If you don't think friends of Amway zombies are victims, please do not interact with regular people.
Besides, if you weren't so festering fucking dumb you'd see I said spam can be used on anyone, neighbors or not. Maybe, just maybe, you'd realize that spam is bulk unwanted email, and it counts even if you know the person. But considering that all your post does is pump MLMs, I'd say that you DO know the difference and are trying to cloud it, to make MLMs (and the assholes involved with them) look good. Are there any of these scams you didn't get into, in your attempt to coast through life being nothing but a nuisance to those around you?
Frankly, anyone who can read knows that PLP is a huge scam and that anyone who posts positively about it is a liar, trying to trap you into the nightmare they can't escape from. Amways, etc, are the same. It's not the people, it's the materials that encourage everyone to act exactly alike - a soulless selling machine who shuns family who don't "support" their craziness.
Thanks, but I can buy soap cheaper at Costco, without the cult aspect, the family members running when they see me, and without having to lie to strangers online about how great it all is. You're a perfect example of the shitstains involved in this.
So it's a picky pantheon with a non-personified creator aspect. Every different belief system requires the universe to be created, and presumably those gods wouldn't bother with much of an afterlife for non-believers (if not torture them as the more gruesome gods do).
For that matter though, the xian god, for example, does not give you a free pass just because you haven't heard of him - neither would most other gods if they ended up being the right one. Are you SURE none of those other gods is the creator and just didn't bother to widely publicize the fact? Perhaps Russel's Teapot created the universe for something to look at and happily grants eternal life to all who ask it - in person.
But what value is simple static eternal life? You need to think of the rewards. With some gods entire lifetimes of good deeds are required to move up a bit as a mortal, for others you get boatloads of eternal virgins for simply murdering people.
No, it is because that bug is one that unit testing would have caught. And if he was writing specs and implementing those, he'd have caught that error within seconds of making it.
Well, I'd say that the metric system makes Latin prefixes more relevant.
Decimate was a precise word, Murdelate (to coin an example) is not. If we "Murdelated the losing army" that could drift in percentage without problem. But decimate has a precise meaning which is merely not being used.
At what point does referring to a hamburger as arachnophobia become right? If I use it myself? If I can teach it to a whole class of children? A whole nation? Only once used for a hundred years?
But my overall point though, was that saying "language drift is natural and correct" is a linguistic thing to say, when looking at a language in a semi-historical context. But it's not relevant to the language at any given moment - right now, "irregardless" is an error. By taking a historical context to a living problem you negate the problem in the here and now by implying a future where the mistake has been patched over by the collective doublethink of generations.
It's sort of like saying "War is natural". I mean, it is - if there's only food for one person, two or more will eventually come to blows. But there's a "let it be" feeling to the statement, like "they'll tire themselves out eventually", that isn't appropriate to the current (not historic) people caught in the events. To them, war is murder, yet to be writ large.
So imho, decimate is wrong because I, a native speaker of English and user of the Metric system, feel that it is. Whereas if we were archaeologists a thousand years into the future it would be different - it already would have morphed - that war would have been fought and become history.
Good thing--because your counter-argument is based on[...]
No, my counter-argument isn't based on 'hacker'. That's what I meant, "wasn't actually".
Your examples of generalized names, asprin for instance, aren't very wrong. Names are subtle things, and the people who refer to things the most do name them.
Other words like decimate have a more fixed meaning. Even where that meaning is slippery (can you decimate cake?) the 1/10th aspect is still obvious. Use of the word to mean other amounts is wrong, even if absolutely common.
fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language
Besides, even if you overlook my joking tone, my point is that our language isn't fixed in history, where today's usage is merely an example of how it got some other way. Today's usage is being used today and we have as much of a say over the rightness (or wrongness) of it as anyone else.
I object to the argument you used, about how wrong usage is just future correct usage. I've heard it before about other words, such as decimate, where the usage is more obviously wrong. (Using it to mean totally destroyed.) Some amateur linguist steps in and argues that because language is evolving we should all stop trying to correct it because it's by definition correct. As if mutations are always beneficial, and as if we aren't the very forces that shape language.
Sure, sure. We all get the idea that after years of uncorrected usage a word as-good-as-means something else. And that we call that language and it's correct by definition because it works.
But erroneous usage is, well, erroneous. And I'll thank you fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language while I apply a bandage in the form of correcting errors. If caught early we can remove the tumor, instead of hoping it grows into something useful.
After all, there's another word for ongoing erroneous usage. "Wrong".
I don't object to being seen, I object to being watched. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts?
I do. You do not.
Looking at the same still photo of you for hours is not watching you. The you in the photo still has not scratched his ass.
But in my opinion it's reasonable to expect not to be watched in your own home even if you are visible from the outside.
And this is the source of your confusion. You do not have that right. If it's legal to look at you, it's legal to sit and watch you. Harassment and stalking laws have very little to do with someone who just chooses to stop outside your house and look at you.
Further, your use of the word reasonable is backward. If it is easily possible to watch you, either in person or with a webcam hidden in public space, why would the use of reason suggest that you could expect NOT to be watched? Indeed, it's reasonable to expect that you COULD be watched anywhere.
That doesn't sound like the situation we're discussing, which is one company creating a massive database of photos.
I don't see much of a difference. Many of my photos are online and will soon have GPS coords, etc, to allow them to be viewed like Google Streetview (though a bit sparser). My photos are on the same internet as everyone else's photos, which means that sparse view isn't very. Google's going to add denser coverage of some areas with these cars, but at the same time, the visibility of the cars gives you more notice than before, making Google's photos perhaps less intrusive.
But google's street-level photos are a small percentage of the street photography on the web, and will only be lesser as digital cameras get even cheaper. So no, I don't see why the fuss that it's one company doing it. It's still the same end result - publicly viewable photos.
But what if they don't mind being seen doing the dishes, but get kind of uncomfortable if someone stands there and watches them doing the dishes for half an hour? Who's being rude in that situation?
Obviously the person who is uncomfortable being watched but not willing to handle it within the bounds of polite society, for example by asking the person to stop (which they may choose to do), or closing a curtain, and instead bottles up their rage over the fact that not everyone shares their ideals.
Chances are the employee who cobbled it together was candid about knowing very little
I don't think so, but they didn't know how little they new
But did they claim to have a degree, or even any experience? Did anyone ask the sorts of questions you'd ask an employee who volunteered to rewire the lights...
It's a managers job to evaluate the skill of his employees. We've known for thousands of years that not everyone is as good as they think they are. It's because of this that they interview you, have peers (from outside where possible) check your work, encourage review processes, etc.
Unfortunately I was already on the staff, the company was too bureaucratic to allow negotiation of special terms [...] A 45 minute bicycle ride to the office because there were no trains on Christmas day was, I felt, a small price to pay.
Those were special circumstances. I don't see where you said that the company was unable to negotiate your forced holiday performance because of these special circumstances. Even if you are obligated to do this job (were you hired for this?) nothing obligates you to accept the equivalent of a pay-cut by having to travel longer, or pay more, because of their non-standard hours.
I think what you mean to say is, they're too greedy to offer fair compensation.
saying "get lost" would not have done my chances a lot of good at a time of major (30%) layoffs.
Are you sure that it wouldn't have gotten your manager shown to the door, and a raise for you? What would it cost for them to hire an outside professional to do what you did? Over Christmas and New Years? Next time, if your manager threatens you, threaten him with having to pay market rate for the work - if he fires you, or meeting your demands and paying far less.
Besides, do you really want to work in a place like that?
I was using Vista recently and didn't find it to be much better than Win95 in that regard. Everything running would stutter while it searched the drives - if it'd had a floppy it would have been just like Win95. When it popped the UI up at boot it was far from responsive. When I navigated to a large directory in explorer both explorer (a multi-threaded program and theoretically immune to this) stopped dead while loading and the Windows UI was sluggish during this period.
At that though, I meant any UI. It's shameful that an OS would not divert enough resources to the interactive program that you could make it unusable simply by running an IO-intensive program simultaneously in the background. That's a security risk.
BeOS could keep a bunch of videos running smoothly on a Pentium, presumably it could also keep a console window functioning while you tried to kill a fork-bomb.
Three people? Yes, the USA has waterboarded three people. Per hour. They've also shocked the testicles of many people, brutally beaten others, forced others to literally eat shit, and denied essential medical care to many more.
Why you're dense enough to believe that the worst things happening at Gitmo are loud music and menstrual blood, I don't know. Far worse than that happens in prisons back home.
It's a joke to think that Gitmo - a military prison in a foreign country, built expressly for the purpose of avoiding our laws on the treatment of prisoners - is going to be anything but far, far, worse. Especially since these prisoners have nobody to turn to for help - even if they weren't unreasonably sequestered, their families are often literally dirt poor and from halfway around the world.
It's fucking ignorance like yours that hurts the world. Stop pretending that because you can string a few words together in a quasi-grammatical way that you actually have anything worth saying. Your blather and nonsense is getting in the way of better people as they discuss real issues. It's tiresome, and you need to go away now. Also, do not vote.
Oh noes, Bush listens to you phoning someone to tell them you'll be there in 5 minutes?
Yeah, because that I have nothing to hide means that nobody does. And we all know that the government is ignoring all non-terrorism info - certainly nobody is compiling it into a list of blackmail material... there's no precedent for that!
"Papers" generally just means a way of proving who you are, ie passport. Why shouldn't you have to produce one when going through a border?
Quick! Which three national borders are between LA and Tucson?
I didn't even mention 9/11 btw, I don't see the point in bringing that up, [...] The fact of the matter is that yes you can't stop all attacks without being very invasive of privacy,
Seemingly you'll believe anything. There were many ways they could have stopped the 9/11 attacks, with the info they already had, if they'd acted upon it.
Now Bush is using 9/11 to justify the wiretaps, gitmo, torture, etc. As if it was the inability to do these that was making him impotent and useless...
So no, 9/11 isn't relevant. But try telling that to the coke-head president.
It's not surprising you're such a drooler though, Bush didn't attract many smart followers and they ditched him by 2003. It's just surprising there are still so many of you down there.
Well, Astrology is popular, so there's no going by the masses.
In the interests of keeping officers with a moral code, I propose keeping these conscientious objectors if other duties are available. I'd rather have a good homicide detective who wouldn't hand out traffic tickets because he thought it was a blatant cash grab, than fire him for it and lose a good employee.
Otherwise you're going to end up with those without a moral code.
Besides, officers already decide every day for far less legitimate reasons (ie, about the individuals involved) how they'll enforce the law. If a cop would say, "I can't book that guy, he's my brother" - we could transfer him to other duty and have his brother booked properly. If he didn't say it because he knew he wouldn't be helped, he'd probably compensate by letting his brother off more easily - something that would be a horrible abuse.
Yes. Because they'll be open source and the very first edit after they're released will be you going in and removing the ads. Then rewriting word problems that mention corporate sponsors, etc.
What took days to write will fall to the delete key in only minutes. And I'll certainly be using your version, like I browse with adblock plus.
That's a case for firing their manager, but not them. Chances are the employee who cobbled it together was candid about knowing very little but the company jumped at the chance to have a new tool and ignored their warnings.
In any case, even if they claimed to be a hot-shot DB guy, a manager is supposed to have tools for checking their work - perhaps hiring a code auditor, or a DBA to have a quick look.
If you were doing emergency coding work and not making enough to taxi, you were being ripped off. You shouldn't do that work for less than $30 an hour minimum, on salary, let alone on your holidays. As emergency contract work it's worth $250 an hour or up. Plus expenses. It's not your fault their office isn't easy to get to.
Companies wouldn't let one of their employees come in and jury-rig a fire alarm system, or use a car-jack to hold up a sagging wall, but they're willing to let them tinker in their data... Heh.
It's just as fast as Microsoft's response time. Fire off a request and wait. Neither camp will pay any attention.
Make a case for the feature and the OSS people will help, even if only to tell you why it's hard or explain other methods of solving the problem. Microsoft will just ignore you.
Offer to pay someone to write it and you'll get a very quick response from the open-source devs. Microsoft will still be ignoring you.
Even better though, is to make a broader request for help achieving the goal, perhaps someone can suggest an easier way than making Excel/etc do it. For instance, Excel has an equation solver - OO Calc hardly does. But there are better free solvers out there than Excel... Focusing too heavily on any one problem is probably missing the real solution.
It's kind of sad that the UI can ever become lagged by ANYTHING in user-space.
We should be at the OS-tech point where if you could write an attack that would slow the UI on a modern computer the company would admit a bug and release a patch.
You are right, if you are intending to write something that anyone can understand. It'll also probably have pictures.
However, when I announce the revolution you can be sure it'll have a deceptive first paragraph.
1) Free ice-cream! Strawberry and Mint, the most popular flavors. (w/ clip-art of kids and puppies.) 2) Tax, and patent issues, more tax, Zzzzz (absolutely no pictures) 3) Discussion of plan to put mind-control pills into ice-cream as step 1 4) Recruiting slave-masters of the 0.003% who actually read the whole document
Nobody would catch it! Not only will 90% stop reading as soon as it gets dull, those who will read anything just to complain about it will surely flame me for my use of dairy-based ice-cream, or assumption that strawberry and mint are the most popular flavors, etc.
Sort of like a FNORD without the expense of all the mental conditioning - TV did it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't think friends of Amway zombies are victims, please do not interact with regular people.
Besides, if you weren't so festering fucking dumb you'd see I said spam can be used on anyone, neighbors or not. Maybe, just maybe, you'd realize that spam is bulk unwanted email, and it counts even if you know the person. But considering that all your post does is pump MLMs, I'd say that you DO know the difference and are trying to cloud it, to make MLMs (and the assholes involved with them) look good. Are there any of these scams you didn't get into, in your attempt to coast through life being nothing but a nuisance to those around you?
Frankly, anyone who can read knows that PLP is a huge scam and that anyone who posts positively about it is a liar, trying to trap you into the nightmare they can't escape from. Amways, etc, are the same. It's not the people, it's the materials that encourage everyone to act exactly alike - a soulless selling machine who shuns family who don't "support" their craziness.
Thanks, but I can buy soap cheaper at Costco, without the cult aspect, the family members running when they see me, and without having to lie to strangers online about how great it all is. You're a perfect example of the shitstains involved in this.
So it's a picky pantheon with a non-personified creator aspect. Every different belief system requires the universe to be created, and presumably those gods wouldn't bother with much of an afterlife for non-believers (if not torture them as the more gruesome gods do).
For that matter though, the xian god, for example, does not give you a free pass just because you haven't heard of him - neither would most other gods if they ended up being the right one. Are you SURE none of those other gods is the creator and just didn't bother to widely publicize the fact? Perhaps Russel's Teapot created the universe for something to look at and happily grants eternal life to all who ask it - in person.
But what value is simple static eternal life? You need to think of the rewards. With some gods entire lifetimes of good deeds are required to move up a bit as a mortal, for others you get boatloads of eternal virgins for simply murdering people.
MLMs only sell to people who want the product? HAH!
Tell that to thousands of victims (neighbors, relatives, co-workers) of Amway, Herbalife, Pre-paid legal, etc.
Spam is used by the MLMers as well. If you can push crap to your neighbors you can push crap via spam.
FAIL. There are nine-thousand picky gods. Which do you want to bet on?
No, it is because that bug is one that unit testing would have caught. And if he was writing specs and implementing those, he'd have caught that error within seconds of making it.
Well, I'd say that the metric system makes Latin prefixes more relevant.
Decimate was a precise word, Murdelate (to coin an example) is not. If we "Murdelated the losing army" that could drift in percentage without problem. But decimate has a precise meaning which is merely not being used.
At what point does referring to a hamburger as arachnophobia become right? If I use it myself? If I can teach it to a whole class of children? A whole nation? Only once used for a hundred years?
But my overall point though, was that saying "language drift is natural and correct" is a linguistic thing to say, when looking at a language in a semi-historical context. But it's not relevant to the language at any given moment - right now, "irregardless" is an error. By taking a historical context to a living problem you negate the problem in the here and now by implying a future where the mistake has been patched over by the collective doublethink of generations.
It's sort of like saying "War is natural". I mean, it is - if there's only food for one person, two or more will eventually come to blows. But there's a "let it be" feeling to the statement, like "they'll tire themselves out eventually", that isn't appropriate to the current (not historic) people caught in the events. To them, war is murder, yet to be writ large.
So imho, decimate is wrong because I, a native speaker of English and user of the Metric system, feel that it is. Whereas if we were archaeologists a thousand years into the future it would be different - it already would have morphed - that war would have been fought and become history.
And it would be served as well if enough people got mangled in extreme sports. (or farming accidents...)
Wrong questions.
Instead you should ask, "what does my state do to make it easier to purchase through Amazon?" That's directly related to how much tax they deserve.
All NY taxes that should be paid (road taxes, etc) are being paid by the delivery vehicle owner, a fact which is represented by the shipping price.
But why does your state deserve more just because the other state can get by with lower taxes?
I wish I had a mandated income I could jail people for not paying, even better if I collected if for doing absolutely nothing.
It wasn't actually hacker that I object to.
Good thing--because your counter-argument is based on[...]
No, my counter-argument isn't based on 'hacker'. That's what I meant, "wasn't actually".
Your examples of generalized names, asprin for instance, aren't very wrong. Names are subtle things, and the people who refer to things the most do name them.
Other words like decimate have a more fixed meaning. Even where that meaning is slippery (can you decimate cake?) the 1/10th aspect is still obvious. Use of the word to mean other amounts is wrong, even if absolutely common.
fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language
Besides, even if you overlook my joking tone, my point is that our language isn't fixed in history, where today's usage is merely an example of how it got some other way. Today's usage is being used today and we have as much of a say over the rightness (or wrongness) of it as anyone else.
It wasn't actually hacker that I object to.
I object to the argument you used, about how wrong usage is just future correct usage. I've heard it before about other words, such as decimate, where the usage is more obviously wrong. (Using it to mean totally destroyed.) Some amateur linguist steps in and argues that because language is evolving we should all stop trying to correct it because it's by definition correct. As if mutations are always beneficial, and as if we aren't the very forces that shape language.
Sure, sure. We all get the idea that after years of uncorrected usage a word as-good-as-means something else. And that we call that language and it's correct by definition because it works.
But erroneous usage is, well, erroneous. And I'll thank you fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language while I apply a bandage in the form of correcting errors. If caught early we can remove the tumor, instead of hoping it grows into something useful.
After all, there's another word for ongoing erroneous usage. "Wrong".
I don't object to being seen, I object to being watched. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts?
I do. You do not.
Looking at the same still photo of you for hours is not watching you. The you in the photo still has not scratched his ass.
But in my opinion it's reasonable to expect not to be watched in your own home even if you are visible from the outside.
And this is the source of your confusion. You do not have that right. If it's legal to look at you, it's legal to sit and watch you. Harassment and stalking laws have very little to do with someone who just chooses to stop outside your house and look at you.
Further, your use of the word reasonable is backward. If it is easily possible to watch you, either in person or with a webcam hidden in public space, why would the use of reason suggest that you could expect NOT to be watched? Indeed, it's reasonable to expect that you COULD be watched anywhere.
That doesn't sound like the situation we're discussing, which is one company creating a massive database of photos.
I don't see much of a difference. Many of my photos are online and will soon have GPS coords, etc, to allow them to be viewed like Google Streetview (though a bit sparser). My photos are on the same internet as everyone else's photos, which means that sparse view isn't very. Google's going to add denser coverage of some areas with these cars, but at the same time, the visibility of the cars gives you more notice than before, making Google's photos perhaps less intrusive.
But google's street-level photos are a small percentage of the street photography on the web, and will only be lesser as digital cameras get even cheaper. So no, I don't see why the fuss that it's one company doing it. It's still the same end result - publicly viewable photos.
But what if they don't mind being seen doing the dishes, but get kind of uncomfortable if someone stands there and watches them doing the dishes for half an hour? Who's being rude in that situation?
Obviously the person who is uncomfortable being watched but not willing to handle it within the bounds of polite society, for example by asking the person to stop (which they may choose to do), or closing a curtain, and instead bottles up their rage over the fact that not everyone shares their ideals.
I think it's perfect. If it was torture, it would be wrong. But it isn't, so we can do it, to Bush...
"Hey, you said this wasn't torture, so why are you screaming?"
Great. That'd be you. I'll got photos of you molesting children. Two underage girls, one sippy-cup!
I'm sure in the details of a lengthly trial it would come out that I faked these pictures, but I'm hoping for a speedy lynching.
Chances are the employee who cobbled it together was candid about knowing very little
I don't think so, but they didn't know how little they new
But did they claim to have a degree, or even any experience? Did anyone ask the sorts of questions you'd ask an employee who volunteered to rewire the lights...
It's a managers job to evaluate the skill of his employees. We've known for thousands of years that not everyone is as good as they think they are. It's because of this that they interview you, have peers (from outside where possible) check your work, encourage review processes, etc.
Unfortunately I was already on the staff, the company was too bureaucratic to allow negotiation of special terms [...] A 45 minute bicycle ride to the office because there were no trains on Christmas day was, I felt, a small price to pay.
Those were special circumstances. I don't see where you said that the company was unable to negotiate your forced holiday performance because of these special circumstances. Even if you are obligated to do this job (were you hired for this?) nothing obligates you to accept the equivalent of a pay-cut by having to travel longer, or pay more, because of their non-standard hours.
I think what you mean to say is, they're too greedy to offer fair compensation.
saying "get lost" would not have done my chances a lot of good at a time of major (30%) layoffs.
Are you sure that it wouldn't have gotten your manager shown to the door, and a raise for you? What would it cost for them to hire an outside professional to do what you did? Over Christmas and New Years? Next time, if your manager threatens you, threaten him with having to pay market rate for the work - if he fires you, or meeting your demands and paying far less.
Besides, do you really want to work in a place like that?
But why does Windows itself lag?
I was using Vista recently and didn't find it to be much better than Win95 in that regard. Everything running would stutter while it searched the drives - if it'd had a floppy it would have been just like Win95. When it popped the UI up at boot it was far from responsive. When I navigated to a large directory in explorer both explorer (a multi-threaded program and theoretically immune to this) stopped dead while loading and the Windows UI was sluggish during this period.
At that though, I meant any UI. It's shameful that an OS would not divert enough resources to the interactive program that you could make it unusable simply by running an IO-intensive program simultaneously in the background. That's a security risk.
BeOS could keep a bunch of videos running smoothly on a Pentium, presumably it could also keep a console window functioning while you tried to kill a fork-bomb.
Three people? Yes, the USA has waterboarded three people. Per hour. They've also shocked the testicles of many people, brutally beaten others, forced others to literally eat shit, and denied essential medical care to many more.
Why you're dense enough to believe that the worst things happening at Gitmo are loud music and menstrual blood, I don't know. Far worse than that happens in prisons back home.
It's a joke to think that Gitmo - a military prison in a foreign country, built expressly for the purpose of avoiding our laws on the treatment of prisoners - is going to be anything but far, far, worse. Especially since these prisoners have nobody to turn to for help - even if they weren't unreasonably sequestered, their families are often literally dirt poor and from halfway around the world.
It's fucking ignorance like yours that hurts the world. Stop pretending that because you can string a few words together in a quasi-grammatical way that you actually have anything worth saying. Your blather and nonsense is getting in the way of better people as they discuss real issues. It's tiresome, and you need to go away now. Also, do not vote.
Oh noes, Bush listens to you phoning someone to tell them you'll be there in 5 minutes?
Yeah, because that I have nothing to hide means that nobody does. And we all know that the government is ignoring all non-terrorism info - certainly nobody is compiling it into a list of blackmail material... there's no precedent for that!
"Papers" generally just means a way of proving who you are, ie passport. Why shouldn't you have to produce one when going through a border?
Quick! Which three national borders are between LA and Tucson?
I didn't even mention 9/11 btw, I don't see the point in bringing that up, [...] The fact of the matter is that yes you can't stop all attacks without being very invasive of privacy,
Seemingly you'll believe anything. There were many ways they could have stopped the 9/11 attacks, with the info they already had, if they'd acted upon it.
Now Bush is using 9/11 to justify the wiretaps, gitmo, torture, etc. As if it was the inability to do these that was making him impotent and useless...
So no, 9/11 isn't relevant. But try telling that to the coke-head president.
It's not surprising you're such a drooler though, Bush didn't attract many smart followers and they ditched him by 2003. It's just surprising there are still so many of you down there.
Well, Astrology is popular, so there's no going by the masses.
In the interests of keeping officers with a moral code, I propose keeping these conscientious objectors if other duties are available. I'd rather have a good homicide detective who wouldn't hand out traffic tickets because he thought it was a blatant cash grab, than fire him for it and lose a good employee.
Otherwise you're going to end up with those without a moral code.
Besides, officers already decide every day for far less legitimate reasons (ie, about the individuals involved) how they'll enforce the law. If a cop would say, "I can't book that guy, he's my brother" - we could transfer him to other duty and have his brother booked properly. If he didn't say it because he knew he wouldn't be helped, he'd probably compensate by letting his brother off more easily - something that would be a horrible abuse.
Yes. Because they'll be open source and the very first edit after they're released will be you going in and removing the ads. Then rewriting word problems that mention corporate sponsors, etc.
What took days to write will fall to the delete key in only minutes. And I'll certainly be using your version, like I browse with adblock plus.
That's a case for firing their manager, but not them. Chances are the employee who cobbled it together was candid about knowing very little but the company jumped at the chance to have a new tool and ignored their warnings.
In any case, even if they claimed to be a hot-shot DB guy, a manager is supposed to have tools for checking their work - perhaps hiring a code auditor, or a DBA to have a quick look.
If you were doing emergency coding work and not making enough to taxi, you were being ripped off. You shouldn't do that work for less than $30 an hour minimum, on salary, let alone on your holidays. As emergency contract work it's worth $250 an hour or up. Plus expenses. It's not your fault their office isn't easy to get to.
Companies wouldn't let one of their employees come in and jury-rig a fire alarm system, or use a car-jack to hold up a sagging wall, but they're willing to let them tinker in their data... Heh.
It's just as fast as Microsoft's response time. Fire off a request and wait. Neither camp will pay any attention.
Make a case for the feature and the OSS people will help, even if only to tell you why it's hard or explain other methods of solving the problem. Microsoft will just ignore you.
Offer to pay someone to write it and you'll get a very quick response from the open-source devs. Microsoft will still be ignoring you.
Even better though, is to make a broader request for help achieving the goal, perhaps someone can suggest an easier way than making Excel/etc do it. For instance, Excel has an equation solver - OO Calc hardly does. But there are better free solvers out there than Excel... Focusing too heavily on any one problem is probably missing the real solution.
It's kind of sad that the UI can ever become lagged by ANYTHING in user-space.
We should be at the OS-tech point where if you could write an attack that would slow the UI on a modern computer the company would admit a bug and release a patch.
You are right, if you are intending to write something that anyone can understand. It'll also probably have pictures.
However, when I announce the revolution you can be sure it'll have a deceptive first paragraph.
1) Free ice-cream! Strawberry and Mint, the most popular flavors. (w/ clip-art of kids and puppies.)
2) Tax, and patent issues, more tax, Zzzzz (absolutely no pictures)
3) Discussion of plan to put mind-control pills into ice-cream as step 1
4) Recruiting slave-masters of the 0.003% who actually read the whole document
Nobody would catch it! Not only will 90% stop reading as soon as it gets dull, those who will read anything just to complain about it will surely flame me for my use of dairy-based ice-cream, or assumption that strawberry and mint are the most popular flavors, etc.
Sort of like a FNORD without the expense of all the mental conditioning - TV did it for me.