Ignore this manager's behaviour. Be completely gracious and generous and let all your co-workers know just how much you've enjoyed working with them. This will undermine any accusations your boss is making.
Do not find a replacement for yourself unless that was part of your contract.
If your boss tries to withhold your paycheque, threaten and if necessary carry through with legal action.
Make sure everything you do until you leave is by the book so they can't hold anything against you.
So, what is the value of life? I'd prefer the answer in dollars, but feel free to use your local currency.
What a STUPID condescending thing to say. You're saying anyone who doesn't place a dollar value on life is wrong?
Also, what is the dollar amount on your piece of mind?
You obviously think that a robber has some right to my property greater than my right to stop them.
No I think your right to stop them does not extend to your right to kill them for trying to rob you (except where they threaten you or family/friends and only then in self defence).
I'm curious what else you think you have the right to for which you expect to be unhindered in your quest?
Do you find being condescending gets you all the things in life you want?
Can someone use deadly force to stop a felony? How about a particularly bad one, like rape?
Now in rape we're talking about harm coming to another human being. I make a distinction between people and possessions. You clearly do not. If someone kills someone else who's in the middle of harming their friends/family or even a stranger, so long as he acted to prevent that harm I have no problem with it. If someone's stopped the crime then just decides to kill them in retribution, that's called murder. We have a legal system set up to punish.
Now if a jury returns a verdict of not guilty and it was clear that the crime had happened (say they were found not guilty due to prejudice or on a technicality)...say a daughter was raped and the father took the law into his own hands under that circumstance, I'd say go easy on the father. He's not likely to go out and kill someone else, and shouldn't be sent to pound me in the ass prison.
Or is a human life more valuable than merely the mental state of someone?
Then you are saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house and grabbing my TV, I am not able to determine whether or not a crime was committed. I find that an absurd position.
What you're saying is you're willing to state a human life on your instant assessment of whether or not someone is committing a crime. I find THAT absurd. Life has more value than that.
You're also completely ignoring my argument that people would use this as an excuse to murder someone.
That arguement doesn't fly. I'd agree that no one should be held indefinitely, but arresting someone is a reasonable action to prevent a crime that will not result in their death! What kind of analogy was that? Which legal system are you working under?
You are also saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house, grabbing my TV and running off with it, I'm not capable of determining whether they committed a crime. You are wrong on both counts. Try again.
Simply stating that I'm wrong in an insulting tone , and adding a condescending "try again" is not an argument.
The taking of another human life should not be taken so lightly that anyone that's had their $200 tv nicked should be able to do it.
If the theif comes in with a gun and you shoot him TO WOUND with that gun (or to kill ONLY if your life is at risk) I think that's totally acceptable. A person who has little choice but to die or fight back shouldn't be penalised for fighting back. A gun-toting redneck who wants to kill him a burgular is a danger to society and should be locked up. Its a fine line and a difficult thing to determine, hence the idea of a jury of peers (as imperfect as that is).
Wrong. You're a qualified techy and refuse tech work, good luck collecting your cheque. That's not what I call choice. This work like a dog (work for the dole) thing is simply a sweatshop cheap labour s cam.
- It allows them to avoid having to do other work that they might not have been wanting to (cleaning up roadside litter vs programming?)
These people should be looking for a full time paid job, not picking up litter and not programming for free. They have families to feed and lives to live.
- They get credited for doing the work and subsequently don't get harassed by the departments
I love how people justify forced labour. If they're doing the work, why are they collecting about a fifth of the pay????
There's a lot of people out there who read a "Learn C in 24 hours" book and suddenly decide that they can put that on their CV "C programmer" or who have done some perusing of HTML and all of a sudden are "WWW developers".
Then that's your fault. You need to ask for and verify their credentials. Check that they have done real development work and have references. Ask for a degree. If they can't produce these you either don't hire or you hire at a reduced pay rate until they proove themselves.
I'm not asking that you allow yourself to be burnt, but I think you're actually taking advantage of down and out developers with your current approach, whether that's your intention or not.
a) Never worked on anything complex b) Don't care about the result of your work c) Care but are so full of yourself you've never come back to a piece of code and in hindsight thought "woah, what was I thinking when I wrote that" d) Are made of stone
I'm feeling generous so I'm guessing (a) and possibly a hint of (c)
I've personally worked on complex systems but thankfully nothing that would result in someone dieing if I got it wrong, but there's plenty of that kind of code out there, helping make the world go round.
Quite often it's very hard to get people to do some work without forking out large amounts of money and you're not always sure about the end results (I've had some really terrible code handed in by contractors - worse than even mine).
I'm a successful developer who makes a decent salary and I would HATE to work for you. You're a user and your attitude is what's wrong with employers today. You leave burnt out shells in your wake so you can prosper.
So you like it because you get stuff for free, at the expense of hard work from other people...and hey because it cost you nothing who cares what happens to the code or the person that made the attempt for you. So why spend money looking for someone good? Let 50 people who'll each get nothing but their meagre doll cheque FROM THE GOVERNMENT slave away for you, and let them pick each other off in competition. If it works out you may hire 1 of them...then again why not hire another 50 free labourers so you don't have to pay anyone, and meanwhile you can claim to be supporting the community and helping workers get back on their feet.
Guess what! WRONG! It won't work. Bottom line: If you pay peanuts you get monkeys!
Get off your backside and do the leg work to find decent workers. You'll be surprised what continuity and a stable development team with a low attrician rate will do for your company. Learn to tie the end result to renumeration so that they have an incentive not to just do the minimum for you.
Do you know any economics? If you increase the supply, prices go DOWN. More people coding OSS means more competition and everyone paid peanuts for what is a stressful job. (Most coding isn't as stressful as being a pilot or a doctor, but in general it's more stressful than being a bricky or a plummer though much less physical).
Because they (the bosses) can see the quality of the work you've done for another project, so then they can pay you to do their project.
A small number of well known people perhaps get these opportunities. No one I've worked with got their job through doing open source work. I've worked at large and small consultancies, banks and building societies. A large number of the opportunities in this country (Australia) are in these areas.
For the record I've released small snippets of stuff myself. I will not go about coding a whole project for no pay. Most people who do this either burn out in a handful of years or find someone to sponsor and pay for their work. Otherwise, unless you're well off to begin with, you're insane.
If you're some guy whose only motivation is to make good money, good luck chump.
Obviously you're payed for your social skills.
Never said I was in it JUST for the money. I said if you give something away for free you tend to devalue it.
I'm as sick of all this socialist BS as I am of captialist IP law crud. Why oh why is there no happy medium? Either you have to give everything away for free and make sure anyone could take over the work and put you out of a job, or you have to make money your only goal. BS. Utter BS.
A model where people out of work do work for nothing is not sustainable. Do you think you're going to get to pick what you do when your social security cheque is tied to it? All of a sudden, people are willing to do hard work for peanuts and you're not making much more than the poor bastard in India that has to call himself Russel so that he can take your freaking support calls for your piece of shit laptop.
Do you honestly think that because you're good enough and fortunate enough to have the opportunity to move to something you actually enjoy that every person out there can do similar. Watch office space and listen to the line about what you'd do if you had a million dollars. "If everyone did what they wanted no body would be out there to pick up shit".
Why does this opinion make me a troll? Why on earth are you attacking me you saddistic narrow minded fool? How do you know why I'm in IT? How dare you get so personal as to claim to know my mind. If I insist on being paid for my hard work, why does that mean it's my only motivation for doing the work? No. It's a strong motiviation and an important one. Last time I checked you need money to live and more money to prosper. You wouldn't be writing crap like this if you couldn't afford net access and a machine. No one's going to pay for your kid's education or that life saving operation one of them needs just because you're some sort of philanthropist.
Slashdot has gotten so that every narrow minded loser teenage sheep and burnt out has-been jaded social misfit shouts down an idea without even considering it. If you don't tow the slashdot party line be prepared to be called a troll. This place disgusts me sometimes.
Yes dogs have a short lifespan, but while there are downsides (increased training costs is the one you've mentioned but there are others), there's also positives. New dogs can be trained in newer techniques, with increase in numbers being trained the training cost per animal goes down, and the blind person knows that he/she has a limited time with their animal, so when the animal does die it's less of a shock to the system and they're less likely to become so depressed they're suicidal.
By the way I do know what it's like to lose a dog you're attached to emmotionally (though obviously not one I'm dependant on).
Now you bring up guide horses. I think that's really really impractical for most blind people. For one most people who live in the city will find it hard to house and feed the animal. Also think about public transport. I've seen guide dogs on trains but can't imagine guide horses. Another point to consider is that the guide horse can't live at the foot of your bed. Houses aren't designed for an animal that large to live in. I think it would be difficult even for minature breeds to overcome these problems.
I have a cousin who is blind and uses a guide dog. A few weeks ago, his dog essentially mauled some burgler attempting a home invasion.
I'll trust a well trained dog over a robot/computer any day, and I consider myself a hardened geek. I find animals much more reliable and predictable than any system I've used.
Plus you get affection - and anyone who brings up virtual pets or robots being affectionate doesn't is self-dillusional and doesn't understand the benefit of a relationship with a real living thing.
sing deadly force to stop a felony seems quite reasonable. Using deadly force to stop a car chase seems quite reasonable. Deadly force should be used to stop crimes in progress and to stop those after crimes are committed if failure to do so would result in them getting away. If you don't like it, quit committing felonies.
So you trust the person who shoots you to determine your innocence or guilt? Last I checked that was for a judge and/or jury.
what if what they're "making off with" turns out to be theirs and only looks like something you own?...and what if there are no witnesses? Sounds like a good way to commit murder to me! (I swear he was running off with my wallet when I shot him in the back).
No, I think the use of deadly force should be restricted to when yourself or your family/friends come under attack directly. I do however think it's ridiculous that you can be charged and then sued for a burgular tripping over your rug in some places. Frankly I think if a burglar gets held by force (and suffers minor injuries) that's fair enough. If a burgular gets to go home in a coffin that's a bit too much.
So the key about trucks is just to make sure you always stay far enough ahead of them. Eventually, yes, they may catch up, but you can always get over to let them by....and how do you do this without speeding?
Slashdot Mirror
Ignore this manager's behaviour. Be completely gracious and generous and let all your co-workers know just how much you've enjoyed working with them. This will undermine any accusations your boss is making.
Do not find a replacement for yourself unless that was part of your contract.
If your boss tries to withhold your paycheque, threaten and if necessary carry through with legal action.
Make sure everything you do until you leave is by the book so they can't hold anything against you.
...so this is absolutely nothing new! :-)
So, what is the value of life? I'd prefer the answer in dollars, but feel free to use your local currency.
What a STUPID condescending thing to say. You're saying anyone who doesn't place a dollar value on life is wrong?
Also, what is the dollar amount on your piece of mind?
You obviously think that a robber has some right to my property greater than my right to stop them.
No I think your right to stop them does not extend to your right to kill them for trying to rob you (except where they threaten you or family/friends and only then in self defence).
I'm curious what else you think you have the right to for which you expect to be unhindered in your quest?
Do you find being condescending gets you all the things in life you want?
Can someone use deadly force to stop a felony?
How about a particularly bad one, like rape?
Now in rape we're talking about harm coming to another human being. I make a distinction between people and possessions. You clearly do not. If someone kills someone else who's in the middle of harming their friends/family or even a stranger, so long as he acted to prevent that harm I have no problem with it. If someone's stopped the crime then just decides to kill them in retribution, that's called murder. We have a legal system set up to punish.
Now if a jury returns a verdict of not guilty and it was clear that the crime had happened (say they were found not guilty due to prejudice or on a technicality)...say a daughter was raped and the father took the law into his own hands under that circumstance, I'd say go easy on the father. He's not likely to go out and kill someone else, and shouldn't be sent to pound me in the ass prison.
Or is a human life more valuable than merely the mental state of someone?
Once again, HUH????
Leave a negative comment about Linux on /. and see how quickly you end up with a post modded to -1 troll.
Guess what. No one likes being criticized.
Then you are saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house and grabbing my TV, I am not able to determine whether or not a crime was committed. I find that an absurd position.
What you're saying is you're willing to state a human life on your instant assessment of whether or not someone is committing a crime. I find THAT absurd. Life has more value than that.
You're also completely ignoring my argument that people would use this as an excuse to murder someone.
Well, then, no one should ever be arrested.
That arguement doesn't fly. I'd agree that no one should be held indefinitely, but arresting someone is a reasonable action to prevent a crime that will not result in their death! What kind of analogy was that? Which legal system are you working under?
You are also saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house, grabbing my TV and running off with it, I'm not capable of determining whether they committed a crime. You are wrong on both counts. Try again.
Simply stating that I'm wrong in an insulting tone , and adding a condescending "try again" is not an argument.
The taking of another human life should not be taken so lightly that anyone that's had their $200 tv nicked should be able to do it.
If the theif comes in with a gun and you shoot him TO WOUND with that gun (or to kill ONLY if your life is at risk) I think that's totally acceptable. A person who has little choice but to die or fight back shouldn't be penalised for fighting back. A gun-toting redneck who wants to kill him a burgular is a danger to society and should be locked up. Its a fine line and a difficult thing to determine, hence the idea of a jury of peers (as imperfect as that is).
- They choose if they want to be involved
Wrong. You're a qualified techy and refuse tech work, good luck collecting your cheque. That's not what I call choice. This work like a dog (work for the dole) thing is simply a sweatshop cheap labour s cam.
- It allows them to avoid having to do other work that they might not have been wanting to (cleaning up roadside litter vs programming?)
These people should be looking for a full time paid job, not picking up litter and not programming for free. They have families to feed and lives to live.
- They get credited for doing the work and subsequently don't get harassed by the departments
I love how people justify forced labour. If they're doing the work, why are they collecting about a fifth of the pay????
Ahhhh, you're waiting for the headline: "Microsoft to 'Spare' Tech Startups"
Wow, at an average of $30/hr for IT staff, that's $141,000 or 1 month's salary for a highly paid lawyer :-)
There's a lot of people out there who read a "Learn C in 24 hours" book and suddenly decide that they can put that on their CV "C programmer" or who have done some perusing of HTML and all of a sudden are "WWW developers".
Then that's your fault. You need to ask for and verify their credentials. Check that they have done real development work and have references. Ask for a degree. If they can't produce these you either don't hire or you hire at a reduced pay rate until they proove themselves.
I'm not asking that you allow yourself to be burnt, but I think you're actually taking advantage of down and out developers with your current approach, whether that's your intention or not.
Coding isn't inherently stressful
You've either:
a) Never worked on anything complex
b) Don't care about the result of your work
c) Care but are so full of yourself you've never come back to a piece of code and in hindsight thought "woah, what was I thinking when I wrote that"
d) Are made of stone
I'm feeling generous so I'm guessing (a) and possibly a hint of (c)
I've personally worked on complex systems but thankfully nothing that would result in someone dieing if I got it wrong, but there's plenty of that kind of code out there, helping make the world go round.
Quite often it's very hard to get people to do some work without forking out large amounts of money and you're not always sure about the end results (I've had some really terrible code handed in by contractors - worse than even mine).
I'm a successful developer who makes a decent salary and I would HATE to work for you. You're a user and your attitude is what's wrong with employers today. You leave burnt out shells in your wake so you can prosper.
So you like it because you get stuff for free, at the expense of hard work from other people...and hey because it cost you nothing who cares what happens to the code or the person that made the attempt for you. So why spend money looking for someone good? Let 50 people who'll each get nothing but their meagre doll cheque FROM THE GOVERNMENT slave away for you, and let them pick each other off in competition. If it works out you may hire 1 of them...then again why not hire another 50 free labourers so you don't have to pay anyone, and meanwhile you can claim to be supporting the community and helping workers get back on their feet.
Guess what! WRONG! It won't work. Bottom line: If you pay peanuts you get monkeys!
Get off your backside and do the leg work to find decent workers. You'll be surprised what continuity and a stable development team with a low attrician rate will do for your company. Learn to tie the end result to renumeration so that they have an incentive not to just do the minimum for you.
Hardly do anything and I assure you that you will lose your job.
You've never worked in a large company right? Do nothing and you'll be promoted out of the way or moved sideways.
Someone needs to educate you. Go read some Dilbert and watch the movie Office Space.
Do you know any economics? If you increase the supply, prices go DOWN. More people coding OSS means more competition and everyone paid peanuts for what is a stressful job. (Most coding isn't as stressful as being a pilot or a doctor, but in general it's more stressful than being a bricky or a plummer though much less physical).
Let me guess. This gets modded -1 troll.
*sigh*
Please read my reply to parent, and other replies.
Because they (the bosses) can see the quality of the work you've done for another project, so then they can pay you to do their project.
A small number of well known people perhaps get these opportunities. No one I've worked with got their job through doing open source work. I've worked at large and small consultancies, banks and building societies. A large number of the opportunities in this country (Australia) are in these areas.
For the record I've released small snippets of stuff myself. I will not go about coding a whole project for no pay. Most people who do this either burn out in a handful of years or find someone to sponsor and pay for their work. Otherwise, unless you're well off to begin with, you're insane.
If you're some guy whose only motivation is to make good money, good luck chump.
Obviously you're payed for your social skills.
Never said I was in it JUST for the money. I said if you give something away for free you tend to devalue it.
I'm as sick of all this socialist BS as I am of captialist IP law crud. Why oh why is there no happy medium? Either you have to give everything away for free and make sure anyone could take over the work and put you out of a job, or you have to make money your only goal. BS. Utter BS.
A model where people out of work do work for nothing is not sustainable. Do you think you're going to get to pick what you do when your social security cheque is tied to it? All of a sudden, people are willing to do hard work for peanuts and you're not making much more than the poor bastard in India that has to call himself Russel so that he can take your freaking support calls for your piece of shit laptop.
Do you honestly think that because you're good enough and fortunate enough to have the opportunity to move to something you actually enjoy that every person out there can do similar. Watch office space and listen to the line about what you'd do if you had a million dollars. "If everyone did what they wanted no body would be out there to pick up shit".
Why does this opinion make me a troll? Why on earth are you attacking me you saddistic narrow minded fool? How do you know why I'm in IT? How dare you get so personal as to claim to know my mind. If I insist on being paid for my hard work, why does that mean it's my only motivation for doing the work? No. It's a strong motiviation and an important one. Last time I checked you need money to live and more money to prosper. You wouldn't be writing crap like this if you couldn't afford net access and a machine. No one's going to pay for your kid's education or that life saving operation one of them needs just because you're some sort of philanthropist.
Slashdot has gotten so that every narrow minded loser teenage sheep and burnt out has-been jaded social misfit shouts down an idea without even considering it. If you don't tow the slashdot party line be prepared to be called a troll. This place disgusts me sometimes.
OSS work like you work for IBM but without the pay.
If you're willing to give it away for free why would anyone bother hiring you to do it for money?
Nuff said.
Yes dogs have a short lifespan, but while there are downsides (increased training costs is the one you've mentioned but there are others), there's also positives. New dogs can be trained in newer techniques, with increase in numbers being trained the training cost per animal goes down, and the blind person knows that he/she has a limited time with their animal, so when the animal does die it's less of a shock to the system and they're less likely to become so depressed they're suicidal.
By the way I do know what it's like to lose a dog you're attached to emmotionally (though obviously not one I'm dependant on).
Now you bring up guide horses. I think that's really really impractical for most blind people. For one most people who live in the city will find it hard to house and feed the animal. Also think about public transport. I've seen guide dogs on trains but can't imagine guide horses. Another point to consider is that the guide horse can't live at the foot of your bed. Houses aren't designed for an animal that large to live in. I think it would be difficult even for minature breeds to overcome these problems.
I have a cousin who is blind and uses a guide dog. A few weeks ago, his dog essentially mauled some burgler attempting a home invasion.
I'll trust a well trained dog over a robot/computer any day, and I consider myself a hardened geek. I find animals much more reliable and predictable than any system I've used.
Plus you get affection - and anyone who brings up virtual pets or robots being affectionate doesn't is self-dillusional and doesn't understand the benefit of a relationship with a real living thing.
Want to get modded OT and flamebait? Mention religion, even if on topic (whether you are for or against)
Nah, its much quicker and more effective to point out Linux's imperfections.
sing deadly force to stop a felony seems quite reasonable. Using deadly force to stop a car chase seems quite reasonable. Deadly force should be used to stop crimes in progress and to stop those after crimes are committed if failure to do so would result in them getting away. If you don't like it, quit committing felonies.
...and what if there are no witnesses? Sounds like a good way to commit murder to me! (I swear he was running off with my wallet when I shot him in the back).
So you trust the person who shoots you to determine your innocence or guilt? Last I checked that was for a judge and/or jury.
what if what they're "making off with" turns out to be theirs and only looks like something you own?
No, I think the use of deadly force should be restricted to when yourself or your family/friends come under attack directly. I do however think it's ridiculous that you can be charged and then sued for a burgular tripping over your rug in some places. Frankly I think if a burglar gets held by force (and suffers minor injuries) that's fair enough. If a burgular gets to go home in a coffin that's a bit too much.
So the key about trucks is just to make sure you always stay far enough ahead of them. Eventually, yes, they may catch up, but you can always get over to let them by. ...and how do you do this without speeding?
Newsflash: Retailer slashdoted in real life as geeks run to their nearest store!
Ever been doing the speed limit and had a bunch of angry truck drivers in semi trailers pass you?
I have, and its not fun.