Being certain of something doesn't make it true. You are, I am afraid, quite wrong... the very idea of an "unhackable computer" is built on a flawed premise, which is that it is somehow a computable function to determine what an arbitrary computer program is actually supposed to behave like.
Even fixed function devices can be hacked and used for purposes other than what they were intended for, Trying to do that for a general purpose computer is logically equivalent to solving the Halting Problem, which can be logically proven to have no possible solution.
Bear in mind that at this moment, it is only Cutia's allegation that CBC was using the video for a substantially longer period than what even the license CBC is claiming to have purchased would have allowed, and I did not read anywhere that this claim was corroborated by anyone else who would know.
Secondly, even if that were the case, then that might suggest that Cutia did not try and mitigate the damages against him quickly enough, and although it doesn't excuse the CBC for what they are alleged to have done, it would tend to cap their damages to a much smaller sum.
Or is he just prejudiced against people who have acne?
Either way, the person is a moron... you should judge a person's work for the work that they actually do instead of what they look like, how old they are, or how convenient it might seem to lump the person into a stererotype that may or may not reflect that particular individual.
In Canada, where CBC is based, if CNN genuinely had no license to authorize the CBC to broadcast the video (whether or not they did depends heavily on the interpretation of certain wording in the TOS with regards to third party usage), and the CBC is determined to be financially accountable, then the CBC could justly sue CNN, and reclaim the license fee that they paid, as well as all the damages from the case against them. I suspect they will not be held accountable, however, and any damages otherwise owed by the CBC will have to be paid by CNN directly.
Then you get to sue the thief for the amount you are out... and you will win... which will entitle you to make a lien on the thief's property to get your money back. If the thief has nothing of sufficient value to put a lien on, then you are probably S.O.L.... You ultimately need to be confident enough that wherever you are buying your things from that they aren't stolen that you are willing to take that risk.
If CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license, CBC should be able to sue CNN no less successfully, and for no less than the same amount they were sued for, for falsely representing their authorization to license it to them in the first place.
The simpler thing, of course, is to simply hold CNN directly liable for all of CBC's calculated damages.
Google didn't see the point.... previously, Sun offered to license Java to them for 100M, but Google decided they would make a their own clean-room implementation that wouldn't be called Java in the first place, and so would not have to pay them anything. Later, when Sun was floundering and about to be bought, why would Google want to buy the company for access to a technology when they had already decided that they would go in a direction where they wouldn't need to pay licensing fees for that technology in the first place? The only thing Google can be faulted for with not buying Sun themselves is not anticipating that the company that *DID* buy Sun would turn around and say that even a clean-room reimplementation of Java wasn't enough to be free of obligation to them, when Sun had already apparently let the matter drop when Google announced their intention to not try and actually use what Sun called Java in the first place. This is just IMO, but I think that Google probably would have decided to buy Sun before Oracle did if they had realized the headache it may have saved them, but I doubt anyone could have reasonably foreseen at the time that is how things would ultimately go down.
The biggest problem that I see, however, is that If Oracle is allowed to win this, then absolutely every single clean-room reimplementation of anything can become a target for a copyright infringement claim. And if something like that had been a precedent over a decade ago, the whole SCO vs. IBM thing over Linux could have gone *VERY* differently than it did.
Actually, they can fire you for absolutely anything they want.... they just aren't allowed to actually *say* that it's for one of those small number of reasons. Even if it is, the employer will just make up some bullshit that can't really be disproved, and that will be the end of it.
Have you ever really *played* munchkin? I would think if you have, you would realize that ditching what you call "custom rules" would be defeating most of what makes the game genuinely fun to play.
Well, there *IS* an official Munchkin app... and like everything else for Munchkin, comes with its own rule too.
This is just IMO, but I honestly expect the chief reason why Munchkin has not been digitized is that the diversity of rules with respect to all of the different cards, particularly as you add expansions or employ alternate or extended rules such as Epic Munchkin, and how all of these factors can potentially interact with eachother creates a search space that it so vast that attempting computerization is impractical with today's technology, and restricting the cards to only utilize some fixed and per-determined subset of the rules to offset this would quickly become boring.
"Better" is highly subjective.... Sure, the smart watches might do more stuff, but unless one actually needs regular use of the extra features that a smart watch offers beyond a regular watch, all a smart watch ends up being is more of a cell-phone accessory that is usually not as tolerant to hostile environments as many watches that are made today are, such as being able to safely go under water (at least to depths that do not require any special equipment to reach) and still be usable. Additionally, not having to constantly worry about keeping the battery charged on a regular battery-powered wristwatch is seen as a major advantage over the older hand-wound designs, while the requirement that one charge their smart-watch almost daily seems like a step backwards in that respect.
I reiterate. "Better" is highly subjective.
I don't need a $400 swiss watch to tell time when a watch that costs about tenth of that does the job just fine... with a battery life about 3 orders of magnitude longer than that of a smart watch.
Or you can be more tactful, playing the polite devil's advocate, and act like you genuinely believe they have the best of intentions, and then proceed to show them how even with entirely altruistic ideals what they would want with respect to encryption is actually entirely counterproductive to the long term protection of society.
For example, take the following argument:
Simply put, if the government can read everyone's encrypted data, however trustworthy they might claim to be, then so might somebody else who might not be as benign. They may be doing so in violation of the law, of course, and in an ideal world would eventually get caught and made to pay for such crimes, but in the interim, they can still harm completely innocent people, and the damage that they may be able to cause before they are brought to justice can sometimes not be entirely reparable by the judicial measures that could be taken. Further, even the most effectively run law enforcement system cannot be absolutely everywhere at all times, so it is all but inevitable that some people will even get away with committing crimes of such nature The net result, inevitably, is far more harm to the public than what law enforcement can realistically prevent with access to such keys.
One would not be able to rationally dispute the point that there is a lot of good potential that could come from law enforcement being able to get access to any device, in circumstances where they justly deserve to do so, but it is inescapable that the impact that implementing such measures would have on our lives today, in the reality of the world of the world in which we actually live, would amount to a much greater amount of harm, and as such cannot possibly be seen as worthwhile. The harm that could befall the general public if (and more than likely when) such keys fell into the wrong hands is simply far too great to allow even the most trustworthy of individuals or committees to have unfettered access to.
... is that you don't generally have any real ability to limit anyone else from collecting your fingerprints without wearing gloves everywhere... and if you are even *suspected* of a crime, you have no legal right at all to refuse to be fingerprinted by law enforcement (if you are acquitted, you can usually request that the information be destroyed, however, YMMV on this, depending on the jurisdiction). At least with passwords, you can simply refuse to divulge them. Some jurisdictions may throw a person in prison for not divulging a password, but of course, they still don't get the password by doing so, and are ultimately just keeping someone in prison at the taxpayer's expense that they won't necessarily get anything out of. While you won't necessarily be thrown in prison for refusing to give your fingerprints, that's only because law enforcement is authorized to use reasonable force to take fingerprints without your consent anyways.
There are literally dozens of studies on the subject that you could find with no more effort than a Google search. Generally speaking, money can only act as a motivator to get people to work harder than they already are when they are actually not being paid enough in the first place... or especially if they are not being paid fairly for the work they are doing. After you paying your employee's enough money, what generally motivates them to work harder are things more internal to the employee, such as having a sense that they have some control over their own life and the direction it is going, learning or mastering something new, or else feeling like the work they are doing is making some kind of positive difference in the company or society in general.
As long as what the person is being paid for their work is no less than fair, how much money they make beyond the point where they shouldn't need to worry about money in the first place is not going to motivate any but the most mercenary of employees, who in all honesty, you probably wouldn't want working for you anyways.
Also, paying everyone that they employ a decent wage does not necessarily mean that a company must live beyond its means, so that is not inherently any reason for an employee of a company that has recently adopted such a policy to fear that a person's salary would not at least still be able to keep up with the cost of living. If a person wants more than that, then that employee should approach their supervisor on the matter, and actively search for further opportunities within the company to take on more responsibility within the company that would be deserving of more pay in the first place rather than simply expecting that such a promotion would somehow just be generously handed to the employee without them having to do anything to get it. And in all honesty, it really seems to me that the people that quit their jobs over this happening may have been expecting exactly that. The only thing kind of raise that might be fair to get without trying to take on any further responsibility is one where the employee wasn't being paid fairly for the work they were doing in the first place, which the CEO presumably felt was the situation at this company when they increased the minimum salary to $70k.
Just like the Segway.... can't be used on any public sidewalks, bicycle paths, or roads, and on private property with public access, such as a shopping centre, can only be used with the owner's permission, which most do not give (although some do). Every few weeks or so I might see a person using one, and one time, I even witnessed what appeared to be someone getting fined for using one downtown on the public sidewalk (at least that's what it looked like to me from where I was watching, I wasn't anywhere nearly close enough to hear the actual exchange, but it did look like he was getting a ticket for using the device).
And it's not even that there are any laws explicitly prohibiting the Segway have been made here, it's that the Segway, being motorized, falls under a particular "vehicle" classification intended for use in areas to be shared with pedestrians, and although motorized wheelchairs have a similar classification, there is an explicit exemption for such devices on account that their primary purpose is to provide mobility for the disabled. The Segway, in addition to any similar styles of powered transport, have no such exemption, and so they are prohibited.
Generally speaking, person's buying power is not substantially diminished by the increase of pay for lowest paid workers, even if they make only marginally more than whatever the new minimum wage is supposed to be. This is because although the the number of such workers may seem high, the actual money involved in paying them is minor compared to the amount of money spent paying higher income people, kind of like the Pareto Principle, or 80-20 rule, but with different percentages. Because of the relatively small amount of the GDP that the lowest wage earners actually represent, and the *HUGE* income disparity between low income and high income earners, increasing the pay of those at the very bottom does not end up having anything anywhere near a linear relationship to an increase in overall cost of living. It is affected, of course... but nowhere near what the skeptics of increasing minimum wage might lead you to believe.
If your buying power has actually gone down while minimum wage has gone up, it is because your salary has not kept up with cost of living increases than because of minimum wage hikes.
You describe a worst case scenario, where the quality of the work in a company doesn't affect your employment status. While companies like this exist, they are not companies that any person with a decent work ethic would want to be employed by, regardless of how much they might pay. In any reasonably-run company, a person who spends most of their work day around a water-cooler not actually getting their job done would be fired in short order, regardless of salary. While I realize that firing people for petty reasons can be bad for morale, it's not unreasonable for any company to expect that its employees not just get paid to show up, but actually to get some shit done. Reasonably, the company should probably talk to the employee as soon as the pattern of lackluster behavior is noticed, and hopefully not have to let the person go if they improve. In practice, however, the company should have a pretty good impression of an employee's work ethic within just a few months of hiring them, and firing a more recently hired employee is generally not that demoralizing to people who have been there longer and work much harder when the company has good reason to let the person go anyways.
I would argue that people who would focus on how much time and effort it took for them to get to where they are and compare that to how little it took for a new hire to get to the same point are also probably falling for the sunk costs fallacy. They cannot get that time back, and lamenting that somebody else might get to the same position with much less effort than they put in is really just petty jealousy. In actuality, in such a situation, the past efforts of the hard working employee have probably helped put the company in a position that it can afford to be that generous in the first place. If one is less than happy with their pay and want to get paid more, then they should approach their employer to increase their responsibilities at work in exchange for a raise, if such opportunities are available. If, after a ramp-up period, they can perform the work competently, then the employer should reasonably increase the person's salary to correspond with your increased responsibility. If they cannot handle the new responsibilities, or if no new responsibilities are available, then why should the employer be reasonably expected to pay the employee more money? It's a pretty safe safe bet that if a new hire's suddenly getting paid 50% more than they were making just last month, then there's going to be an implicit contract for employee to do their damned best to prove that they were worthy of that kind of increase. As a new hire, if they aren't measuring up after a period of time, it's not unreasonable or even particularly problematic to let the person go if they aren't putting their best effort forward.
And really, if they used to be satisfied with how much they were making, as long as their salary is adjusted at somewhat regular intervals for cost-of-living growth or inflation, then why should that satisfaction change just because of how much someone else makes? As I said, the hard-working employee who was there at the beginning may have helped get the company into a position where it can afford to pay people a decent starting wage, and that is something that a person should be *proud* of.... not showing petty jealousy over the new hires that might get reap some of the benefit of your hard work. Also, having regular, ideally annual, salary increases that reasonably track the growing costs of living and inflation is not an unreasonable thing to expect from any company that is worth working for... if an employee is undeserving of such a modest increase, then they probably aren't working hard enough in the first place, and should probably be let go. If the company's margins are too tight to afford such increases, then the company is living beyond its means already, and there is no opportunity for a raise in the first place, so if you are dissatisfied with how much you make there, then you should find work elsewhere a
My point was that cars having "hackable electronics" is not a particularly new world, because even before they had computers in them, they were still very "hackable".
I'm not suggesting that it is... my challenge was not on the methodology of the hack, my challenge was on the notion on the statement "Welcome to the new world where cars can be hacked", because in actuality, there's nothing new about it at all.
As long as there are regular and modest salary increases every so often to account for growing costs of living and inflation, making what amounts to $70k per year in 2015 is not anywhere near being shitty pay. If an individual's performance is poor enough that it doesn't justify even such a modest increase, then they are probably already affecting the company's bottom line so there is some justification to letting that kind of slacker go anyways. Also, if the company's margins are too tight to afford such an increase, then the company probably is trying to live beyond its means anyways, and then there is *NO* prospect of hoping to get a raise anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Being certain of something doesn't make it true. You are, I am afraid, quite wrong... the very idea of an "unhackable computer" is built on a flawed premise, which is that it is somehow a computable function to determine what an arbitrary computer program is actually supposed to behave like.
Even fixed function devices can be hacked and used for purposes other than what they were intended for, Trying to do that for a general purpose computer is logically equivalent to solving the Halting Problem, which can be logically proven to have no possible solution.
Bear in mind that at this moment, it is only Cutia's allegation that CBC was using the video for a substantially longer period than what even the license CBC is claiming to have purchased would have allowed, and I did not read anywhere that this claim was corroborated by anyone else who would know.
Secondly, even if that were the case, then that might suggest that Cutia did not try and mitigate the damages against him quickly enough, and although it doesn't excuse the CBC for what they are alleged to have done, it would tend to cap their damages to a much smaller sum.
So he's being agist?
Or is he just prejudiced against people who have acne?
Either way, the person is a moron... you should judge a person's work for the work that they actually do instead of what they look like, how old they are, or how convenient it might seem to lump the person into a stererotype that may or may not reflect that particular individual.
In Canada, where CBC is based, if CNN genuinely had no license to authorize the CBC to broadcast the video (whether or not they did depends heavily on the interpretation of certain wording in the TOS with regards to third party usage), and the CBC is determined to be financially accountable, then the CBC could justly sue CNN, and reclaim the license fee that they paid, as well as all the damages from the case against them. I suspect they will not be held accountable, however, and any damages otherwise owed by the CBC will have to be paid by CNN directly.
Then you get to sue the thief for the amount you are out... and you will win... which will entitle you to make a lien on the thief's property to get your money back. If the thief has nothing of sufficient value to put a lien on, then you are probably S.O.L.... You ultimately need to be confident enough that wherever you are buying your things from that they aren't stolen that you are willing to take that risk.
If CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license, CBC should be able to sue CNN no less successfully, and for no less than the same amount they were sued for, for falsely representing their authorization to license it to them in the first place.
The simpler thing, of course, is to simply hold CNN directly liable for all of CBC's calculated damages.
Google didn't see the point.... previously, Sun offered to license Java to them for 100M, but Google decided they would make a their own clean-room implementation that wouldn't be called Java in the first place, and so would not have to pay them anything. Later, when Sun was floundering and about to be bought, why would Google want to buy the company for access to a technology when they had already decided that they would go in a direction where they wouldn't need to pay licensing fees for that technology in the first place? The only thing Google can be faulted for with not buying Sun themselves is not anticipating that the company that *DID* buy Sun would turn around and say that even a clean-room reimplementation of Java wasn't enough to be free of obligation to them, when Sun had already apparently let the matter drop when Google announced their intention to not try and actually use what Sun called Java in the first place. This is just IMO, but I think that Google probably would have decided to buy Sun before Oracle did if they had realized the headache it may have saved them, but I doubt anyone could have reasonably foreseen at the time that is how things would ultimately go down.
The biggest problem that I see, however, is that If Oracle is allowed to win this, then absolutely every single clean-room reimplementation of anything can become a target for a copyright infringement claim. And if something like that had been a precedent over a decade ago, the whole SCO vs. IBM thing over Linux could have gone *VERY* differently than it did.
It's always extremely easy to fire people who have been relatively recently hired.
Actually, they can fire you for absolutely anything they want.... they just aren't allowed to actually *say* that it's for one of those small number of reasons. Even if it is, the employer will just make up some bullshit that can't really be disproved, and that will be the end of it.
Have you ever really *played* munchkin? I would think if you have, you would realize that ditching what you call "custom rules" would be defeating most of what makes the game genuinely fun to play.
Well, there *IS* an official Munchkin app... and like everything else for Munchkin, comes with its own rule too.
This is just IMO, but I honestly expect the chief reason why Munchkin has not been digitized is that the diversity of rules with respect to all of the different cards, particularly as you add expansions or employ alternate or extended rules such as Epic Munchkin, and how all of these factors can potentially interact with eachother creates a search space that it so vast that attempting computerization is impractical with today's technology, and restricting the cards to only utilize some fixed and per-determined subset of the rules to offset this would quickly become boring.
"Better" is highly subjective.... Sure, the smart watches might do more stuff, but unless one actually needs regular use of the extra features that a smart watch offers beyond a regular watch, all a smart watch ends up being is more of a cell-phone accessory that is usually not as tolerant to hostile environments as many watches that are made today are, such as being able to safely go under water (at least to depths that do not require any special equipment to reach) and still be usable. Additionally, not having to constantly worry about keeping the battery charged on a regular battery-powered wristwatch is seen as a major advantage over the older hand-wound designs, while the requirement that one charge their smart-watch almost daily seems like a step backwards in that respect.
I reiterate. "Better" is highly subjective.
I don't need a $400 swiss watch to tell time when a watch that costs about tenth of that does the job just fine... with a battery life about 3 orders of magnitude longer than that of a smart watch.
Or you can be more tactful, playing the polite devil's advocate, and act like you genuinely believe they have the best of intentions, and then proceed to show them how even with entirely altruistic ideals what they would want with respect to encryption is actually entirely counterproductive to the long term protection of society.
For example, take the following argument:
Simply put, if the government can read everyone's encrypted data, however trustworthy they might claim to be, then so might somebody else who might not be as benign. They may be doing so in violation of the law, of course, and in an ideal world would eventually get caught and made to pay for such crimes, but in the interim, they can still harm completely innocent people, and the damage that they may be able to cause before they are brought to justice can sometimes not be entirely reparable by the judicial measures that could be taken. Further, even the most effectively run law enforcement system cannot be absolutely everywhere at all times, so it is all but inevitable that some people will even get away with committing crimes of such nature The net result, inevitably, is far more harm to the public than what law enforcement can realistically prevent with access to such keys.
One would not be able to rationally dispute the point that there is a lot of good potential that could come from law enforcement being able to get access to any device, in circumstances where they justly deserve to do so, but it is inescapable that the impact that implementing such measures would have on our lives today, in the reality of the world of the world in which we actually live, would amount to a much greater amount of harm, and as such cannot possibly be seen as worthwhile. The harm that could befall the general public if (and more than likely when) such keys fell into the wrong hands is simply far too great to allow even the most trustworthy of individuals or committees to have unfettered access to.
What does it say about slashdot that a recurring offtopic post has almost become an site-local meme?
I have an idea, but I can't think of how to describe it without invoking another meme that involves sharks and jumping over them.
... is that you don't generally have any real ability to limit anyone else from collecting your fingerprints without wearing gloves everywhere... and if you are even *suspected* of a crime, you have no legal right at all to refuse to be fingerprinted by law enforcement (if you are acquitted, you can usually request that the information be destroyed, however, YMMV on this, depending on the jurisdiction). At least with passwords, you can simply refuse to divulge them. Some jurisdictions may throw a person in prison for not divulging a password, but of course, they still don't get the password by doing so, and are ultimately just keeping someone in prison at the taxpayer's expense that they won't necessarily get anything out of. While you won't necessarily be thrown in prison for refusing to give your fingerprints, that's only because law enforcement is authorized to use reasonable force to take fingerprints without your consent anyways.
There are literally dozens of studies on the subject that you could find with no more effort than a Google search. Generally speaking, money can only act as a motivator to get people to work harder than they already are when they are actually not being paid enough in the first place... or especially if they are not being paid fairly for the work they are doing. After you paying your employee's enough money, what generally motivates them to work harder are things more internal to the employee, such as having a sense that they have some control over their own life and the direction it is going, learning or mastering something new, or else feeling like the work they are doing is making some kind of positive difference in the company or society in general.
As long as what the person is being paid for their work is no less than fair, how much money they make beyond the point where they shouldn't need to worry about money in the first place is not going to motivate any but the most mercenary of employees, who in all honesty, you probably wouldn't want working for you anyways.
Also, paying everyone that they employ a decent wage does not necessarily mean that a company must live beyond its means, so that is not inherently any reason for an employee of a company that has recently adopted such a policy to fear that a person's salary would not at least still be able to keep up with the cost of living. If a person wants more than that, then that employee should approach their supervisor on the matter, and actively search for further opportunities within the company to take on more responsibility within the company that would be deserving of more pay in the first place rather than simply expecting that such a promotion would somehow just be generously handed to the employee without them having to do anything to get it. And in all honesty, it really seems to me that the people that quit their jobs over this happening may have been expecting exactly that. The only thing kind of raise that might be fair to get without trying to take on any further responsibility is one where the employee wasn't being paid fairly for the work they were doing in the first place, which the CEO presumably felt was the situation at this company when they increased the minimum salary to $70k.
Just like the Segway.... can't be used on any public sidewalks, bicycle paths, or roads, and on private property with public access, such as a shopping centre, can only be used with the owner's permission, which most do not give (although some do). Every few weeks or so I might see a person using one, and one time, I even witnessed what appeared to be someone getting fined for using one downtown on the public sidewalk (at least that's what it looked like to me from where I was watching, I wasn't anywhere nearly close enough to hear the actual exchange, but it did look like he was getting a ticket for using the device).
And it's not even that there are any laws explicitly prohibiting the Segway have been made here, it's that the Segway, being motorized, falls under a particular "vehicle" classification intended for use in areas to be shared with pedestrians, and although motorized wheelchairs have a similar classification, there is an explicit exemption for such devices on account that their primary purpose is to provide mobility for the disabled. The Segway, in addition to any similar styles of powered transport, have no such exemption, and so they are prohibited.
Because back in the day, stealing a car required "hacking" too, just hacking of a different type.
Generally speaking, person's buying power is not substantially diminished by the increase of pay for lowest paid workers, even if they make only marginally more than whatever the new minimum wage is supposed to be. This is because although the the number of such workers may seem high, the actual money involved in paying them is minor compared to the amount of money spent paying higher income people, kind of like the Pareto Principle, or 80-20 rule, but with different percentages. Because of the relatively small amount of the GDP that the lowest wage earners actually represent, and the *HUGE* income disparity between low income and high income earners, increasing the pay of those at the very bottom does not end up having anything anywhere near a linear relationship to an increase in overall cost of living. It is affected, of course... but nowhere near what the skeptics of increasing minimum wage might lead you to believe.
If your buying power has actually gone down while minimum wage has gone up, it is because your salary has not kept up with cost of living increases than because of minimum wage hikes.
You describe a worst case scenario, where the quality of the work in a company doesn't affect your employment status. While companies like this exist, they are not companies that any person with a decent work ethic would want to be employed by, regardless of how much they might pay. In any reasonably-run company, a person who spends most of their work day around a water-cooler not actually getting their job done would be fired in short order, regardless of salary. While I realize that firing people for petty reasons can be bad for morale, it's not unreasonable for any company to expect that its employees not just get paid to show up, but actually to get some shit done. Reasonably, the company should probably talk to the employee as soon as the pattern of lackluster behavior is noticed, and hopefully not have to let the person go if they improve. In practice, however, the company should have a pretty good impression of an employee's work ethic within just a few months of hiring them, and firing a more recently hired employee is generally not that demoralizing to people who have been there longer and work much harder when the company has good reason to let the person go anyways.
I would argue that people who would focus on how much time and effort it took for them to get to where they are and compare that to how little it took for a new hire to get to the same point are also probably falling for the sunk costs fallacy. They cannot get that time back, and lamenting that somebody else might get to the same position with much less effort than they put in is really just petty jealousy. In actuality, in such a situation, the past efforts of the hard working employee have probably helped put the company in a position that it can afford to be that generous in the first place. If one is less than happy with their pay and want to get paid more, then they should approach their employer to increase their responsibilities at work in exchange for a raise, if such opportunities are available. If, after a ramp-up period, they can perform the work competently, then the employer should reasonably increase the person's salary to correspond with your increased responsibility. If they cannot handle the new responsibilities, or if no new responsibilities are available, then why should the employer be reasonably expected to pay the employee more money? It's a pretty safe safe bet that if a new hire's suddenly getting paid 50% more than they were making just last month, then there's going to be an implicit contract for employee to do their damned best to prove that they were worthy of that kind of increase. As a new hire, if they aren't measuring up after a period of time, it's not unreasonable or even particularly problematic to let the person go if they aren't putting their best effort forward.
And really, if they used to be satisfied with how much they were making, as long as their salary is adjusted at somewhat regular intervals for cost-of-living growth or inflation, then why should that satisfaction change just because of how much someone else makes? As I said, the hard-working employee who was there at the beginning may have helped get the company into a position where it can afford to pay people a decent starting wage, and that is something that a person should be *proud* of.... not showing petty jealousy over the new hires that might get reap some of the benefit of your hard work. Also, having regular, ideally annual, salary increases that reasonably track the growing costs of living and inflation is not an unreasonable thing to expect from any company that is worth working for... if an employee is undeserving of such a modest increase, then they probably aren't working hard enough in the first place, and should probably be let go. If the company's margins are too tight to afford such increases, then the company is living beyond its means already, and there is no opportunity for a raise in the first place, so if you are dissatisfied with how much you make there, then you should find work elsewhere a
My point was that cars having "hackable electronics" is not a particularly new world, because even before they had computers in them, they were still very "hackable".
I'm not suggesting that it is... my challenge was not on the methodology of the hack, my challenge was on the notion on the statement "Welcome to the new world where cars can be hacked", because in actuality, there's nothing new about it at all.
As long as there are regular and modest salary increases every so often to account for growing costs of living and inflation, making what amounts to $70k per year in 2015 is not anywhere near being shitty pay. If an individual's performance is poor enough that it doesn't justify even such a modest increase, then they are probably already affecting the company's bottom line so there is some justification to letting that kind of slacker go anyways. Also, if the company's margins are too tight to afford such an increase, then the company probably is trying to live beyond its means anyways, and then there is *NO* prospect of hoping to get a raise anyways.
My point being that cars were always "hackable".
So basically, if you want to make money, you have to have something to sell that people want to buy.
wow. that. is, such. a. surprise.