These kinds of easter eggs are dangerous. I've inadvertantly triggered easter eggs in software, putting un-expected results in a car, especially this type of feature, is nuts.
Copied text from Manitoba labour (note: this is NOT copies of the regulations per say, but rather their booklet. In and of itself it has no legal standing.. blah blah blah...) [it is supposed to represent the labour code though...]
Employers who intend to terminate the employment of 50 or more employees within a period of 4 weeks must provide written notice to the Minister of Labour, any applicable union, and to the affected employees as follows: NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WEEKS OF NOTICE REQUIRED 50 - 100 10 101 - 299 14 300+ 18 If the required notice is not provided, the employer must pay wages equivalent to the weeks of notice listed above.
If it is less than 50 employees then it is 1 pay period.
I don't support crap like this, but ask yourself a few questions first. Do you believe you have a need or cause to sue the company? Laying you off isn't generally a cause.
Is the severance package more than is required by law? check your provincial, or federal labour code (certain companies, Banks for instance, have to meet only federal labour code.)
If the severence package is more than you would normally be entitled to when layed off, and does NOT include any further requirements as to confidentiality, non-compete etc more than your initial contract then you may as well sign it.
On the other hand, if the non-compete/confidential information clauses are more significant than what you signed when you got your employement you probably should NOT sign such an agreement.
5 weeks is NOTHING toa business. Companies typically take 30 days (or more) to pay P.O., even if they get a discount for paying earlier. Thats over 3 weeks on a standard purchase.
There was a dispute over what was finished, or not finished. fair enough, stop ork and wait for it to be resolved, or, continue working and hope it is resolved.
Interfering with other aspects of the business is not, in my opinion, ethical.
If they get the VC funding perhaps they can pay the individual. Maybe they CANNOT pay him until then. Bad situation, but telling the VC might prevent them from getting funding, resulting in the individual not being paid. Why shoot yourelf in the foot? Its much easier to sue a company that has money (assuming the situation cannot be resolved).
Don't know about you, but in this business (and a city of 700K) I trip over my old bosses way too much to believe that any bad action on my part wouldn't come back to haunt me.
Each of the people I worked for (in IT) were working at/for a new client site of mine AFTER I left their employment. The reasons for them there arn't relevent. I am sure that they felt free to speak for, or against any past actions I have done.
I.T. is a small world sometimes, even in bigger cities.
Without wanting to disagree with you, there is a difference between taking general skills in a profession and taking proprietary information with you.
If you read over the courts response VERY carefully you'll see they were not impressed by the actions taken.
When I switched jobs I immediatly told my employer once the decision had been made. This gave them the oportunity to tell me to take a hike (and get paid for it for 2 weeks) and gave them the oportunity to exclude me from any meetings where they may have discussed anything proprietary. (I stayed the 2 weeks at a client site wrapping things up and preparing to train a a replacement. (Which didn't happen, but that was someone elses problem.))
When the guy mentioned here made the decision to leave the company he worked for he did NOT inform them until a later date a couple of weeks later. He entered into an agreement at the beginning of the month and didn't leave the company till half way through. In such a position it is NORMAL to be immediatly dismissed. This guy stayed the 2 weeks to gather the last bit of information he could.
It could have worked out that they would have allowed him to stay on for 2 weeks, to wrap up any outstanding issues and then leave. That isn't up to him though, it was up to his employer.
Your obligations, regardless of whether they have paid you or not, are to your customer.
Currently they owe you for work done previously, for that you can stop work, threaten them with legal action, etc. All of which is ethical and fair.
Destroying their funding because you have a squable over the first weeks pay (while on the 5th week) could make you, in their eyes, liable for a few million in financing.
Even if they couldn't sue you over it they could ruin your name as a consultant saying you used insider information to destroy their business. And they would be right.
Currently your in the situation where they COULD pay you, they COULD resolve the outstanding situation.
A not uncommon trick is to take an otherwise valid card and re-do the magstrip with information from another card.
The clerks NEVER check the CC# which is scanned and, in the unlikely event they actually check the name and signature of the person in front of them it matches the card because the card was indeed issued to the person holding it. Only the CC# wasn't. Doesn't work if they are making a purchase where the card is imprinted, but that is so rare now...
I'll take it from that you've never gotten stuck in the position of using code which was OBVIOUSLY for a prototype and NOT for production and having to use that for production code.
I have. Wasn't fun.
Now, while I agree one should be carefull with copyrighted code, etc, I can easily see the mistake happening when the prototype code gets shuffled into production code and the copyright wasn't still attached and the project handed off to someone else.
Someone may have created sample code based on the GPL code, the sample code may have grown into a prototype, and from there it may have blossomed into the release that was.
All of this could have happened and transitioned through a half dozen people, a manager or two, a couple programmers, etc.
And the license may have been inadvertantly forgotten about (and left out of the tempalte code)...
Somebody should find, and post a graph for the typical discharge of 12v car battery. (It might help with the following...)
You have 160volt at full charge, you drive the car for a period of time until you notice the voltage has started its significant decline and pull the car into the pits at 135volts (more or less).
There you do multiple tests with a voltage meter and show how the charge on the betteries is increasing. This isn't exactly true as your testing the batteries without a load and it is a common known effect. Never mind that batteries react with heat as well, and the batteries are likely to be cooling off now that you've stopped drawing a charge from them. While everybody acknolwedges you haven't done the full test you were supposed to due to mechanical problems you how them this and they leave with the understanding this shows promise..
when really, it shows the typical, standard reaction of a car battery under load and the typ[ical response to that load being removed.
Had this actually worked the car should have had a charge of about 160 volts in the pits UNDER LOAD. Never mind less than 140 without a load.
The 12bit colour isn't a PALLET of 16.7 million (or 65K) with only 4096 displayed at a time.
It's only 4096 colours total. You don't get to choose which colours are in the pallet.
You get 16 shades of red, 16 shades of green and 16 shades of blue. You get to mix them as well, but thats it.
So, yeah, even though there are only 25,600 pixels on the screen you could still display an image, via scrolling with the full 65K colours. Now your left we fudge tricks to get the same colour range.
I think this move by Palm is a good move though. Many people are probably more than happy with the display.
Slashdot Mirror
These kinds of easter eggs are dangerous. I've inadvertantly triggered easter eggs in software, putting un-expected results in a car, especially this type of feature, is nuts.
Microsoft didn't even write UNDELETE for dos. They licensed it.
They scare me.
could be worse, you could have a mayor that decides to put fake trees in the center boulevard for no apparent reason.
butt fucking ugly, and completely non-functional metal trees.
If the check bounces, and was part of the contract the contract is in violation.
and you will be able to sue over the contract itself.
Copied text from Manitoba labour (note: this is NOT copies of the regulations per say, but rather their booklet. In and of itself it has no legal standing.. blah blah blah...) [it is supposed to represent the labour code though...]
Employers who intend to terminate the employment of
50 or more employees within a period of 4 weeks must
provide written notice to the Minister of Labour, any
applicable union, and to the affected employees as follows:
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WEEKS OF NOTICE REQUIRED
50 - 100 10
101 - 299 14
300+ 18
If the required notice is not provided, the employer must
pay wages equivalent to the weeks of notice listed above.
If it is less than 50 employees then it is 1 pay period.
If you get severance it is used to delay EI payment. my GF was payed 4 weeks, which delays EI by 4 weeks.
Be pragmatic.
I don't support crap like this, but ask yourself a few questions first. Do you believe you have a need or cause to sue the company? Laying you off isn't generally a cause.
Is the severance package more than is required by law? check your provincial, or federal labour code (certain companies, Banks for instance, have to meet only federal labour code.)
If the severence package is more than you would normally be entitled to when layed off, and does NOT include any further requirements as to confidentiality, non-compete etc more than your initial contract then you may as well sign it.
On the other hand, if the non-compete/confidential information clauses are more significant than what you signed when you got your employement you probably should NOT sign such an agreement.
The problem in this example is the time period.
5 weeks.
5 weeks is NOTHING toa business. Companies typically take 30 days (or more) to pay P.O., even if they get a discount for paying earlier. Thats over 3 weeks on a standard purchase.
There was a dispute over what was finished, or not finished. fair enough, stop ork and wait for it to be resolved, or, continue working and hope it is resolved.
Interfering with other aspects of the business is not, in my opinion, ethical.
If they get the VC funding perhaps they can pay the individual. Maybe they CANNOT pay him until then. Bad situation, but telling the VC might prevent them from getting funding, resulting in the individual not being paid. Why shoot yourelf in the foot? Its much easier to sue a company that has money (assuming the situation cannot be resolved).
Don't know about you, but in this business (and a city of 700K) I trip over my old bosses way too much to believe that any bad action on my part wouldn't come back to haunt me.
Each of the people I worked for (in IT) were working at/for a new client site of mine AFTER I left their employment. The reasons for them there arn't relevent. I am sure that they felt free to speak for, or against any past actions I have done.
I.T. is a small world sometimes, even in bigger cities.
Without wanting to disagree with you, there is a difference between taking general skills in a profession and taking proprietary information with you.
If you read over the courts response VERY carefully you'll see they were not impressed by the actions taken.
When I switched jobs I immediatly told my employer once the decision had been made. This gave them the oportunity to tell me to take a hike (and get paid for it for 2 weeks) and gave them the oportunity to exclude me from any meetings where they may have discussed anything proprietary. (I stayed the 2 weeks at a client site wrapping things up and preparing to train a a replacement. (Which didn't happen, but that was someone elses problem.))
When the guy mentioned here made the decision to leave the company he worked for he did NOT inform them until a later date a couple of weeks later. He entered into an agreement at the beginning of the month and didn't leave the company till half way through. In such a position it is NORMAL to be immediatly dismissed. This guy stayed the 2 weeks to gather the last bit of information he could.
It could have worked out that they would have allowed him to stay on for 2 weeks, to wrap up any outstanding issues and then leave. That isn't up to him though, it was up to his employer.
Which is exactly why I believe it should be ILLEGAL to place a clause in an employee contract which is expected to be unenforcable.
It would quickly eliminate the crap from the employee agreements.
Your obligations, regardless of whether they have paid you or not, are to your customer.
Currently they owe you for work done previously, for that you can stop work, threaten them with legal action, etc. All of which is ethical and fair.
Destroying their funding because you have a squable over the first weeks pay (while on the 5th week) could make you, in their eyes, liable for a few million in financing.
Even if they couldn't sue you over it they could ruin your name as a consultant saying you used insider information to destroy their business. And they would be right.
Currently your in the situation where they COULD pay you, they COULD resolve the outstanding situation.
A not uncommon trick is to take an otherwise valid card and re-do the magstrip with information from another card.
The clerks NEVER check the CC# which is scanned and, in the unlikely event they actually check the name and signature of the person in front of them it matches the card because the card was indeed issued to the person holding it. Only the CC# wasn't. Doesn't work if they are making a purchase where the card is imprinted, but that is so rare now...
I'll take it from that you've never gotten stuck in the position of using code which was OBVIOUSLY for a prototype and NOT for production and having to use that for production code.
I have. Wasn't fun.
Now, while I agree one should be carefull with copyrighted code, etc, I can easily see the mistake happening when the prototype code gets shuffled into production code and the copyright wasn't still attached and the project handed off to someone else.
no harm intended...
Someone may have created sample code based on the GPL code, the sample code may have grown into a prototype, and from there it may have blossomed into the release that was.
All of this could have happened and transitioned through a half dozen people, a manager or two, a couple programmers, etc.
And the license may have been inadvertantly forgotten about (and left out of the tempalte code)...
don't get paranoid.
It is possible, even likely that the binary drivers contain IP they do not own, or, which they normally license to third parties.
As such, releasing the source code to that would not be a good decision on their part.
In this case I would assume it has something to do with image quality as they (as mentioned elsewhere) release their hardware manuals promptly.
Oh come on now, don't go ruining all their fun.
by the way, regardless of the crap all others dig up... I agree with this definition.
This thing is the perfect joke.
Somebody should find, and post a graph for the typical discharge of 12v car battery. (It might help with the following...)
You have 160volt at full charge, you drive the car for a period of time until you notice the voltage has started its significant decline and pull the car into the pits at 135volts (more or less).
There you do multiple tests with a voltage meter and show how the charge on the betteries is increasing. This isn't exactly true as your testing the batteries without a load and it is a common known effect. Never mind that batteries react with heat as well, and the batteries are likely to be cooling off now that you've stopped drawing a charge from them.
While everybody acknolwedges you haven't done the full test you were supposed to due to mechanical problems you how them this and they leave with the understanding this shows promise..
when really, it shows the typical, standard reaction of a car battery under load and the typ[ical response to that load being removed.
Had this actually worked the car should have had a charge of about 160 volts in the pits UNDER LOAD. Never mind less than 140 without a load.
Something I was just thinking about, why not recharge the batteries via-induction while your in the pits?
Say, an appropriate metal plate under the car while it's in the pits, maybe attached to a service dolly or something.
Anybody consider the possibility that Microsoft may have butchered the signature crap on the xbox in the same manner as they did with CryptAPI?
Any way to get a certificate and create another certificate with an issuer of Microsoft or something?
just a stray thought from the void...
I can get 56Kbps via GPRS, I wouldn't exactly call that 'such as WAP'.
On the other hand, at the rates they want to charge for it the only thing you want to transmit with it is WAP, $0.03/K ain't cheap!
I can't read 20cm letters at that distance in the rearview on my car unless I hold the damn thing still.
The 12bit colour isn't a PALLET of 16.7 million (or 65K) with only 4096 displayed at a time.
It's only 4096 colours total. You don't get to choose which colours are in the pallet.
You get 16 shades of red, 16 shades of green and 16 shades of blue. You get to mix them as well, but thats it.
So, yeah, even though there are only 25,600 pixels on the screen you could still display an image, via scrolling with the full 65K colours. Now your left we fudge tricks to get the same colour range.
I think this move by Palm is a good move though.
Many people are probably more than happy with the display.
I hit RECORD on my remote when a read-only tape is in the VCR, it ejects it.
For some reason it doesn't swap it with the other movie I rented though...
Could somebody republish that in english?
A few typographical errors are one thing, but this is just plain stupid.