"But being a linux fanboy is not the answer to every f'ing question posted to/."
Yeah, the other acceptable answers are that corporations and alliances are greedy, politicians and managgers are stupid, apple is awesome, and CS != IT.
"He showed that it's because of the concept of falsifiability that it works. We don't prove things true, we show them to be not false and after doing that many times, we can be pretty sure they are true."
Sounds like testing code to me. "Testing can prove the existence of bugs, but not their absence." ~E. Dijkstra
Seriously, that is a terrible argument. I have a magic towel that prevents the sun from exploding. It has worked thus far. Let's not even get into what my socks do.
Quick question, how would we prove the statement itself to be true?
Free speech isn't cheap. You can buy an opinion, or you can afford to have an opinion. Otherwise, in the sake of self-interest, speaking in public is generally a bad idea.
Pissing off a superior at work, or worse, pissing off customers/clients. Costly move that few people can stand to benefit from.
Some people can pull it off though, RMS comes to mind. But I think he's willing to suffer for what he believes in, I doubt many of us have the same constitution (I know I don't).
That being said, I'm a person who will speak my mind even if it is determental to my own well being. Whether you could call it character or foolishness is a matter of opinion (and I have crossed the line sometimes). But I definately do not have a tongue that is glib enough to pull it off.
I should know what ingrediants go in the pot before I throw food in. Meaning that there is a level of abstraction (I don't need to understand the chemical reactions, nor the mechanics of the stove, nor do I have to invent the recipe, I just need to follow a set path). I have cooked food, but would I call myself a chef? Likewise, I have created chemical reactions, am I a chemist? Food preperation is but one step in the overall process.
But my dependence on cooking is because eating is essential. Eating is the end result that you seem to allude to as being literate. And I must disagree with you.
Let us say that I have created a virtual typewriter. And a person becomes a master of it. Their productivity is above average. They also know how to use a suite of lesser programs to accomplish various goals. But all they know about a computer is how to point and click at the icons on their desktop and manipulate the programs suggested earlier. I ask what do they know of computers? They only know self-serving, non computer aspects, but nothing of the underlying structure, on any level. They are literate, but not of computers.
I propose that computer literacy has nothing to do with the "end product" (user-apps), but with the tools surrounding those applications. This is debatable, but I'd like to tink that someone who knows how to use word, excel, etc. isn't considered more computer-literate than I am (I am a programmer for god's sake!). What I know is a completely different subject, and I will argue that my knowledge is far more intrinsic to computers. And it stands to reason that a phrase like "literate" in the ways of computers, would be more applicable to a programmer than a user. So, if we must determine which student of the subjects in question obtain the title of "computer-literate" I would argue that my fellow programmers have much more attachment and a right to it. The odd part would be arguing who is more computer literate, programmers or admins (builders vs. power-users).
The previous paragraph is really just trying to give and take implicit meaning from the term. Which isn't that valid an activity in English. (Free as in Freedom anyone? That phrase is horrible at best.)
I'm not very good at cooking, nor do I know anything about how to make/repair an automobile. So obviously I'm no chef or engineer/mechanic. I would consider my operation of a vehicle and cooking abilities around "functionally retarded" which I would define as an effective antonym for literate. Thus, a functionally retarded computer user is one who can operate the machine, but very poorly (if possible) and has no grasp of how it works, and therefore how to operate it properly. Someone who has mastered the previously mentioned applications may be of this status, or might be completely computer literate. I re-iterate that the two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I believe that upon re-examination, you're arguing that it should be possible to have functionally retarded people. Which isn't really the discussion at hand.
I say all of this because the term "literate" is somewhat of a dodge. It's like the difference between being able to speak a language fluently, at a conversation level, or barely to not at all. The first and last are easy to measure (digital), and results will be agreed upon. To determine the middle is much more complex (analogue). For example, how does someone fit in who knows all the words in a language, but has no grasp of sentence structure? Their ability to speak will be poor, but will have a decent chance of understanding what others say (I know that with French and even English I can listen or read much easier than speak or write because I cannot actively utilize words that are in my vocabulary)
This has become a rant, but my point is that the term literate becomes too vague, and the ability to quantify results and the quality of their merits becomes impossible.
Also, in retrospect, the term functionally retarded works quite well in this context, I believe I will have to use it again at a later date.
I believe that effective mobility is proportional to the desire to unionize.
Where I live, I'm only aware of three big/stable, well paying companies (by my standards). And many people have been employees of more than one. Now, I think this means that if you are downsized, you go to another company, but that only leaves you one of the main companies to go. Now, you could work at a startup, while the jobs there are typically the most interesting, the stability and pay are the downsides (I've observed).
Also, at the last of the big three I worked at I also noticed that everytime a person left they were ALWAYS replaced with someone younger (typically 20s). This might not mean anything, but it did strike me as odd. The exception to this was management.
So, I'd think in a place in a similar situation to the one I described is where something like a union might not be a bad idea. I would also argue that this place isn't good to settle down in if you want to be a part of the technology industry, but that is another issue.
Not that I disagree with you in general, I just want to note an exception that should be observed. I could be way off base, but being accurate is meaningless on/. after all.
"Here's a conundrum. Preinstalled Windows, or retail disk. No web browser. What do you use to go download IE (or your equal weight alternative)? All the underlying code must be there for you to be able to download (and then install) your browser of choice."
0. You don't really need it to be downloaded, having IE, FF, Opera, etc. on disk would probably be acceptable. 1. Even if you want to download the browser, FTP would be fine, with a user friendly wizard guiding the process.
The logical error in this case is "who determines the list of available browsers". I would leave that to being solved by technical and non-technical people.
"MS spends millions of dollars to develop IE and "give" it away"
This isn't the 90s anymore. All the "user-friendly"* OSes I've seen have included a browser. So, Windows should really include a browser. Furthermore, I doubt it really hurts MS to ship IE (vs. the benefits of user-lockdown and OS add-value that IE provides). And assuming there is a business in providing a search engine (Google doesn't seem to be doing all that bad), than using IE to leverage power in a separate domain would probably lessen the cost of IE. The argument comes down to "is using IE as an advertising space for MSN search fair to competors who cannot enter this advertising space?" With the relevance of IE being that it is the dominate browser most likely because it is on the dominate OS, and the legitimacy of both positions.
Of course, this is/. so someone had to say it. And complaining can be a valid execerize if the offending party is doing wrong. Now if complaining is valid and it accomplishes something (say in court) then it has additional meaning. But here on/. it's just a way to waste time.
*the definition of user-friendly is really just to remove distros that don't included much by default.
"realize that spots during the Superbowl cost SIGNIFICANLY more than spots do during reruns of Doogie Howser MD."
I see two interpretations of this:
Google case than others because they have a larger share, and therefore generate more searches.
case 0: should pay MS more per-search
case 1: will end up paying MS more
I suppose both could be true, but I would argue that case 1 would be more likely correct. (Google may have to pay MS more to counter-balance the interest of promoting MS' search)
It is because Google can't pay Microsoft to be considered for the default. And even if they could, do you think Microsoft would charge a fair price?
Now, they can pay MS as a non-default search. But that isn't the real issue.
Netscape argued that the browser is attached as default to the OS makes competition unfair. Google is now arguing that search attached as the default in the browser makes competition unfair. So we also have a chain argument that echoes of the original DoJ case.
Now, whether you believe that case has merit is up to you.
I use Gnome, and I'm a terminal junkie (hell, I use the terminal too much in OS X). But I still use the GUI over 50% of the time. They both have their uses.
That being said, in the quote you highlighted I'm saying that we shouldn't dismiss something new, just because it's new. Nor because it comes from MS... I wasn't bashing shells.
And 20 years ago, people thought GUIs were a toy. They liked shells, and they'd state similar reasons to yours.
I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt here. They may have come up with a good idea (then again it could be terrible). I don't know if I'll ever use it (I banished Windows), but if I do I'll rate it without bias.
Should I give my, I'm not an MS shill disclaimer now?
Most tutorials are written by one person, and merely rehash the "one true way that worked for them".
As opposed to many people doing the exact same thing? Take graphics, I have the book "Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice" by 4 different people. The thing is huge, and pretty comprehensive about 2D and 3D graphics. But all they did was create the "one true way." Would the book be different if only one author had written it? Probably not.
And play a game? The game that programmers play is called "solve the puzzle" where they have to figure stuff out. If you think you can effectively teach with a "normal" game, then by all means try. But learning some things is boring and frustrating as hell. Grokking those pieces and putting them together on the other hand is one of the most rewarding things you could ever do. One of the greatest joys I've had in CS is figuring out tough algorithms, despite the amount of time I've spent working on any given problem.
As I said earlier, if you are struggling with a specific concept or problem, just ask. That method is a lot better then having knowledgable people assume where the bottlenecks of comprehension are in advance.
BTW, Google groups is my first point for forums (in general). Common problems are typically brought up there by someone else. The hardest part is specifically phrasing what you want. But with computer languages it isn't that bad.
That being said, I know I'm not the fastest at learning new things, nor am I the best at reading manuals. Far from it. Sadly, you have to get used to it. I don't know if you are looking to get into the computer industry, but from what I've seen, I've never been able to rest on my laurels. And in the real world of computing, documentation sucks the most where you need it. Consider it an extension of Murphy's Law.
Isn't that the only way to really do it, without people becoming free teachers (teaching is something that takes patentience, and sacrifice of time)?
If you want to know something and I can say RTFM, and point you to a good manual (on my desk right now I have the C Bible and a well known book about compilers), that has taught thousands of people in the past, isn't it a lot simpler and less risky then me trying to explain something that I've never explained before (most profs I know that are teaching a new course are constantly afraid of teaching it improperly, because they've never recieved feedback on the notes before, well the good ones anyway).
I mean, if you have questions while reading a manual then by all means ask. But if you want to ask 30 people for an impromptu lesson, most will probably only try to teach the book anyway. So cut out the middle man and get the tried and true solution, if possible.
Remember, the bazaar just lets things happen, under the assumption someone will want them to. Tutorials and forums are the only things I see that answer that model.
And if they go to intel that will give people less incentive to buy their PPC stock. I know this isn't 100% the same, but it does say a little about the comapny.
While I don't believe that Apple will totally disregard the costs of their actions, I do think that they will move in the right direction, even if they do bare a slight cost. Besides, they are competing against other players (kinda), so they do have a little incentive to kill off the older stuff while introducing new products. What generation iPod is currently the most modern, and what is to stop Apple from upping the storage on those? I know that eventually, even music buffs that are audiophiles will be satisfied with the storage capacity of a music player. Then isn't the most obvious direction to make stuff smaller? Why not get a head start?
I'm not saying that Apple is a technocracy, but they don't seem to put money before everything.
As a conspiracy theorist side note, how long a cycle do you think most customers will wait before upgrading (due to better new products and defective old ones)? Will it happen at roughly the same time? Something tells me that information will be quite valueable to all companies in that space (marketing pushes). Maybe Apple is just making an iPod killer to induce it, because to a certain degree they are in competition with past successes.
The barrier to entry that I found most annoying was learning the terminology. When you know the only answer you're going to get is "RTFM" and all you really want is to know what manual to read.
For example, say I want to learn how to do something using the command line. Googling a phrase that describes what I want to do rarely yields optimal results. Since I don't know what the command is, I can't type "man thing I want to do".
If you know a good solution to this problem (like a book that is worth reading/purchasing), or a really good site, etc then I don't care if you tell me to RTFM, as long as you tell me where to get it. The same goes for learning new languages, even though I find that getting that documentation is a lot easier.
Well, I think that if the manager gets a bad review, their job should be outsourced.
I think that if your team was known as the "we get our boss fired for the sake of money" team, then you would have a tough time getting promoted (would you want to?), and you wouldn't expect a good reference when applying for new work. That should be a good enough deterrant.
Though, you can let it happen once and no one will be the wiser.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be onto something...
Assume two devices are identical, drivers and all. But they are sold under two different brand names with different popularity levels...
The more popular one will recieve more bug reports, therefore, have a higher probability of being considered bad (on multiple levels).
So, in effect, assuming even one bug for the iPod exists, with 70% of the total market (according to wiki) it will be the worst MP3 player!
"This is the single best way to catch bad guys and keep them off the street"
No, the single best way to keep bad people off the street, is to not allow ANYONE onto the street. But that has its drawbacks too...
"But being a linux fanboy is not the answer to every f'ing question posted to /."
Yeah, the other acceptable answers are that corporations and alliances are greedy, politicians and managgers are stupid, apple is awesome, and CS != IT.
"He showed that it's because of the concept of falsifiability that it works. We don't prove things true, we show them to be not false and after doing that many times, we can be pretty sure they are true."
Sounds like testing code to me. "Testing can prove the existence of bugs, but not their absence." ~E. Dijkstra
Seriously, that is a terrible argument. I have a magic towel that prevents the sun from exploding. It has worked thus far. Let's not even get into what my socks do.
Quick question, how would we prove the statement itself to be true?
IANAL but I assume the term is based on this.
I recall spelling in a similar manner when I was younger.
Then again, the filesystem could only handle 8.3 character names.
I'm sure there are some older programmers who may have had a flashback to only having 6 character labels.
Just me wondering, how well would a Google bomb work?
Free speech isn't cheap. You can buy an opinion, or you can afford to have an opinion. Otherwise, in the sake of self-interest, speaking in public is generally a bad idea.
Pissing off a superior at work, or worse, pissing off customers/clients. Costly move that few people can stand to benefit from.
Some people can pull it off though, RMS comes to mind. But I think he's willing to suffer for what he believes in, I doubt many of us have the same constitution (I know I don't).
That being said, I'm a person who will speak my mind even if it is determental to my own well being. Whether you could call it character or foolishness is a matter of opinion (and I have crossed the line sometimes). But I definately do not have a tongue that is glib enough to pull it off.
To extend upon your example:
I should know what ingrediants go in the pot before I throw food in. Meaning that there is a level of abstraction (I don't need to understand the chemical reactions, nor the mechanics of the stove, nor do I have to invent the recipe, I just need to follow a set path). I have cooked food, but would I call myself a chef? Likewise, I have created chemical reactions, am I a chemist? Food preperation is but one step in the overall process.
But my dependence on cooking is because eating is essential. Eating is the end result that you seem to allude to as being literate. And I must disagree with you.
Let us say that I have created a virtual typewriter. And a person becomes a master of it. Their productivity is above average. They also know how to use a suite of lesser programs to accomplish various goals. But all they know about a computer is how to point and click at the icons on their desktop and manipulate the programs suggested earlier. I ask what do they know of computers? They only know self-serving, non computer aspects, but nothing of the underlying structure, on any level. They are literate, but not of computers.
I propose that computer literacy has nothing to do with the "end product" (user-apps), but with the tools surrounding those applications. This is debatable, but I'd like to tink that someone who knows how to use word, excel, etc. isn't considered more computer-literate than I am (I am a programmer for god's sake!). What I know is a completely different subject, and I will argue that my knowledge is far more intrinsic to computers. And it stands to reason that a phrase like "literate" in the ways of computers, would be more applicable to a programmer than a user. So, if we must determine which student of the subjects in question obtain the title of "computer-literate" I would argue that my fellow programmers have much more attachment and a right to it. The odd part would be arguing who is more computer literate, programmers or admins (builders vs. power-users).
The previous paragraph is really just trying to give and take implicit meaning from the term. Which isn't that valid an activity in English. (Free as in Freedom anyone? That phrase is horrible at best.)
I'm not very good at cooking, nor do I know anything about how to make/repair an automobile. So obviously I'm no chef or engineer/mechanic. I would consider my operation of a vehicle and cooking abilities around "functionally retarded" which I would define as an effective antonym for literate. Thus, a functionally retarded computer user is one who can operate the machine, but very poorly (if possible) and has no grasp of how it works, and therefore how to operate it properly. Someone who has mastered the previously mentioned applications may be of this status, or might be completely computer literate. I re-iterate that the two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I believe that upon re-examination, you're arguing that it should be possible to have functionally retarded people. Which isn't really the discussion at hand.
I say all of this because the term "literate" is somewhat of a dodge. It's like the difference between being able to speak a language fluently, at a conversation level, or barely to not at all. The first and last are easy to measure (digital), and results will be agreed upon. To determine the middle is much more complex (analogue). For example, how does someone fit in who knows all the words in a language, but has no grasp of sentence structure? Their ability to speak will be poor, but will have a decent chance of understanding what others say (I know that with French and even English I can listen or read much easier than speak or write because I cannot actively utilize words that are in my vocabulary)
This has become a rant, but my point is that the term literate becomes too vague, and the ability to quantify results and the quality of their merits becomes impossible.
Also, in retrospect, the term functionally retarded works quite well in this context, I believe I will have to use it again at a later date.
Imagine having a huge legal contract. Then, add in a huge, convoluted yet intertwined legal system.
Furthermore, imagine that instead of writing this legal mumbo-jumbo in english, you use a language that is extremely strict and math-based.
This would be a fraction of the real complexity (mutiple threads/processes anyone? How about poor documentation?) but it starts the ground work.
To be honest, this way of thinking sounded better when I first started, and I'm kind of disapointed with my end product.
"IT people are too mobile to be in a union."
/. after all.
I believe that effective mobility is proportional to the desire to unionize.
Where I live, I'm only aware of three big/stable, well paying companies (by my standards). And many people have been employees of more than one. Now, I think this means that if you are downsized, you go to another company, but that only leaves you one of the main companies to go. Now, you could work at a startup, while the jobs there are typically the most interesting, the stability and pay are the downsides (I've observed).
Also, at the last of the big three I worked at I also noticed that everytime a person left they were ALWAYS replaced with someone younger (typically 20s). This might not mean anything, but it did strike me as odd. The exception to this was management.
So, I'd think in a place in a similar situation to the one I described is where something like a union might not be a bad idea. I would also argue that this place isn't good to settle down in if you want to be a part of the technology industry, but that is another issue.
Not that I disagree with you in general, I just want to note an exception that should be observed. I could be way off base, but being accurate is meaningless on
Well, I suppose anything is possible. Like Dvorak being right.
I'd give about equal odds to him being right or that MS is going to be hurt in the long term. (ignoring the obvious link that Dvorak has just created)
"Here's a conundrum. Preinstalled Windows, or retail disk. No web browser.
What do you use to go download IE (or your equal weight alternative)? All the underlying code must be there for you to be able to download (and then install) your browser of choice."
0. You don't really need it to be downloaded, having IE, FF, Opera, etc. on disk would probably be acceptable.
1. Even if you want to download the browser, FTP would be fine, with a user friendly wizard guiding the process.
The logical error in this case is "who determines the list of available browsers". I would leave that to being solved by technical and non-technical people.
"MS spends millions of dollars to develop IE and "give" it away"
/. so someone had to say it. And complaining can be a valid execerize if the offending party is doing wrong. Now if complaining is valid and it accomplishes something (say in court) then it has additional meaning. But here on /. it's just a way to waste time.
This isn't the 90s anymore. All the "user-friendly"* OSes I've seen have included a browser. So, Windows should really include a browser.
Furthermore, I doubt it really hurts MS to ship IE (vs. the benefits of user-lockdown and OS add-value that IE provides). And assuming there is a business in providing a search engine (Google doesn't seem to be doing all that bad), than using IE to leverage power in a separate domain would probably lessen the cost of IE. The argument comes down to "is using IE as an advertising space for MSN search fair to competors who cannot enter this advertising space?" With the relevance of IE being that it is the dominate browser most likely because it is on the dominate OS, and the legitimacy of both positions.
Of course, this is
*the definition of user-friendly is really just to remove distros that don't included much by default.
I see two interpretations of this:
Google case than others because they have a larger share, and therefore generate more searches.
case 0: should pay MS more per-search
case 1: will end up paying MS more
I suppose both could be true, but I would argue that case 1 would be more likely correct. (Google may have to pay MS more to counter-balance the interest of promoting MS' search)
It is because Google can't pay Microsoft to be considered for the default. And even if they could, do you think Microsoft would charge a fair price?
Now, they can pay MS as a non-default search. But that isn't the real issue.
Netscape argued that the browser is attached as default to the OS makes competition unfair. Google is now arguing that search attached as the default in the browser makes competition unfair. So we also have a chain argument that echoes of the original DoJ case.
Now, whether you believe that case has merit is up to you.
I use Gnome, and I'm a terminal junkie (hell, I use the terminal too much in OS X). But I still use the GUI over 50% of the time. They both have their uses.
That being said, in the quote you highlighted I'm saying that we shouldn't dismiss something new, just because it's new. Nor because it comes from MS... I wasn't bashing shells.
And 20 years ago, people thought GUIs were a toy. They liked shells, and they'd state similar reasons to yours.
I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt here. They may have come up with a good idea (then again it could be terrible). I don't know if I'll ever use it (I banished Windows), but if I do I'll rate it without bias.
Should I give my, I'm not an MS shill disclaimer now?
Most tutorials are written by one person, and merely rehash the "one true way that worked for them".
As opposed to many people doing the exact same thing? Take graphics, I have the book "Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice" by 4 different people. The thing is huge, and pretty comprehensive about 2D and 3D graphics. But all they did was create the "one true way." Would the book be different if only one author had written it? Probably not.
And play a game? The game that programmers play is called "solve the puzzle" where they have to figure stuff out. If you think you can effectively teach with a "normal" game, then by all means try. But learning some things is boring and frustrating as hell. Grokking those pieces and putting them together on the other hand is one of the most rewarding things you could ever do. One of the greatest joys I've had in CS is figuring out tough algorithms, despite the amount of time I've spent working on any given problem.
As I said earlier, if you are struggling with a specific concept or problem, just ask. That method is a lot better then having knowledgable people assume where the bottlenecks of comprehension are in advance.
BTW, Google groups is my first point for forums (in general). Common problems are typically brought up there by someone else. The hardest part is specifically phrasing what you want. But with computer languages it isn't that bad.
That being said, I know I'm not the fastest at learning new things, nor am I the best at reading manuals. Far from it. Sadly, you have to get used to it. I don't know if you are looking to get into the computer industry, but from what I've seen, I've never been able to rest on my laurels. And in the real world of computing, documentation sucks the most where you need it. Consider it an extension of Murphy's Law.
Isn't that the only way to really do it, without people becoming free teachers (teaching is something that takes patentience, and sacrifice of time)?
If you want to know something and I can say RTFM, and point you to a good manual (on my desk right now I have the C Bible and a well known book about compilers), that has taught thousands of people in the past, isn't it a lot simpler and less risky then me trying to explain something that I've never explained before (most profs I know that are teaching a new course are constantly afraid of teaching it improperly, because they've never recieved feedback on the notes before, well the good ones anyway).
I mean, if you have questions while reading a manual then by all means ask. But if you want to ask 30 people for an impromptu lesson, most will probably only try to teach the book anyway. So cut out the middle man and get the tried and true solution, if possible.
Remember, the bazaar just lets things happen, under the assumption someone will want them to. Tutorials and forums are the only things I see that answer that model.
And if they go to intel that will give people less incentive to buy their PPC stock. I know this isn't 100% the same, but it does say a little about the comapny.
While I don't believe that Apple will totally disregard the costs of their actions, I do think that they will move in the right direction, even if they do bare a slight cost. Besides, they are competing against other players (kinda), so they do have a little incentive to kill off the older stuff while introducing new products. What generation iPod is currently the most modern, and what is to stop Apple from upping the storage on those? I know that eventually, even music buffs that are audiophiles will be satisfied with the storage capacity of a music player. Then isn't the most obvious direction to make stuff smaller? Why not get a head start?
I'm not saying that Apple is a technocracy, but they don't seem to put money before everything.
As a conspiracy theorist side note, how long a cycle do you think most customers will wait before upgrading (due to better new products and defective old ones)? Will it happen at roughly the same time? Something tells me that information will be quite valueable to all companies in that space (marketing pushes). Maybe Apple is just making an iPod killer to induce it, because to a certain degree they are in competition with past successes.
I'd never heard of it before, but I'll give it a shot next time I'm in a bind... Thanks.
The barrier to entry that I found most annoying was learning the terminology. When you know the only answer you're going to get is "RTFM" and all you really want is to know what manual to read.
For example, say I want to learn how to do something using the command line. Googling a phrase that describes what I want to do rarely yields optimal results. Since I don't know what the command is, I can't type "man thing I want to do".
If you know a good solution to this problem (like a book that is worth reading/purchasing), or a really good site, etc then I don't care if you tell me to RTFM, as long as you tell me where to get it. The same goes for learning new languages, even though I find that getting that documentation is a lot easier.
"or whether he'll go the final step up to God..."
Naw, Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't make gory video games.
Well, I think that if the manager gets a bad review, their job should be outsourced.
I think that if your team was known as the "we get our boss fired for the sake of money" team, then you would have a tough time getting promoted (would you want to?), and you wouldn't expect a good reference when applying for new work. That should be a good enough deterrant.
Though, you can let it happen once and no one will be the wiser.