is less than 200 pounds.
(3) The '59 Bel Air was the first car that used GM's "X Frame". The X-frame had no side members, leaving it more prone to damage from collisions that are not head-on. I suspect they staged that off-center crash precisely to take advantage of this fact.
I would also like to point out that the engine compartment does NOT make such a great "crumple zone", if it has an engine in it! (I will concede, though, that modern firewalls are typically angled to try to deflect the engine underneath in that kind of a crash.)
In answer to the other poster, I was referring to a 1968 New Yorker. It had solid square steel C-beams for a chassis.
I think this is the first time I've seen Obama referred to as "Big Dada".
"And most interestingly from TFA is the last line. Ten of the 12 jury members said they wanted to punish Toyota. "
Yeah? And so? What is your point?
The jury heard the testimony from all the witnesses. They saw and heard all the evidence. THEN they wanted to punish Toyota. Yes? So what's wrong with that?
When jurors hear a case about a vicious and brutal child molester, and decide he's guilty, the jury often wants to punish him, too. I'm wondering why you think that's a bad thing.
"When I look at it, an older driver and vehicle recording systems saying the accelerator was pressed and the brakes were not, investigators finding no evidence to support the claim of a software failure, and then the jury stating they want to punish Toyota, I don't see this as a good verdict."
This is the problem with armchair judging. You saw or read that part, and nothing else. But the jury saw that, and much more. It is almost 100% certain that they know a lot more about it than you do. So what justification do you have for second-guessing them?
"These modern cars are safer in high speed collisions, but at a large cost in value."
Actually, they're not. The major elements that make the passengers safer are somewhat better seat belts, and airbags.
"Crumple zones" protect against relatively low-speed collisions. In a "serious accident", I'd wager my old Chrysler New Yorker against your crumple-zones any day of the week. 3 times the mass and solid I-beam steel, man. Not only would I experience far lower acceleration forces than you, I won't end up crumpled in my car's own crumple zone.
"Actually software control can be more reliable than mechanical, but it has to be designed correctly."
No, they can't, because ultimately they rely on mechanical components, even if those components are plain old electrical spade connectors.
You are displaying the same myopic mindset of those security people who will design an "unbeatable" electronic combination lock, then mount it with cheap hardware and a latch spring so weak that dropping the box on the floor will open it.
If you could make it all solid-state, from top to bottom, with no mechanical components whatsoever, then maybe you could make it safer than mechanical component. Until then, not.
"This is the argument Boeing put forth about Airbus and its fly-by-wire planes...until the gave in. We cannot stop this type of progress, but it would be nice if there was still somewhere a killswitch that was manual and separate from the computer...just as a last resort if possible."
Having researched this issue not very long ago, I can tell you that the issue is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.
Boeing has been building "fly-by-wire" planes almost as long as Airbus. The major difference (which Airbus aficionados still dispute but which is supported by factual records) is that Boeing put more and better physical ("manual") backup systems in their planes than Airbus did. And the consequences, as shown in the safety record, speak for themselves. Airbus' systems in some cases led to pilots literally sitting horrified in their cockpits watching disaster happen and not being able to do a single damned thing about it.
Kill switches, manual disconnects and backups, etc. all have to be built in. Doing otherwise is just plain irresponsible.
But hey... you're talking about the automotive industry here, remember? The same guys who control engines and entertainment systems with the same CPU, and who put android systems in new vehicles with no way to upgrade them for the life of the car.
"Well that isn't the only issue. BYOD also allows your company to avoid liability if the employee does anything illegal with it that you didn't authorize, such as using pirated software."
Well, I can nip that rumor in the bud. First, if you have an agreement stating that you, rather than the company, are liable or your own transgressions, in most cases it would be binding. Second, do you mean downloaded apps? Downloading is not piracy, which is a legal term meaning something else. Despite the fact that the RIAA and MPAA have spent millions trying to get you to think it is. You do their work for them when you call it that. Simply downloading a copied app is not a crime. Piracy is. They are legally two very different things.
"If your company saves money when you work from home instead of leasing more office space, you may as well argue that they're now responsible for your mortgage payment as well."
Nonsense. That is a different situation. There are definite perks to living at home, which offset any lost revenue from "renting" the space to the company. Using YOUR equipment, however, is a different story. If they did it themselves, they'd have to buy or lease the equipment. If they hired a contractor, the contractor would buy or lease the equipment (and pass the cost on to them). In contrast, you're trying to say they can require an employee to buy or lease the equipment themselves, with no compensation.
Just plain bullshit.
"Oh, I don't blame the users, despite how it might sound. But that doesn't mean I enjoy the support nightmare that BYOD entails (unless management is going to say "you bring it, you support it", which isn't likely at most companies)."
I can appreciate that.