1)Resign, and save the integrity of your own project.
2)Refuse to do the work project. This could result in similar consequences though.
3)Hand over the liscences for your own project, and keep your job and security.
4) Try to turn your employer into a client.
By this I mean tell them about this project you developed on your own time. Then tell them that you are willing to license it to them at a discounted rate. If that fails, you can always fall back on options 1-3.
There isn't enough propellant to get it back to Earth.
Well, that depends. If there's enough fuel to break orbit, it wouldn't take much more fuel to point it at Earth. It'd just take the probe a *really* long time to get back home. Of course, that is assuming all the initial return calculations were perfect.
However in this case the libraries have something in their favour that Napster users don't - an unbeatable public image. You can't tarnish libraries as thieves and pirates, not without ruining your cause.
I think this is a huge point. After putting a large amount of thought into it, I am still unable to think of a singular entity with a better public image then public libraries. Can anyone else think of one?
I must agree here. I used to work as a Sys Admin for a pretty high tech firm. It's amazing how often someone would kick off their surge protector without realizing it, or simply not plug the network cable in tightly enough.
There will always be people who think they are above the basic questions. Unfortunately, they are also the people who's desks you have to visit in person because they refused to answer those same questions. It's amazing how much time can be saved by simply asking, "is your power strip on? Could you please check?"
It depends more on the person than anything. I had a young boss who treated me very well because I knew what I was doing. I had a younger boss who treated me like shit because she didn't know what I meant to the company (in fact, the company folded less than 6 months after I left).
I've had an old boss treat me like shit because she was afraid of change, and another old boss who treated me like gold because he realized I could do what was was asked of me.
The age of the boss does not matter nearly as much as the personality. Some people will always despise/fear those younger. Some can accept talent at any age.
Such things are by their very nature unexplainable and mysterious.
There was a time when the rising and setting of the sun was mysterious and unexplainable. We now take the rotation of the Earth for granted.
I don't understand how it can be dangerous to attempt to explain the world around us, as well as try to explain us. Much of what modern medicine came from is people explaining people. Figuring out how the heart pumps your blood is key in trying to prevent death from a heart attack.
Why should we not try to study the brain in hopes to prevent mental illnesses, alzheimers, as well as maybe even reparing damage caused by outside forces (such as car accidents)?
Re:No different from going out in public anyway
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
There is a law, little known and often ignored, which states you cannot photograph someone as the main focus of your photo without their permission, even in public. This basically means that you cannot stalk someone and photograph them constantly without their permission. This also means that police, without a warrant to do so, cannot photograph them to try and use it against the person at a later time.
Exceptions are made if the person is reasonably suspected of commiting a crime. Though, in this case, the people were not suspected of a crime. In fact, the only reason to take their picture was to try and find past crimes to then make this person into a suspect. It can still be argued that the person was never reasonably suspected of commiting a crime before the picture.
Security cameras typically get around this law by making the merchandise their primary focus. This security camera at the Super Bowl, however, specifically makes a single, presumably innocent, person the focus of the picture. They are then techincally illegal. But of course, who will police the police?
Re:No different from going out in public anyway
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
Similar to peeing in a dixie cup for a drug test.
While, I agree with you to a point, I do disagree with one important aspect. Peeing in a dixie cup is usually a prescreening for employment. You are told in advance that if you want the job you must submit to a drug test. In which case you are given the choice of going through with the test, or moving on to a different company.
In the case of the cameras, no choice was offered. No one was told they were going to be photographed, and no refunds were being offered to those who wished to not be captured on film.
There inlies the difference. For the drug test you can always simply say, "no thanks" and move on. For the cameras, you were forced, without your knowledge or consent, to submit yourself to what is basically a technological lineup.
Re:No different from going out in public anyway
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 2
If you've got a criminal record, don't go somewhere where somebody might recognize you. Duh.
What happens if you happen to be said person's twin brother (or sister)? You should be arrested and/or harassed because of the misdeeds of someone else? What if you were separated at birth and you never even met your twin?
Someone in the article mentioned that had they caught a terrorist, everyone would think the system was very worthwhile. Two points. One, they didn't catch any terrorists. Two, a paraphrased quote of Ben Franklin, "Those who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither."
When something is accepted for even a small group, it will become accepted for society as a whole. In terms most slashdotters can understand: "We must be able to encrypt our movies to stop the pirates." How many people would argue against that statement? Now how many people (and I don't mean only slashdotters, I mean people as a whole) would argue with what has really happend? The answer to both is very very few.
If you want to boil a frog, you don't do it by setting the flame to high, you do it by setting the flame to the lowest possible setting and slowly increasing it.
-- All that evil needs to be victorious is to have a good man to do nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
1)Resign, and save the integrity of your own project.
2)Refuse to do the work project. This could result in similar consequences though.
3)Hand over the liscences for your own project, and keep your job and security.
4) Try to turn your employer into a client.
By this I mean tell them about this project you developed on your own time. Then tell them that you are willing to license it to them at a discounted rate. If that fails, you can always fall back on options 1-3.
There isn't enough propellant to get it back to Earth.
Well, that depends. If there's enough fuel to break orbit, it wouldn't take much more fuel to point it at Earth. It'd just take the probe a *really* long time to get back home. Of course, that is assuming all the initial return calculations were perfect.
However in this case the libraries have something in their favour that Napster users don't - an unbeatable public image. You can't tarnish libraries as thieves and pirates, not without ruining your cause.
I think this is a huge point. After putting a large amount of thought into it, I am still unable to think of a singular entity with a better public image then public libraries. Can anyone else think of one?
I must agree here. I used to work as a Sys Admin for a pretty high tech firm. It's amazing how often someone would kick off their surge protector without realizing it, or simply not plug the network cable in tightly enough.
There will always be people who think they are above the basic questions. Unfortunately, they are also the people who's desks you have to visit in person because they refused to answer those same questions. It's amazing how much time can be saved by simply asking, "is your power strip on? Could you please check?"
It depends more on the person than anything. I had a young boss who treated me very well because I knew what I was doing. I had a younger boss who treated me like shit because she didn't know what I meant to the company (in fact, the company folded less than 6 months after I left).
I've had an old boss treat me like shit because she was afraid of change, and another old boss who treated me like gold because he realized I could do what was was asked of me.
The age of the boss does not matter nearly as much as the personality. Some people will always despise/fear those younger. Some can accept talent at any age.
Such things are by their very nature unexplainable and mysterious.
There was a time when the rising and setting of the sun was mysterious and unexplainable. We now take the rotation of the Earth for granted.
I don't understand how it can be dangerous to attempt to explain the world around us, as well as try to explain us. Much of what modern medicine came from is people explaining people. Figuring out how the heart pumps your blood is key in trying to prevent death from a heart attack.
Why should we not try to study the brain in hopes to prevent mental illnesses, alzheimers, as well as maybe even reparing damage caused by outside forces (such as car accidents)?
There is a law, little known and often ignored, which states you cannot photograph someone as the main focus of your photo without their permission, even in public. This basically means that you cannot stalk someone and photograph them constantly without their permission. This also means that police, without a warrant to do so, cannot photograph them to try and use it against the person at a later time.
Exceptions are made if the person is reasonably suspected of commiting a crime. Though, in this case, the people were not suspected of a crime. In fact, the only reason to take their picture was to try and find past crimes to then make this person into a suspect. It can still be argued that the person was never reasonably suspected of commiting a crime before the picture.
Security cameras typically get around this law by making the merchandise their primary focus. This security camera at the Super Bowl, however, specifically makes a single, presumably innocent, person the focus of the picture. They are then techincally illegal. But of course, who will police the police?
Similar to peeing in a dixie cup for a drug test.
While, I agree with you to a point, I do disagree with one important aspect. Peeing in a dixie cup is usually a prescreening for employment. You are told in advance that if you want the job you must submit to a drug test. In which case you are given the choice of going through with the test, or moving on to a different company.
In the case of the cameras, no choice was offered. No one was told they were going to be photographed, and no refunds were being offered to those who wished to not be captured on film.
There inlies the difference. For the drug test you can always simply say, "no thanks" and move on. For the cameras, you were forced, without your knowledge or consent, to submit yourself to what is basically a technological lineup.
If you've got a criminal record, don't go somewhere where somebody might recognize you. Duh.
What happens if you happen to be said person's twin brother (or sister)? You should be arrested and/or harassed because of the misdeeds of someone else? What if you were separated at birth and you never even met your twin?
Someone in the article mentioned that had they caught a terrorist, everyone would think the system was very worthwhile. Two points. One, they didn't catch any terrorists. Two, a paraphrased quote of Ben Franklin, "Those who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither."
When something is accepted for even a small group, it will become accepted for society as a whole. In terms most slashdotters can understand: "We must be able to encrypt our movies to stop the pirates." How many people would argue against that statement? Now how many people (and I don't mean only slashdotters, I mean people as a whole) would argue with what has really happend? The answer to both is very very few.
If you want to boil a frog, you don't do it by setting the flame to high, you do it by setting the flame to the lowest possible setting and slowly increasing it.
-- All that evil needs to be victorious is to have a good man to do nothing.