Replacing is unlikely. Augmenting, yes. Robotic machines are great but they can only do what they are designed to do-rather inflexible. And those machines will probably never be "cheap"-after all, it doesn't take many people (or time) to pour a foundation. Versus all the other work in the process.
And someone who is good with concrete/brick laying is skilled in my book. In the same sense as a carpenter/plumber/electrician. They aren't THAT easy to replace.
Maybe a better machine would be one that would do most of the heavy lifting for the worker. Probably where a lot of the injuries happen. Of course, those already exist, are a heck of a lot cheaper that these machines will be, and aren't currently used.....
Let me guess, you are a slightly advanced PHB:) Sorry.
As near as I can tell, it is the tool of an overgrown middle management. Any lower and you can find the person directly. Any higher, and well, they probably still have their own assistant. Not to mention, I have seen many cases where calenders where not remotely accurate-and do you really trust a piece of software to automatically schedule a meeting and the people to show up without further contact? If so, that is truly impressive (or a sign that they don't have anything useful to do), otherwise it is not nearly as useful as people think it is.
Look, meetings ARE needed and CAN be useful. But I strongly suspect the easier they are to call, the less useful they are.
I only see a few situations where such features are truly useful. Otherwise they are used because they exist.
"Ship as fast as you can and ignore the customer".
Hey, I like it. Sounds like where I work (textbook distribution, there's a Hill in there somewhere.....) Remember, if it looks like it fell from 20 ft, it probably did....
Problem is, if you start to handcuff everyone because you can, you are likely to lose respect from law abiding citizens. And no good will come from that....
I have coworkers that say things all the time believing them to be true (it's a legal requirement for companies to do this or that, gas is high because of X, etc.) Probably because it has become "folklore". When I try to verify these things, I find no info or that they are wrong (well, I already knew they probably were, but heck, I might learn something....) But that doesn't change what they KNOW TO BE TRUE.
"Bullshit. Again, what evidence do you have that sequential numbers are suspicious?"
Thanks. Someone with a clue. I actually have a few one dollar bills stashed somewhere. Not because they are valuable, but because they have sequential serial numbers. Kind of interesting.
May not be COMMON. But certainly not suspicious. I mean, they print large sheets of them, cut them up, and bundle them. I would be surprised if you got a stack of new bills and they WEREN'T sequential...
"The police sympathized with him and pretty much knew he was innocent, but they still could not make that judgement call themselves and had to wait for the Secret Service to arrive and verify that they were in fact not counterfiet."
No, actually they were gutless wimps and a prime example of worthless law enforcement officers. If they knew he was innocent, but didn't release him immediately, they are screwed (think lawsuit).
But let's face it, those types of "professionals" are more concerned about the opinions of morons above them than a lawsuit that the taxpayers will have to pay....
And police seriously wonder why people have a low opinion of them?!?
"Under the circumstances, the whole situation could have been avoided by a little education on the part of the Best Buy cashier. I still think this needs to be done, and rather painfully. However, the local police seemed to follow proper protocol. Ink on U.S. currency doesn't usually smear or smudge because it's usually handled often enough for the excess to wear off quickly."
Um, sorry, I don't buy it. A low wage clerk needs educated but the police were only following protocol?!? I refuse to let the police off this easily. I can see the cashier's point of view (especially if you assume the customer was disgruntled). But the police? Sorry, if anyone should have known better it would be them. The police come out as larger idiots than the cashier.
"But, but, but, grading isn't a menial task - it should be the single most important thing in a professor's job desciption."
Hmm, I thought teaching would be in there somewhere near the top, very possibly above grading. I think I have seen that assigning marks to students is required but very little in the way on how to do it:)
"A professor has to give perfect instructions, then pick up the pieces and correct the student when they get it wrong because they forgot/misunderstood/didn't listen/weren't at a lecture/etc. Without that essential explanation how are the students supposed to learn?"
Because they have a brain and want to use it? Look, introductory college courses (and even much of the rest) are really just guided (forced) handholding by someone who is an "expert" in the field. You don't have to go to college to learn what I learned in college courses IF you have the drive.
There are three basic roles of a professor: teacher, researcher, and public/school service. Each college/university rates those differently. At a large state school research (publishing and bringing in grants) is the most important thing. Period. No matter what else they say. The other two are secondary. That is to say, they won't get you much if you don't do the first:)
At a small liberal arts school, teaching will probably be most important.
This of course varies, by discipline, school, etc.
Grading is not the most important thing for ANY teacher-it's just something that is done to JUSTIFY and ASSIGN a mark. It may have little or NO correlation to what you learn or are taught (it may not be useful feedback).
"but I went to a university where CompSci professors were chosen based on their ability to churn out papers and make the department look good, and it was a fucking disgrace. Lecturers who couldn't speak english, lecturers who were using six-year-old out-of-date teaching materials because they couldn't be bothered to write new ones, and worst of all, professors who treated their students as nothing more than an annoying distraction from their pet projects."
Well, with all due respect, you WERE a distraction. You were NOT a priority. The school even stated as much (if you read between the lines of their advertising). Of course, you probably didn't realize this until it was too late. You went to the wrong school. It sucks. Been there, done that.
"And again, that's all I'm asking of him: to do his bloody job. Or find another job, if the current one is too boring for his highness."
And what, exactly, is the problem of automating the boring parts of the job? If the computer can do the basic grunt work of the position accurately why in the heck do you want a relatively highly paid and very highly educated person doing it?
Shouldn't they be doing better things with their time? Say research, advanced teaching, etc? Of course that gets into a whole different argument about why you are using a PhD to teach basic courses (supply and demand, image, etc).
"I too used to give students in my survey-level meteorology class opportunities to "express themselves" via short answers (a paragraph or two) on exams. I stopped because it was so hard to grade many of them because they were written so poorly. In addition to that, it is very difficult to grade short answers in a consistent way. For many of the short-answer questions I would usually end up just writing a number down ("Hmm.. this feels like a 3-points-out-of-5 answer") which real doesn't feel right... but what do you do when the concepts are confused, spelling and grammar are terrible but they have expressed some knowledge of the material?"
Thanks for comment. I have had a similar experience being a GTA for a few years and a lecturer for a couple of quarters (geology). Glad I'm not imagining it. I certainly see the allure of an objective test-either right or wrong.
Of course, it's amazing how hard it is to write really good objective tests.....
" "Archaic" writing may be tough to read but it is still good english - oh- her other criticism was that I used too many obtuse words, pardon me that my english is very good."
Well, the purpose of writing is to communicate. And if a professor felt your writing was "archaic" and obtuse, well maybe it didn't meet its main purpose-to communicate. Of course, the annoying (interesting?) thing is that each field often has its own view of "proper" writing. Put simply, you both could be correct (your writing may be good, but simply inappropriate for the particular field).
I have found no reason to "suck up" to the professors. Of course, realize that everyone who gets a PhD has an ego of varying size-you don't wan't to piss them off. And if a professor wants you to write in a certain style, expect to be penalized for not doing so. That's life. Happens everywhere.
"I'm not backing this crime. I think it's just because of opportunity and human greed - could've happened anywhere - it has got nothing to do with outsourcing to India."
True, but would 12 people in the US have been as likely to do this crime? That would net each of them just under 30k each? Maybe a little over a years salary.
I have no doubt someone might try. But don't think outsourcing has nothing to do with it.
"How will the teacher know if his students are actually trying hard to write their papers when all he does is check the thing with a computer program?"
With all due respect, who gives a flying F@#$?!? Should I be rewarded for trying really hard even if I suck at what I do? The grade is based (in theory) on how well you meet the goals. Not how hard you tried.
"If I'm going to put a lot of work into writing an interesting paper about something, I want someone to read it."
I may be going out on a limb here, but I am willing to say there is virtually nothing interesting about papers written in introductory courses of any kind to anyone that is an expert in the field. They may be interesting to you, because you didn't previously know the information. It's closer to "if I have to read a poor explanation of a basic tenet of my field one more time, I'm going to kill someone..."
Hell, in reality, the paper is probably not interesting to anyone outside the course either....
Look, it would be a bad idea in a creative writing course or even an upper level course. But in an intro level course, I see no problem.
I'll let you in on a little secret. My best teachers were often the ones that assigned the most work (generally essays). Not one of them liked grading them. It sucked. I can confirm that.
Not to mention, it is difficult to grade simple short answers on a test consistently. Much less essays.
Computers are great at being consistent. Sure, they may not recognize novel writing or great arguments, but if they can take much of the drudgery out of the process AND improve consistency, why not? I mean, what is the greatest complaint about scoring on essays? X got a better grade than me because the teacher liked him/her better, the teacher didn't like my argument, etc. If you can show, objectively, that well, your paper sucked grammer wise, it removes a lot of the potential for whining.
"The program saves him over 200 hours of DOING HIS FUCKING JOB. If he didnt want to read papers -- hes in the wrong line of work. End of story, finish him."
Sorry, I disagree. I really doubt there is anything requiring him to actually read anything turned in to him. Heck, his primary job may not be teaching at all (depending upon the University's goals....) If you had read the article, you can challenge your grade and get feedback on your writing. And he does look at all of the papers.Sounds like an improvement to me.
He gets paid to teach a course. How he teaches it is probably largely up to him. He could eliminate much of the writing. But this program probably allows him to assign more.
In any case, I doubt there is anything particularly unique about basic papers written for intro courses in ANY discipline. Every argument has probably been stated and rehashed a zillion times. I sure as heck wouldn't want to waste time reading a crappy paper that could have been improved by running it through a computer. I have read papers by college students. Many (most?) would have been improved by sending it through a computer to check for basic grammer (think MS Word).
"The other half of this story is -- universities make students write TONS of worthless papers."
Well, in general, the more writing you do, the better you become at it. It's hard to be a good writer if you don't do it much.
"Students leave a program having written scores of papers -- and they never learn HOW to write papers. I am amazed at how many college graduates I meet who do not understand formal writing."
And this is a failing of Universities in particular how? If you don't know how to write by the time you are in college, you are already screwed. The University isn't the only one who failed you. Ultimately the only person responsible for their education is the one they see in the mirror every day.
Ulimately, you had better get used to computers scoring papers. Heck, some places I apply for work use a computerized ranking system (these are professional jobs). You don't rank high enough, well, we won't even consider you.
Nebraska and Maine actually award their electoral votes based on winners of house districts with the overall vote getter taking the "senate" electoral votes, IIRC. Voters were wise not to vote for the measure, because, as you note, there would be no point in wasting time or money in such a state....
Now, if one were devious, you might introduce such a measure in a populous state that votes against your preferred party..... Think of the effect of such a thing in CA, FL, NY, TX, etc....
"What scares me is that, if I read it right, that may not be the case in a few years. What am I supposed to do if I get stuck at the border? I can't work in Canada and I can't get home."
Well, I guess you would have to commit an act that would get you deported from Canada to your home country. Or commit an act that would get the US to extradite you:) Simple, really:)
"The poor person behind the counter isn't at fault for the advertising, nor the policy. I work retail (though blessedly not with computers) and we mock our own advertisements, sales, and policies just as much as anyone else would."
True. But that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for them (advertising/policy). Or maybe it would be better to say associated with it. If you work there you are at least partly responsible for how the company operates-it doesn't matter that you have little or no power to change things.
You have to expect to be ridiculed for the actions of the company. To be the one that gets yelled at, while the VP who decided the policy plays golf. You are the face of the company to the consumer. And the consumer doesn't really care if he/she is ridiculed out of sight. It's not right, but that's life.
Remember, if the employer couldn't get willing employees, they might have to change things. If you have to have the job, it sucks. If you don't, it still sucks. Either way you made a choice to associate with people of questionable ethics-don't be surprised if it reflects on you.
So, do you have any references for that? Not X said Y, but a good published (maybe even peer reviewed) study? Or, are you writing complete rubbish in an authoritative style:)
Now, I can see increasing tire pressure until signs of irregular wear show on a tire then backing off. The goal is to have the entire footprint of the tire interacting with the road, not just the center or edges of the tire. But that isn't going to increase fuel mileage-it's going to increase friction and reduce mileage. Of course, I prefer safety to any miniscule fuel savings. Personally, I have never noticed any significant fuel savings by changing tire pressures that couldn't be attributed to other driving conditions. Others may differ.
But increasing tire pressure to the maximum allowable is just stupid. Just as stupid as not checking your tires and allowing them to become underinflated....
"Moral of the story, folks: Never include any code or content subject to outside license restrictions (whether GPL or otherwise) in something done for your boss without getting the boss' informed consent! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}"
True. But remember, that's mainly to save your behind (aside from the ethical/moral issues). Once you, as an employee, put in code that you don't own, it also becomes your EMPLOYERS problem. You acted as an agent of the company. So the company can be sued and/or cited.
I would assume good companies have procedures to prevent/mitigate this. Which means most don't:) At the very least, the employee should/would be terminated and potentially sued for damages (if the owner of the code found out and a deal couldn't be reached).
"This is *assuming* that they are empowered to enter into such an agreement to begin with. e.g. The Janitor."
Well, one of the fun things about law is this-if you think (reasonably) that they have the authority, they may/probably do. A janitor, no, a manager, yes. It's even more fun if it happens over the phone (said janitor CAN represent the company, even if he is NOT an employee....) A lawyer could reasonably argue this. Of course, IANAL and for some definitions of fun.
Granted, I would never take someones word over a written agreement. That could be a much larger problem.
"The problem that GM has is that, if a car is on the road, they are required to provide spare parts (either by manufacturing them or providing diagrams for third-party manufacturers) for those cars for 10 years past the date of building that particular vehicle."
Really? I have never heard of the ten year rule. Could you cite the CFR please?
In any case, you provide the cheap solution. Provide the diagrams. Simple. As they they are never going to make the cars again, they won't lose any valuable technology....
Let's face it. They wanted the cars gone. The liability reason is absurd. Did Ford buy back all those Pinto's they sold with known defects (or economic tradeoffs if you prefer)?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a lot of people have asked the question.
:)
You must just have been hiding in a hole somewhere. Say, you aren't a terrorist are you?
Replacing is unlikely. Augmenting, yes. Robotic machines are great but they can only do what they are designed to do-rather inflexible. And those machines will probably never be "cheap"-after all, it doesn't take many people (or time) to pour a foundation. Versus all the other work in the process.
And someone who is good with concrete/brick laying is skilled in my book. In the same sense as a carpenter/plumber/electrician. They aren't THAT easy to replace.
Maybe a better machine would be one that would do most of the heavy lifting for the worker. Probably where a lot of the injuries happen. Of course, those already exist, are a heck of a lot cheaper that these machines will be, and aren't currently used.....
Let me guess, you are a slightly advanced PHB :) Sorry.
As near as I can tell, it is the tool of an overgrown middle management. Any lower and you can find the person directly. Any higher, and well, they probably still have their own assistant. Not to mention, I have seen many cases where calenders where not remotely accurate-and do you really trust a piece of software to automatically schedule a meeting and the people to show up without further contact? If so, that is truly impressive (or a sign that they don't have anything useful to do), otherwise it is not nearly as useful as people think it is.
Look, meetings ARE needed and CAN be useful. But I strongly suspect the easier they are to call, the less useful they are.
I only see a few situations where such features are truly useful. Otherwise they are used because they exist.
"Ship as fast as you can and ignore the customer".
Hey, I like it. Sounds like where I work (textbook distribution, there's a Hill in there somewhere.....) Remember, if it looks like it fell from 20 ft, it probably did....
Problem is, if you start to handcuff everyone because you can, you are likely to lose respect from law abiding citizens. And no good will come from that....
Actually that's a very insightful comment.
I have coworkers that say things all the time believing them to be true (it's a legal requirement for companies to do this or that, gas is high because of X, etc.) Probably because it has become "folklore". When I try to verify these things, I find no info or that they are wrong (well, I already knew they probably were, but heck, I might learn something....) But that doesn't change what they KNOW TO BE TRUE.
"Bullshit. Again, what evidence do you have that sequential numbers are suspicious?"
Thanks. Someone with a clue. I actually have a few one dollar bills stashed somewhere. Not because they are valuable, but because they have sequential serial numbers. Kind of interesting.
May not be COMMON. But certainly not suspicious. I mean, they print large sheets of them, cut them up, and bundle them. I would be surprised if you got a stack of new bills and they WEREN'T sequential...
"The police sympathized with him and pretty much knew he was innocent, but they still could not make that judgement call themselves and had to wait for the Secret Service to arrive and verify that they were in fact not counterfiet."
No, actually they were gutless wimps and a prime example of worthless law enforcement officers. If they knew he was innocent, but didn't release him immediately, they are screwed (think lawsuit).
But let's face it, those types of "professionals" are more concerned about the opinions of morons above them than a lawsuit that the taxpayers will have to pay....
And police seriously wonder why people have a low opinion of them?!?
"Under the circumstances, the whole situation could have been avoided by a little education on the part of the Best Buy cashier. I still think this needs to be done, and rather painfully. However, the local police seemed to follow proper protocol. Ink on U.S. currency doesn't usually smear or smudge because it's usually handled often enough for the excess to wear off quickly."
Um, sorry, I don't buy it. A low wage clerk needs educated but the police were only following protocol?!? I refuse to let the police off this easily. I can see the cashier's point of view (especially if you assume the customer was disgruntled). But the police? Sorry, if anyone should have known better it would be them. The police come out as larger idiots than the cashier.
"But, but, but, grading isn't a menial task - it should be the single most important thing in a professor's job desciption."
:)
:)
Hmm, I thought teaching would be in there somewhere near the top, very possibly above grading. I think I have seen that assigning marks to students is required but very little in the way on how to do it
"A professor has to give perfect instructions, then pick up the pieces and correct the student when they get it wrong because they forgot/misunderstood/didn't listen/weren't at a lecture/etc. Without that essential explanation how are the students supposed to learn?"
Because they have a brain and want to use it? Look, introductory college courses (and even much of the rest) are really just guided (forced) handholding by someone who is an "expert" in the field. You don't have to go to college to learn what I learned in college courses IF you have the drive.
There are three basic roles of a professor: teacher, researcher, and public/school service. Each college/university rates those differently. At a large state school research (publishing and bringing in grants) is the most important thing. Period. No matter what else they say. The other two are secondary. That is to say, they won't get you much if you don't do the first
At a small liberal arts school, teaching will probably be most important.
This of course varies, by discipline, school, etc.
Grading is not the most important thing for ANY teacher-it's just something that is done to JUSTIFY and ASSIGN a mark. It may have little or NO correlation to what you learn or are taught (it may not be useful feedback).
"but I went to a university where CompSci professors were chosen based on their ability to churn out papers and make the department look good, and it was a fucking disgrace. Lecturers who couldn't speak english, lecturers who were using six-year-old out-of-date teaching materials because they couldn't be bothered to write new ones, and worst of all, professors who treated their students as nothing more than an annoying distraction from their pet projects."
Well, with all due respect, you WERE a distraction. You were NOT a priority. The school even stated as much (if you read between the lines of their advertising). Of course, you probably didn't realize this until it was too late. You went to the wrong school. It sucks. Been there, done that.
"And again, that's all I'm asking of him: to do his bloody job. Or find another job, if the current one is too boring for his highness."
And what, exactly, is the problem of automating the boring parts of the job? If the computer can do the basic grunt work of the position accurately why in the heck do you want a relatively highly paid and very highly educated person doing it?
Shouldn't they be doing better things with their time? Say research, advanced teaching, etc? Of course that gets into a whole different argument about why you are using a PhD to teach basic courses (supply and demand, image, etc).
"I too used to give students in my survey-level meteorology class opportunities to "express themselves" via short answers (a paragraph or two) on exams. I stopped because it was so hard to grade many of them because they were written so poorly. In addition to that, it is very difficult to grade short answers in a consistent way. For many of the short-answer questions I would usually end up just writing a number down ("Hmm.. this feels like a 3-points-out-of-5 answer") which real doesn't feel right... but what do you do when the concepts are confused, spelling and grammar are terrible but they have expressed some knowledge of the material?"
Thanks for comment. I have had a similar experience being a GTA for a few years and a lecturer for a couple of quarters (geology). Glad I'm not imagining it. I certainly see the allure of an objective test-either right or wrong.
Of course, it's amazing how hard it is to write really good objective tests.....
" "Archaic" writing may be tough to read but it is still good english - oh- her other criticism was that I used too many obtuse words, pardon me that my english is very good."
Well, the purpose of writing is to communicate. And if a professor felt your writing was "archaic" and obtuse, well maybe it didn't meet its main purpose-to communicate. Of course, the annoying (interesting?) thing is that each field often has its own view of "proper" writing. Put simply, you both could be correct (your writing may be good, but simply inappropriate for the particular field).
I have found no reason to "suck up" to the professors. Of course, realize that everyone who gets a PhD has an ego of varying size-you don't wan't to piss them off. And if a professor wants you to write in a certain style, expect to be penalized for not doing so. That's life. Happens everywhere.
"I'm not backing this crime. I think it's just because of opportunity and human greed - could've happened anywhere - it has got nothing to do with outsourcing to India."
True, but would 12 people in the US have been as likely to do this crime? That would net each of them just under 30k each? Maybe a little over a years salary.
I have no doubt someone might try. But don't think outsourcing has nothing to do with it.
"How will the teacher know if his students are actually trying hard to write their papers when all he does is check the thing with a computer program?"
With all due respect, who gives a flying F@#$?!? Should I be rewarded for trying really hard even if I suck at what I do? The grade is based (in theory) on how well you meet the goals. Not how hard you tried.
"If I'm going to put a lot of work into writing an interesting paper about something, I want someone to read it."
I may be going out on a limb here, but I am willing to say there is virtually nothing interesting about papers written in introductory courses of any kind to anyone that is an expert in the field. They may be interesting to you, because you didn't previously know the information. It's closer to "if I have to read a poor explanation of a basic tenet of my field one more time, I'm going to kill someone..."
Hell, in reality, the paper is probably not interesting to anyone outside the course either....
Look, it would be a bad idea in a creative writing course or even an upper level course. But in an intro level course, I see no problem.
I'll let you in on a little secret. My best teachers were often the ones that assigned the most work (generally essays). Not one of them liked grading them. It sucked. I can confirm that.
Not to mention, it is difficult to grade simple short answers on a test consistently. Much less essays.
Computers are great at being consistent. Sure, they may not recognize novel writing or great arguments, but if they can take much of the drudgery out of the process AND improve consistency, why not? I mean, what is the greatest complaint about scoring on essays? X got a better grade than me because the teacher liked him/her better, the teacher didn't like my argument, etc. If you can show, objectively, that well, your paper sucked grammer wise, it removes a lot of the potential for whining.
"The program saves him over 200 hours of DOING HIS FUCKING JOB. If he didnt want to read papers -- hes in the wrong line of work. End of story, finish him."
Sorry, I disagree. I really doubt there is anything requiring him to actually read anything turned in to him. Heck, his primary job may not be teaching at all (depending upon the University's goals....) If you had read the article, you can challenge your grade and get feedback on your writing. And he does look at all of the papers.Sounds like an improvement to me.
He gets paid to teach a course. How he teaches it is probably largely up to him. He could eliminate much of the writing. But this program probably allows him to assign more.
In any case, I doubt there is anything particularly unique about basic papers written for intro courses in ANY discipline. Every argument has probably been stated and rehashed a zillion times. I sure as heck wouldn't want to waste time reading a crappy paper that could have been improved by running it through a computer. I have read papers by college students. Many (most?) would have been improved by sending it through a computer to check for basic grammer (think MS Word).
"The other half of this story is -- universities make students write TONS of worthless papers."
Well, in general, the more writing you do, the better you become at it. It's hard to be a good writer if you don't do it much.
"Students leave a program having written scores of papers -- and they never learn HOW to write papers. I am amazed at how many college graduates I meet who do not understand formal writing."
And this is a failing of Universities in particular how? If you don't know how to write by the time you are in college, you are already screwed. The University isn't the only one who failed you. Ultimately the only person responsible for their education is the one they see in the mirror every day.
Ulimately, you had better get used to computers scoring papers. Heck, some places I apply for work use a computerized ranking system (these are professional jobs). You don't rank high enough, well, we won't even consider you.
Nebraska and Maine actually award their electoral votes based on winners of house districts with the overall vote getter taking the "senate" electoral votes, IIRC. Voters were wise not to vote for the measure, because, as you note, there would be no point in wasting time or money in such a state....
Now, if one were devious, you might introduce such a measure in a populous state that votes against your preferred party..... Think of the effect of such a thing in CA, FL, NY, TX, etc....
"What scares me is that, if I read it right, that may not be the case in a few years. What am I supposed to do if I get stuck at the border? I can't work in Canada and I can't get home."
:) Simple, really :)
Well, I guess you would have to commit an act that would get you deported from Canada to your home country. Or commit an act that would get the US to extradite you
"it's a carbon sink"
You do realize that unburned oil is a carbon sink too? Once you convert grass to a fuel and burn it (or let it decay) it is no longer a sink....
"The poor person behind the counter isn't at fault for the advertising, nor the policy. I work retail (though blessedly not with computers) and we mock our own advertisements, sales, and policies just as much as anyone else would."
True. But that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for them (advertising/policy). Or maybe it would be better to say associated with it. If you work there you are at least partly responsible for how the company operates-it doesn't matter that you have little or no power to change things.
You have to expect to be ridiculed for the actions of the company. To be the one that gets yelled at, while the VP who decided the policy plays golf. You are the face of the company to the consumer. And the consumer doesn't really care if he/she is ridiculed out of sight. It's not right, but that's life.
Remember, if the employer couldn't get willing employees, they might have to change things. If you have to have the job, it sucks. If you don't, it still sucks. Either way you made a choice to associate with people of questionable ethics-don't be surprised if it reflects on you.
So, do you have any references for that? Not X said Y, but a good published (maybe even peer reviewed) study? Or, are you writing complete rubbish in an authoritative style :)
Now, I can see increasing tire pressure until signs of irregular wear show on a tire then backing off. The goal is to have the entire footprint of the tire interacting with the road, not just the center or edges of the tire. But that isn't going to increase fuel mileage-it's going to increase friction and reduce mileage. Of course, I prefer safety to any miniscule fuel savings. Personally, I have never noticed any significant fuel savings by changing tire pressures that couldn't be attributed to other driving conditions. Others may differ.
But increasing tire pressure to the maximum allowable is just stupid. Just as stupid as not checking your tires and allowing them to become underinflated....
"Moral of the story, folks: Never include any code or content subject to outside license restrictions (whether GPL or otherwise) in something done for your boss without getting the boss' informed consent! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}"
:) At the very least, the employee should/would be terminated and potentially sued for damages (if the owner of the code found out and a deal couldn't be reached).
True. But remember, that's mainly to save your behind (aside from the ethical/moral issues). Once you, as an employee, put in code that you don't own, it also becomes your EMPLOYERS problem. You acted as an agent of the company. So the company can be sued and/or cited.
I would assume good companies have procedures to prevent/mitigate this. Which means most don't
"This is *assuming* that they are empowered to enter into such an agreement to begin with. e.g. The Janitor."
Well, one of the fun things about law is this-if you think (reasonably) that they have the authority, they may/probably do. A janitor, no, a manager, yes. It's even more fun if it happens over the phone (said janitor CAN represent the company, even if he is NOT an employee....) A lawyer could reasonably argue this. Of course, IANAL and for some definitions of fun.
Granted, I would never take someones word over a written agreement. That could be a much larger problem.
"The problem that GM has is that, if a car is on the road, they are required to provide spare parts (either by manufacturing them or providing diagrams for third-party manufacturers) for those cars for 10 years past the date of building that particular vehicle."
Really? I have never heard of the ten year rule. Could you cite the CFR please?
In any case, you provide the cheap solution. Provide the diagrams. Simple. As they they are never going to make the cars again, they won't lose any valuable technology....
Let's face it. They wanted the cars gone. The liability reason is absurd. Did Ford buy back all those Pinto's they sold with known defects (or economic tradeoffs if you prefer)?