Why is it OK for the company to act in an ethically questionable manner, but the employee may not?
Something to think on. I dont know about the original poster's job history, but having worked as a programmer for more than a decade, I cant recall a company that I did not end up doing some kind of death march for. Not particularly because I wanted to, but because the company put itself in a bad position that somehow became my issue ( along with others ) to fix. "Taking one for the team", so to speak. And the company? "Oh, we are done with you, bye bye now, oh, uh, could you, uh, train your replacements, please?". I dont know that I would feel like continuing to go above and beyond after that.
Also, you say he was not doing his job. The job he was hired to do was to maintain and build that code, keeping it in shape so that it had business utility to the company. You dont know that he was not doing that, he could easily have been earning that paycheck from that activity alone.
Yeah, I know that. There was theft before the internet.
It sounded like you were arguing against going after the seller because the person stolen from might be able to get the item back. Getting the item back is fine, but theft will surely not go away if you continue to give them a financial incentive to steal.
I agree that making a news item out of this seems less than wise, but then again, denying thieves a venue for the sale of stolen goods might not be so bad after all. Heck, make it a buyer reported system for online sales, automatic checking against stolen goods lists from the police. There are privacy issues there, maybe, but maybe it would work. Then theives might have a harder time selling.
Are you saying that someone that provably stole something should be left alone to continue because the person stolen from *might* be able to buy the item back?
The first naval turbines had the same issues. Running the propellers at turbine speed cavitated the blades, running the turbine slow meant poor efficiency. There was an attempt at a fluid coupling ( Foettinger or something like that in Germany ). Between WWI and WWII, at least the Americans experimented with Turbine electric drives for ships. ( Lexington or Saratoga ( CV2 && 3 ) powered part of a city in the 1930's because it had the generating capacity. ). When double reduction gearing became reliable, the wieght of the electric generating and using gear became a penalty.
So, gearing can change this, or the turbine can run at rated speed, and produce electricity directly, without any direct "contact" with the drive train. And probably at higher efficiencies than a conventional piston engine. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the servicability of the units might be an issue, but I think it one that can be overcome.
This is just me, but I see the old testament as proof to us that we cannot do well spiritually by following a bunch of rules. I think that people learn best by experiencing the negative consequences of actions, and that old testament times were supposed to be that for us. So that we could see the truths in the new testament well, in contrast to the old.
It does say "dont do this", but it says that about a lot of other things as well. Calling such things "sin". It says we are all sinners, and that God loves us, knows what we are going thru, and that we should all love each other. It says dont judge each other, but forgive.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20
Is that factored by Liter to liter, ( volume ) pound to pound, ( mass ) or comparing a years production of each?
I disagree. They require more skilled programmers who also have enough domain knowledge to understand the skilled speciallists.
The more abstract the black boxes you are putting together, the higher the complexity of the system. You need more experience, not less.
What has happened at the generational boundaries of languages? They have increased in expressiveness, and in doing so, have increased in complexity. Requiring an increase in (average) programmer ability, not a decrease.
You may be right, but the "higher levels of abstraction" will, in my opinion, call for more knowledge, not less, requiring more skilled persons, not less.
Until the point that we have true AI, that is. ( And it will still be true, but handled by the AI. )
There were mechanical analog computers back in those days.
I dont know specifically about the Packard or Duesenberg.
I do know that naval guns were directed from Ford ( not the motor car company ) computers that were mechanical. Not sure when they went into service, but certainly in the 30's. Also, torpedos in submarines where dealt with with fire control equipement.
"Because you're not able to invest as much because the seed money has already been taxed."
Why is that important?
"If they taxed it once when you made it (like a Roth), or once when you got your return on your investment (like a 401k) then it'd be "fair.""
A: Life is not fair. B: This ignores many difficulties. How would you know which someone was going to do?
I.E. I earn some money, how would that be taxed? I might invest it, I might not.
I might sit on it for a while ( in a bank account earning interest, then invest it )
Also, the input is not taxed, only the gain on the increase.
"After all, that's why Roths and 401ks exist, because it was understood that the system was "unfair.""
That is not my understanding. 401ks exist because it was deemed beneficial for people to have them
to suppliment a coming shortfall in the ability of the social security system to handle baby boomers.
The tax deferment on that money is an incentive to people to get them to save the money. I am not
as sure about Roths, but it seems that someone thought they were serving some societal benefit worthy
of a tax break.
My experience does not match yours. I recall having to get my bosses CC for a call. It is possible that they did not have an MSDN subscription, but we did buy the compiler. They might not charge the card, I dont like the fact that they get to decide the issue. I understand their stand on that, by the way, I am sure a goodly number of people would refuse to concur with a legitimate issue that should be charged.
And at another place, a coworker found a bug in RPC. It was like pulling teeth to get them to acknowledge it.
I havent found them to be very good at finding answers, excepting in one case. I called them once about using the objec model exposed for the VC5x IDE ( automating builds ). The "we will be back in two days with an answer" turned into "we dont know, sorry". I know this is all anecdotal, dont take it as "Microsoft support sucks". But so far, it has been more productive to beat my head against the wall than to call.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it OK for the company to act in an ethically questionable manner,
but the employee may not?
Something to think on. I dont know about the original poster's job history,
but having worked as a programmer for more than a decade, I cant recall a
company that I did not end up doing some kind of death march for. Not particularly
because I wanted to, but because the company put itself in a bad position
that somehow became my issue ( along with others ) to fix. "Taking one for the team", so to
speak. And the company? "Oh, we are done with you, bye bye now, oh, uh,
could you, uh, train your replacements, please?". I dont know that I would
feel like continuing to go above and beyond after that.
Also, you say he was not doing his job. The job he was hired to do was to
maintain and build that code, keeping it in shape so that it had business
utility to the company. You dont know that he was not doing that, he could
easily have been earning that paycheck from that activity alone.
From inside, I am almost positive the definition of crap goes thus:
Crap: We did not make it.
Not Crap: We did make it.
They could call it the "iLikeToTalk".
The initial character was a quote mark, and it was properly capitalized. :-)
Yeah, I know that. There was theft before the internet.
It sounded like you were arguing against going after the
seller because the person stolen from might be able to
get the item back. Getting the item back is fine, but
theft will surely not go away if you continue to give them
a financial incentive to steal.
I agree that making a news item out of this seems less than
wise, but then again, denying thieves a venue for the sale
of stolen goods might not be so bad after all. Heck, make
it a buyer reported system for online sales, automatic
checking against stolen goods lists from the police. There
are privacy issues there, maybe, but maybe it would work.
Then theives might have a harder time selling.
Are you saying that someone that provably stole something
should be left alone to continue because the person stolen
from *might* be able to buy the item back?
someone made one once
Gearing is the thing.
The first naval turbines had the same issues. Running the propellers at turbine speed
cavitated the blades, running the turbine slow meant poor efficiency. There was an
attempt at a fluid coupling ( Foettinger or something like that in Germany ). Between
WWI and WWII, at least the Americans experimented with Turbine electric drives for
ships. ( Lexington or Saratoga ( CV2 && 3 ) powered part of a city in the 1930's because it had
the generating capacity. ). When double reduction gearing became reliable, the wieght
of the electric generating and using gear became a penalty.
So, gearing can change this, or the turbine can run at rated speed, and produce electricity
directly, without any direct "contact" with the drive train. And probably at higher efficiencies
than a conventional piston engine. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the servicability
of the units might be an issue, but I think it one that can be overcome.
Look.
How will the line get *anywhere* if is it not towed.
Its got no wheels, no engine.
Think of the lines!
Maybe he/she/it is trying to be introduced to your sister?
And the aerial refueling will be loads of fun. :-)
:-)
As far as streamlining, with enough thrust, anything
will fly. It could be a status symbol, kinda like
Hummers and the like.
Thats called a satellite.
So, the report was done by Howe'nWolf?
This is just me, but I see the old testament as proof to us
that we cannot do well spiritually by following a bunch of
rules. I think that people learn best by experiencing the
negative consequences of actions, and that old testament times
were supposed to be that for us. So that we could see the
truths in the new testament well, in contrast to the old.
Depends on your meaning of "love".
No, it does not.
It does say "dont do this", but it says that about
a lot of other things as well. Calling such things
"sin". It says we are all sinners, and that God
loves us, knows what we are going thru, and that
we should all love each other. It says dont judge
each other, but forgive.
Is that factored by
Liter to liter, ( volume )
pound to pound, ( mass )
or comparing a years production of each?
I disagree. They require more skilled programmers who also have
enough domain knowledge to understand the skilled speciallists.
The more abstract the black boxes you are putting together,
the higher the complexity of the system. You need more experience,
not less.
What has happened at the generational boundaries of languages?
They have increased in expressiveness, and in doing so, have increased
in complexity. Requiring an increase in (average) programmer ability, not
a decrease.
They said that about COBOL as well.
You may be right, but the "higher levels of abstraction" will,
in my opinion, call for more knowledge, not less, requiring
more skilled persons, not less.
Until the point that we have true AI, that is. ( And it will
still be true, but handled by the AI. )
As my professor used to say:
"I love the smell of COBOL in the morning"!
There were mechanical analog computers back in those days.
I dont know specifically about the Packard or Duesenberg.
I do know that naval guns were directed from Ford ( not the motor
car company ) computers that were mechanical. Not sure when they
went into service, but certainly in the 30's. Also, torpedos
in submarines where dealt with with fire control equipement.
"Because you're not able to invest as much because the seed money has already been taxed."
Why is that important?
"If they taxed it once when you made it (like a Roth), or once when you got your return on your investment (like a 401k) then it'd be "fair.""
A: Life is not fair.
B: This ignores many difficulties. How would you know which someone was going to do?
I.E. I earn some money, how would that be taxed? I might invest it, I might not.
I might sit on it for a while ( in a bank account earning interest, then invest it )
Also, the input is not taxed, only the gain on the increase.
"After all, that's why Roths and 401ks exist, because it was understood that the system was "unfair.""
That is not my understanding. 401ks exist because it was deemed beneficial for people to have them
to suppliment a coming shortfall in the ability of the social security system to handle baby boomers.
The tax deferment on that money is an incentive to people to get them to save the money. I am not
as sure about Roths, but it seems that someone thought they were serving some societal benefit worthy
of a tax break.
IO is shifting bits.
Anyway, he couldnt invent new symbols very well, so what should
he have done?
A beowolf cluster of those!
I hope they are also unpassengered.
My experience does not match yours. I recall having to get my bosses
CC for a call. It is possible that they did not have an MSDN
subscription, but we did buy the compiler. They might not charge
the card, I dont like the fact that they get to decide the issue.
I understand their stand on that, by the way, I am sure a goodly
number of people would refuse to concur with a legitimate issue
that should be charged.
And at another place, a coworker found a bug in RPC. It was like
pulling teeth to get them to acknowledge it.
I havent found them to be very good at finding answers, excepting in
one case. I called them once about using the objec model exposed
for the VC5x IDE ( automating builds ). The "we will be back in two
days with an answer" turned into "we dont know, sorry". I know this
is all anecdotal, dont take it as "Microsoft support sucks". But
so far, it has been more productive to beat my head against the wall
than to call.