Because the things that make people happy don't seem to make me so.
Good. That's a key observation, and you need to accept its reality. The next stop is to identify what does make you happy.
You tell me what I am missing to make me happy.
You already established that things that make other people happy do not make you happy. I am not you.
You need to learn via objective introspective observation what does make you happy. You are like many people, but similarity is not identity. No one else has your consciousness, and no one can teach you how to live with it.
In America's legal system you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt; as an individual, you're free to draw your own conclusions.
To stay is to explicitly condone the actions of the leadership.
By "to explicitly condone" you seem to mean to implicitly condone.
inject itself and its considerable demographic and monetary clout directly and voluminously into any political debate that takes its fancy. Many european states, learning from experience, outrightly ban such behavior
That's a strong accusation. What specifically is banned by whom?
Your main point is wrong, BTW. If the label is important to people, they should be reluctant to drop it. They can't do anything about the people who are giving it a bad name at the moment, and it's unreasonable to expect otherwise.
"The battle for the world is the battle for definitions" - Thomas Szasz
Okay, this one is simple. You know what is right and what is wrong. The reality is that 99% of the folks will do what the boss asks without even raising a fuss.
The reality is that you will be damaging your career if you don't go ahead.
Now, the other reality is that shit flows downhill. That is, if this project gets questioned, the boss will claim ignorance, and put the blame on you. Your job is to cover your ass.
Email is a good documentation tool. "Clarify" the request, asking if this is what he intends for you to do. Remove the emotion. Put in only facts. Put in a piece about your not being sure, but this may be a violation of terms of service. Ask if he wants you to proceed. Forward your sent email to a personal account.
By the book. This one is so simple that it should be in the FAQ.
If that's by the book, I want to know what book you're reading.
You tell your boss that you won't participate in this project, or if you feel strongly enough, that you will have to resign if the company goes ahead with it.
The poster has ethical issues with the project, he's not asking how to make sure his ass is covered after he does it.
I hope you walk. You won't be damaging your "reputation and future employment opportunities" by leaving.
You can do the project; you can decline to do the project but stay with the firm; you can walk. How much future self-esteem would each choice cost? How much would each choice affect your present circumstances? What's the best trade-off?
"Both [former state police superintendent Thomas] Hutchins and [Maryland Police Superintendent Terrence] Sheridan said the activists' names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries."
The classification options were "limited" because the system wasn't supposed to include the people you put into it.
The justice system should have a legal obligation to determine whether this is a case of criminal fraud or incompetence, but whichever it is, none of the people involved should ever again be eligible for a job that pays taxpayer money.
"I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government," [Hutchins] said.
Thomas E. Hutchins was a member of the US Army, a member of the House of Representatives, a police academy commander, and a state police secretary.
Your software can't be trusted to tell others how much money you have, so your information has to be backed by credible sources. The best-case scenario is this: These credible sources keep your funds both private and accessible. They give you a physical key to unlock your funds when making physical purchases, and a digital key to send to Internet applications. The physical key should be difficult to copy and easy to invalidate and replace in case of theft or loss. The digital key should be complex enough to discourage random duplication yet simple enough to be inputted into computer systems using traditional input devices. Since communication can be intercepted on the Internet, the transmission of the digital keys must be encrypted. This would complete the architecture, and would leave the rest in the hands of the maintenance department, including battling fraud. Due to the digital component, there are more attack vectors against it than against cash.
You have what you wanted in its most evolved form. If you know of a way to improve it, I would have liked to have read it.
This resembles an anarchist advocating a system in whose most evolved form he is already living.
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
I like tabbed browsers, and must on those grounds disagree with you.
Let's say I participated in a survey from a company attempting to decide on a new product name. (My wife actually does surveys like this, so it's not far-fetched.) Let's also say that some unscrupulous individual notes all the names, then goes to register ALL of them. The company then chooses a name based on the survey feedback, only to find that every one of their choices has been locked out. Does the company have a right to demand their domain back?
The company cannot demand the domain "back" because they never owned it. They could force the unscrupulous individual to relinquish the domain if he or she had agreed not to register it as a condition of participating in the survey. The company is also free to register all the domain names they are considering prior to conducting the survey.
Stephen has chosen to identify his publication as Chicago2016.com. It is his defacto trademark. The host of the Olympics is free to choose a different name for itself, and it is free to offer to buy the domain from Stephen--and it is free to simply reside at chicago2016.org. I think of slashdot as slashdot.org, and if slashdot.com was owned by someone else, it wouldn't bother me--even if the other site lacked a conspicuous message denying the affiliation, like the one Stephen has.
The Olympics host is more powerful than Stephen, and might have been able to intimidate him into surrendering his domain, but fortunately the United States government has been instituted to protect the rights of those who are unable to protect themselves in situations like these.
As you say--food for thought, anyway. Frankly, the motives of the parties involved are irrelevant unless there is suspicion that a criminal act has been committed, and registering a domain name prior to someone else registering a trademark whose "logical default domain" turns out to be that domain, is not a criminal act.
Google has created a very good rating system to help people distinguish sites that can be trusted to tell the truth, and those that can't. You think the web is in bad condition now (and I don't), imagine if search engines worked on nothing but keywords and if news aggregators didn't exist. This is an existing product, and you're free to create a better one if you can. Don't ask for somebody to create a system that so many brilliant organizations in the private sector have already created and are competing to improve.
The (not so recent) news is that someone figured out why it helped us survive. Incidentally, who figured it out? Neither Keving Foster nor Michael Shermer are credited for it in the article--though the latter certainly speaks like the one more likely to have thought of it.
"42% of nearly 300 readers of Internet Evolution who weighed in readily admit to it -- and this is coming from an educated tech-readership, not a band of merry thieves (or so we thought...)"
This story clearly wasn't posted because an intelligent person decided other intelligent people would find it worthwhile. I like how "An anonymous reader writes" it. If samzenpus is trying to bone Nicole Ferraro, he's a snake, and I hope Nicole Ferraro finds out how inappropriately he acted. Is it hard to find good slashdot editors? They are the foundation of the site. They keep the worthwhile members around.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we really need this acronym? FFS
Oh.
I see.
Because the things that make people happy don't seem to make me so.
Good. That's a key observation, and you need to accept its reality. The next stop is to identify what does make you happy.
You tell me what I am missing to make me happy.
You already established that things that make other people happy do not make you happy. I am not you.
You need to learn via objective introspective observation what does make you happy. You are like many people, but similarity is not identity. No one else has your consciousness, and no one can teach you how to live with it.
If you're so intelligent, why can't you figure out how to be happy?
In America's legal system you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt; as an individual, you're free to draw your own conclusions.
But who moderates the moderators?
Expressing goodwill by spending other people's money doesn't make you a hero in their eyes.
By "to explicitly condone" you seem to mean to implicitly condone.
That's a strong accusation. What specifically is banned by whom?
Your main point is wrong, BTW. If the label is important to people, they should be reluctant to drop it. They can't do anything about the people who are giving it a bad name at the moment, and it's unreasonable to expect otherwise.
Word.
Where could one read more concepts like these?
If that's by the book, I want to know what book you're reading.
You tell your boss that you won't participate in this project, or if you feel strongly enough, that you will have to resign if the company goes ahead with it.
The poster has ethical issues with the project, he's not asking how to make sure his ass is covered after he does it.
I hope you walk. You won't be damaging your "reputation and future employment opportunities" by leaving.
You can do the project; you can decline to do the project but stay with the firm; you can walk. How much future self-esteem would each choice cost? How much would each choice affect your present circumstances? What's the best trade-off?
"We are now the target of a more powerful enemy."
That a piece of a corrupted whole opposes an evil does not make the whole worth promoting.
What planet are you writing from?
"The battle for the world is the battle for definitions." - Thomaz Szasz
Don Luskin puts it well
Trade doesn't happen unless both parties want it to happen.
The classification options were "limited" because the system wasn't supposed to include the people you put into it.
The justice system should have a legal obligation to determine whether this is a case of criminal fraud or incompetence, but whichever it is, none of the people involved should ever again be eligible for a job that pays taxpayer money.
Thomas E. Hutchins was a member of the US Army, a member of the House of Representatives, a police academy commander, and a state police secretary.
By reducing the degree of computer literacy required to operate a computer and drawing more casual users.
People aren't being "trained". Animals are trained, people are taught--and naturally whey will teach each other what they know.
Your software can't be trusted to tell others how much money you have, so your information has to be backed by credible sources. The best-case scenario is this: These credible sources keep your funds both private and accessible. They give you a physical key to unlock your funds when making physical purchases, and a digital key to send to Internet applications. The physical key should be difficult to copy and easy to invalidate and replace in case of theft or loss. The digital key should be complex enough to discourage random duplication yet simple enough to be inputted into computer systems using traditional input devices. Since communication can be intercepted on the Internet, the transmission of the digital keys must be encrypted. This would complete the architecture, and would leave the rest in the hands of the maintenance department, including battling fraud. Due to the digital component, there are more attack vectors against it than against cash.
You have what you wanted in its most evolved form. If you know of a way to improve it, I would have liked to have read it.
This resembles an anarchist advocating a system in whose most evolved form he is already living.
I like tabbed browsers, and must on those grounds disagree with you.
"People" don't want a computer to play for them. There isn't a single thing that "people" want to do.
The company cannot demand the domain "back" because they never owned it. They could force the unscrupulous individual to relinquish the domain if he or she had agreed not to register it as a condition of participating in the survey. The company is also free to register all the domain names they are considering prior to conducting the survey.
Stephen has chosen to identify his publication as Chicago2016.com. It is his defacto trademark. The host of the Olympics is free to choose a different name for itself, and it is free to offer to buy the domain from Stephen--and it is free to simply reside at chicago2016.org. I think of slashdot as slashdot.org, and if slashdot.com was owned by someone else, it wouldn't bother me--even if the other site lacked a conspicuous message denying the affiliation, like the one Stephen has.
The Olympics host is more powerful than Stephen, and might have been able to intimidate him into surrendering his domain, but fortunately the United States government has been instituted to protect the rights of those who are unable to protect themselves in situations like these.
As you say--food for thought, anyway. Frankly, the motives of the parties involved are irrelevant unless there is suspicion that a criminal act has been committed, and registering a domain name prior to someone else registering a trademark whose "logical default domain" turns out to be that domain, is not a criminal act.
Google has created a very good rating system to help people distinguish sites that can be trusted to tell the truth, and those that can't. You think the web is in bad condition now (and I don't), imagine if search engines worked on nothing but keywords and if news aggregators didn't exist. This is an existing product, and you're free to create a better one if you can. Don't ask for somebody to create a system that so many brilliant organizations in the private sector have already created and are competing to improve.
Why the hell else would it have evolved?
The (not so recent) news is that someone figured out why it helped us survive. Incidentally, who figured it out? Neither Keving Foster nor Michael Shermer are credited for it in the article--though the latter certainly speaks like the one more likely to have thought of it.
This story clearly wasn't posted because an intelligent person decided other intelligent people would find it worthwhile. I like how "An anonymous reader writes" it. If samzenpus is trying to bone Nicole Ferraro, he's a snake, and I hope Nicole Ferraro finds out how inappropriately he acted. Is it hard to find good slashdot editors? They are the foundation of the site. They keep the worthwhile members around.