I am going to disagree with you here. CC is not a good idea. It puts the recipient in a defensive mindset. A simply email will most times get the project canceled (at least that approach to it). If he is the only recipient, in his mind he has dodged a bullet. He can simply let the matter drop, and no one is the wiser. If the sender's point is to get in a pissing match, then the sender will lose.
I have been in this position and it has worked for me. The key point is humility. If you are truly looking out for your boss and the company, it will show through. If you are looking to prove yourself as the better person, that too will show through.
There is a point where you have to draw the line. If you are morally equating screen scraping which is, at best, ambiguous with the Bush regime's actions, then I think you have got an issue with perspective. I would be willing to bet if we looked at your life, we'd find actions you have taken that others would view as more unethical than this.
You bring up a good point which leads to lesson #2: Written trumps verbal. If shit hits the fan, you halve your email. if your boss then says that he verbally told you not to proceed, you only have to say that you have no recollection of any such conversation. He is on the defensive as he has nothing to back it up. If he was "appalled" at the thought of breaking the TOS, then he would have written back and clarified.
Now, if you want to double cover your ass, give him status reports via email. Ask questions. You are covered.
Now to answer some other questions about whether to quit or not. You have to make that decision on your own. For screen scraping, I wouldn't quit over something so mundane. Sorry. Especially if you are a grunt. You voice your concerns, and go on. The reality is that 4 times out of 5 if you voice your concerns like this in a written manner, that the boss will back down. I have faced it twice in a grunt position with two different managers, and both times I got thanked for bringing it to their attention. It is all in how you deliver it. If it comes across as "I am ethical and you are a piece of shit", then your career is hurt. If it comes across sa "I am trying to look out for your well being and that of the company", it can be a positive. Wording is everything.
I've worked in a large company, who's name I can't reveal for fear of litigation but essentially, using email in a CYA fashion would get you fired. (Terms of contract, they can end the contract at any time for any reason, but the money was good)
Bullshit. What do you put in the subject line "This is a cover my ass email"? You are only clarifying what the boss is asking for. It is basically to be used if ever there any question about what you were told to do. There is not such thing as a "you can't cover your ass in an email policy". The only thing that could be prohibited is forwarding to a personal email address. If that is the case, print the sucker out.
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.
Honest question. Isn't the self-employment tax just what you would pay if you had hired someone to do the work? I mean when I work, my employer pays whatever percent into FICA, and I do the same. Isn't this tax the same as that? Or am I missing something.
Two counterarguments to the "sun cycles causing global warming" are as follows (from memory, if my numbers are off, please correct)
The sun's output is incredibly steady. Over the past forty years, the output of the sun has stayed to with 0.2% of the mean output. There is not enough variation to account for what we are seeing. If the sun's output variation is part of it, it is a small fraction of what we are seeing.
Also, sun cycles occur in a fairly predictable 13 year range. We do not see a corresponding cycle in the temperature. We should see this occurring if the sun's output variation is a major factor.
Much better, and does not rely on logical fallacies.
*sigh* What is sad is that I actually agree with your position on global warming.
Let me explain this slowly.
You say "If you're a layman, you have to rely on the opinions of experts." This is fine. If you choose to rely on the experts, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is someone who at least presumes to have educated on the subject gives what he believes is a counter agrument. You then go with the "experts say" retort. In an argument "If you're a layman, you have to rely on the opinions of experts." no longer applies. You must either counter with reasons why his argument is invalid, or you must wait until an expert arrives (who you rely on anyhow) to argue with him. Appeal to authority is invalid as an argument.
So basically, either cite evidence, or don't argue. It makes our side look bad.
And why can't people comprehend that folks write this stuff to sell books and make money? And why can't folks comprehend that Slashdot posts it in order to get page views and make money?
Now you are relying on strawman arguments. I never said that their opinions are the same. However, if the best you can come up with is "some smart guy said so", then you should stay out of a debate. I can find folks who are experts who will say that global warming is NOT man made, and even a few kooks with degrees who will say there is no global warming whatsoever.
Arguments based on "this smart guy said so" are meaningless.
Sagan did predict global cooling because of the Iraq oil fires. He was wrong. So, I would tend to put this is in "respected scientific opinion" column. I am not sure how this qualifies as anecdotal evidence.
From the article: "I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better)."
I remember the popular press reporting that we were in a global cooling spell. The lesson to be learned is that you do not rely on the popular media for scientific reporting. The press did a good job of convincing me and others that we were going into a cooling period that could be catastrophic. It mad me leery of the global warming crowd, but a couple decades of solid evidence has 95% convinced me otherwise.
I wouldn't for a moment consider either a small town mayors, small state governors, or a Pizza Hut managers to have the type of QUALITY of leadership experience required to seek national office.
Oh no, it got sent registration materials. It did not get registered. The paperwork was sent out based on a request. It is the end of Democracy as we know it!
Where are you getting your information? Once in college I spilled Coke onto a motherboard (not plugged in fortunately). I cleaned with pure rubbing alcohol. I let it sit for a day, and plugged it in. It worked fine.
Rubbing alcoholic has the advantage of evaporating completely away rather quickly. So unless you can point me to a source that says otherwise, rubbing alcohol is fine.
That would be called "sarcasm". The point is if we need to go into debt by Trillions of dollars just to "protect ourselves", then it is game over, we have already lost.
But my guess is you don't care. As long as you get to live in luxury now, you don't give a rats ass about the next generations.
So, some terrorists are after us, and we have to go $11 Trillion in debt to protect ourselves? To be fair, only $4 Trillion since OBL hit us. At this rate, the "terrorists" will bankrupt in another 12-20 years. Better brush up on my Arabic, I guess.
I speak as an American. Right now, we have a debt of close to $11 Trillion dollars. Very little of this is an investment toward our future. This means that we have indeed wasted resources. Money that could be used to advance science, invest in technology, invest in infrastructure just isn't there. We spend more on Iraq in a month than we to NASA in a year. And NASA's budget isn't all science. Oh, and we spend more servicing the debt than we even do in Iraq. We could fund an LHC project every four days if we were not in Iraq and we didn't have to pay the interest on our debt. Please tell me how this is not a waste of resources?
Europe isn't a whole lot better. Look at Italy's debt-to-income ratio. Look also at Japan's debt-to-income ratio. A good part of the world has this same problem.
And if we are not killing each other, then I must be reading some bad homicide statistics in the newspaper. And the war deaths must be a figment of my imagination.
And since you miss the big point, I will spell it out.
A polar bear is using the limits of his logic to speculate on the world as a whole. Had an intelligent bear been allowed to travel the world, he would see where his equation breaks down.
An intelligent human attempts to speculate about the universe as a whole. He is smart enough to realize that he has no clue about how often intelligent life occurs on "habitable" worlds, so he plugs in a variable, then proceeds to put in numbers for something he has no clue about. Since it is unknown, his number is bullshit. Drake realized this, but countless amateurs have treated these numbers as the gospel and wildly speculated about the unknown. this in and of itself isn't bad. However when folks put weight on these numbers, it is bad.
Just as the polar bear has no real clue about the planet it lives on, we have no clue about the universe we live in. I hope that as a civilization that we go out and really begin to explore this place. But as long as we are sitting here on earth, killing each other, and wasting resources on there here and now, we cannot jope to fathom the way the universe truly is.
Slashdot Mirror
I am going to disagree with you here. CC is not a good idea. It puts the recipient in a defensive mindset. A simply email will most times get the project canceled (at least that approach to it). If he is the only recipient, in his mind he has dodged a bullet. He can simply let the matter drop, and no one is the wiser. If the sender's point is to get in a pissing match, then the sender will lose.
I have been in this position and it has worked for me. The key point is humility. If you are truly looking out for your boss and the company, it will show through. If you are looking to prove yourself as the better person, that too will show through.
Thanks for the strawman argument.
There is a point where you have to draw the line. If you are morally equating screen scraping which is, at best, ambiguous with the Bush regime's actions, then I think you have got an issue with perspective. I would be willing to bet if we looked at your life, we'd find actions you have taken that others would view as more unethical than this.
You bring up a good point which leads to lesson #2: Written trumps verbal. If shit hits the fan, you halve your email. if your boss then says that he verbally told you not to proceed, you only have to say that you have no recollection of any such conversation. He is on the defensive as he has nothing to back it up. If he was "appalled" at the thought of breaking the TOS, then he would have written back and clarified.
Now, if you want to double cover your ass, give him status reports via email. Ask questions. You are covered.
Now to answer some other questions about whether to quit or not. You have to make that decision on your own. For screen scraping, I wouldn't quit over something so mundane. Sorry. Especially if you are a grunt. You voice your concerns, and go on. The reality is that 4 times out of 5 if you voice your concerns like this in a written manner, that the boss will back down. I have faced it twice in a grunt position with two different managers, and both times I got thanked for bringing it to their attention. It is all in how you deliver it. If it comes across as "I am ethical and you are a piece of shit", then your career is hurt. If it comes across sa "I am trying to look out for your well being and that of the company", it can be a positive. Wording is everything.
I've worked in a large company, who's name I can't reveal for fear of litigation but essentially, using email in a CYA fashion would get you fired. (Terms of contract, they can end the contract at any time for any reason, but the money was good)
Bullshit. What do you put in the subject line "This is a cover my ass email"? You are only clarifying what the boss is asking for. It is basically to be used if ever there any question about what you were told to do. There is not such thing as a "you can't cover your ass in an email policy". The only thing that could be prohibited is forwarding to a personal email address. If that is the case, print the sucker out.
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.
Honest question. Isn't the self-employment tax just what you would pay if you had hired someone to do the work? I mean when I work, my employer pays whatever percent into FICA, and I do the same. Isn't this tax the same as that? Or am I missing something.
We gave you your session last week.
Sorry, hit reply too soon.
Two counterarguments to the "sun cycles causing global warming" are as follows (from memory, if my numbers are off, please correct)
The sun's output is incredibly steady. Over the past forty years, the output of the sun has stayed to with 0.2% of the mean output. There is not enough variation to account for what we are seeing. If the sun's output variation is part of it, it is a small fraction of what we are seeing.
Also, sun cycles occur in a fairly predictable 13 year range. We do not see a corresponding cycle in the temperature. We should see this occurring if the sun's output variation is a major factor.
Much better, and does not rely on logical fallacies.
*sigh* What is sad is that I actually agree with your position on global warming.
Let me explain this slowly.
You say "If you're a layman, you have to rely on the opinions of experts." This is fine. If you choose to rely on the experts, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is someone who at least presumes to have educated on the subject gives what he believes is a counter agrument. You then go with the "experts say" retort. In an argument "If you're a layman, you have to rely on the opinions of experts." no longer applies. You must either counter with reasons why his argument is invalid, or you must wait until an expert arrives (who you rely on anyhow) to argue with him. Appeal to authority is invalid as an argument.
So basically, either cite evidence, or don't argue. It makes our side look bad.
And why can't people comprehend that folks write this stuff to sell books and make money? And why can't folks comprehend that Slashdot posts it in order to get page views and make money?
Now you are relying on strawman arguments. I never said that their opinions are the same. However, if the best you can come up with is "some smart guy said so", then you should stay out of a debate. I can find folks who are experts who will say that global warming is NOT man made, and even a few kooks with degrees who will say there is no global warming whatsoever.
Arguments based on "this smart guy said so" are meaningless.
Appeal to authority is not a valid argument. Sorry.
Sagan did predict global cooling because of the Iraq oil fires. He was wrong. So, I would tend to put this is in "respected scientific opinion" column. I am not sure how this qualifies as anecdotal evidence.
From the article: "I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better)."
I remember the popular press reporting that we were in a global cooling spell. The lesson to be learned is that you do not rely on the popular media for scientific reporting. The press did a good job of convincing me and others that we were going into a cooling period that could be catastrophic. It mad me leery of the global warming crowd, but a couple decades of solid evidence has 95% convinced me otherwise.
I wouldn't for a moment consider either a small town mayors, small state governors, or a Pizza Hut managers to have the type of QUALITY of leadership experience required to seek national office.
That is what I said about Bill Clinton.
However, when adding that much data into one photo, there are a few, slightly noticeable changes.
Oh no, it got sent registration materials. It did not get registered. The paperwork was sent out based on a request. It is the end of Democracy as we know it!
Where are you getting your information? Once in college I spilled Coke onto a motherboard (not plugged in fortunately). I cleaned with pure rubbing alcohol. I let it sit for a day, and plugged it in. It worked fine.
Rubbing alcoholic has the advantage of evaporating completely away rather quickly. So unless you can point me to a source that says otherwise, rubbing alcohol is fine.
Pure rubbing alcohol might be your best best.
When I am web surfing and playing solitaire, I can't afford to have my CPU or graphics card overheat. And don't even get me started on email.
That would be called "sarcasm". The point is if we need to go into debt by Trillions of dollars just to "protect ourselves", then it is game over, we have already lost.
But my guess is you don't care. As long as you get to live in luxury now, you don't give a rats ass about the next generations.
Great comeback. Why AC?
So, some terrorists are after us, and we have to go $11 Trillion in debt to protect ourselves? To be fair, only $4 Trillion since OBL hit us. At this rate, the "terrorists" will bankrupt in another 12-20 years. Better brush up on my Arabic, I guess.
I speak as an American. Right now, we have a debt of close to $11 Trillion dollars. Very little of this is an investment toward our future. This means that we have indeed wasted resources. Money that could be used to advance science, invest in technology, invest in infrastructure just isn't there. We spend more on Iraq in a month than we to NASA in a year. And NASA's budget isn't all science. Oh, and we spend more servicing the debt than we even do in Iraq. We could fund an LHC project every four days if we were not in Iraq and we didn't have to pay the interest on our debt. Please tell me how this is not a waste of resources?
Europe isn't a whole lot better. Look at Italy's debt-to-income ratio. Look also at Japan's debt-to-income ratio. A good part of the world has this same problem.
And if we are not killing each other, then I must be reading some bad homicide statistics in the newspaper. And the war deaths must be a figment of my imagination.
Please see this.
And since you miss the big point, I will spell it out.
A polar bear is using the limits of his logic to speculate on the world as a whole. Had an intelligent bear been allowed to travel the world, he would see where his equation breaks down.
An intelligent human attempts to speculate about the universe as a whole. He is smart enough to realize that he has no clue about how often intelligent life occurs on "habitable" worlds, so he plugs in a variable, then proceeds to put in numbers for something he has no clue about. Since it is unknown, his number is bullshit. Drake realized this, but countless amateurs have treated these numbers as the gospel and wildly speculated about the unknown. this in and of itself isn't bad. However when folks put weight on these numbers, it is bad.
Just as the polar bear has no real clue about the planet it lives on, we have no clue about the universe we live in. I hope that as a civilization that we go out and really begin to explore this place. But as long as we are sitting here on earth, killing each other, and wasting resources on there here and now, we cannot jope to fathom the way the universe truly is.