The question title is "Can I be fired for refusing to file a patent?" But that's not really the question, is it? You're a developer, not a patent filer. If you were a patent filer, then patent filing would be your job, and the question would become "Can I be fired for refusing to do my job?"
But patent filing isn't what you do. You're asking if you can be fired for refusing to support the patent process. In your position, this might entirely amount to telling your boss, "I don't support the patent process." She'll listen to your words, weigh them carefully, then proceed with the process, with or without you. You probably won't be fired for that, unless the corporate culture is really awful.
Now, if you're asking if you can be fired for actively disrupting the process and doing behind-the-scenes cloak-and-daggery things to make it fail, then yes, unequivocally, you can get fired. And maybe even wind up in jail.
> I've never figured out why it seems that everyone > in the Navy (Starfleet) is an ensign or higher in > the Trek universe
I think it's because the shows are about the officers, and not about the enlisted schmucks. I think Starfleet Academy is like the US Naval Academy; when you're done with it, you're probably officer material; there are plenty of people on the ships that never did that, but the shows aren't about those people.
Sure, the article's not funny or enlightening in the least, but I've been there. I've never managed to get all the way to work without my laptop, but I've gotten a few miles before the D'oh moment.
Nowadays, I hang my laptop bag from the doorknob. Seems to do the trick.
* Bots are scraping names off the web * Scammers use those names to do bad things * Therefore, you should put your name on the web
That seems like a bad syllogism. I'm not saying the conclusion (that you need a strong web presence) is wrong. I'm just saying that if you're going to make a counter-intuitive conclusion, you need to connect the dots. You know, for us dumb guys.
> The underlying supposition is that "People Are No > Good", the government needs to protect us, and, > coincidentally, government cronies happen to be > available who are qualified to perform the > services. It sucks, doesn't it?
It sure doesn't sound like Texas, I'll tell you what.
It is interesting, and certainly suggests strongly that I'm missing something. That suit appears to be a preemptive response to some uncertainty about the law's potential enforcement rather than an actual test case.
I just don't see anything in the wording of the law that might cause people to think that repairing computers requires a PI license. I read the damn thing twice, and the language is plain enough for a law. Where is that requirement spelled out?
That's insightful, but I think what it says to an advanced civilization is "This Planet Has An Atmosphere, And Therefore Edible People. Now Turn Down The Damn Radio."
> Installing a "mechanical security device" or an > "electronic security device," which are covered by > the exceptions you showed, are not synonymous with > COMPUTER REPAIR. How did you come to the notion > they are?
Because I read the law. The part of the law that outlines who's subject to it doesn't mention repair at all. It only mentions computers once, and in the context of security consultants. So if a computer ISN'T a security device, then it isn't covered by the inclusions part of the law. If a computer IS a security device, then computer repair is excluded. So it actually doesn't matter whether a computer is a security device or not; the story is false.
I dunno what PC Mag is smoking, but computer repair is specifically excluded from the new requirement. From the text of 80(R)HB 2833:
(b) This chapter does not apply to: * * * (12) a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer:
(A) installs, changes, or repairs a mechanical security device;
(B) repairs an electronic security device;
> Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 > minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use > it for anything else during this time. > What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? > That is crazy. This is after the download was > finished.
Shit. I've always wondered that about Windows, and was slightly comforted by the thought that someone KNEW what it was doing, and that it was important.
Pointing out design flaws in products isn't skepticism, is all I'm saying. Every time I make a call on my cell phone, I have to adjust the volume. Why doesn't it remember the volume setting of my last call? That sure would be nice. But, so what, me noticing that? When I open a gallon of milk, it leaves behind a plastic ring that eventually falls into my Cheerios as I pour. But, so what, me noticing that?
> If you actually read the summary, you see that
> it's not asking about the *general* concept of
> skepticism we normally refer to with the term,
> but the ability to look at a design and jump to
> its nonobvious shortcomings.
No, it mentions design improvement as a potential benefit of general skepticism, then asks how to best teach general skepticism we normally refer to with the term.
And I'm telling you, it's the optical illusions in Highlights magazine!
> Now, it's my turn to bite: did you check the
> headlight/instrumentation connection at nighttime
> before you bought your car?
I'm night-blind, you insensitive clod!
But seriously, if you're a skeptic--and none of the examples you mentioned suggest that you are, everyone notices myriad problems with consumer products--it is something that you learned (I didn't say "were taught") by your experiences.
And to answer the main question at hand: I think that optical illusions are a great way to teach skepticism to children.
> It's an innate skill. I know, because I have it.
Okay, I'll bite. How does skepticism being an innate skill follow from you having it? Are all of the skills you possess innate? You've never learned anything?
On the contrary; behavior, like many things, defaults to the path of least resistance. We form expectations based on past experiences, and we do things based on what we've done before. This usually serves us well.
A skeptic learns to mistrust the apparent patterns. You assumed that your new car's lights would behave like your old car's lights. So you bought the car with that expectation, and you were annoyed when the pattern changed. That's not skepticism; that's noticing something's different. A skeptic would have figured that out before buying the car, and would have weighed the significance of the issue in a purchasing decision.
> Yes, we like to classify things to organize our
> thoughts. But this seems a step too far.
You think adding a sub-classification of dwarf planets is going too far? No; giving even individual plutoids their very own names--like "Eris" and "Pluto"--THAT'S going too far. Next thing you know, they're going to be giving names to FEATURES of Eris and Pluto. Don't even get me started on that level of crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
The question title is "Can I be fired for refusing to file a patent?" But that's not really the question, is it? You're a developer, not a patent filer. If you were a patent filer, then patent filing would be your job, and the question would become "Can I be fired for refusing to do my job?"
But patent filing isn't what you do. You're asking if you can be fired for refusing to support the patent process. In your position, this might entirely amount to telling your boss, "I don't support the patent process." She'll listen to your words, weigh them carefully, then proceed with the process, with or without you. You probably won't be fired for that, unless the corporate culture is really awful.
Now, if you're asking if you can be fired for actively disrupting the process and doing behind-the-scenes cloak-and-daggery things to make it fail, then yes, unequivocally, you can get fired. And maybe even wind up in jail.
> I've never figured out why it seems that everyone
> in the Navy (Starfleet) is an ensign or higher in
> the Trek universe
I think it's because the shows are about the officers, and not about the enlisted schmucks. I think Starfleet Academy is like the US Naval Academy; when you're done with it, you're probably officer material; there are plenty of people on the ships that never did that, but the shows aren't about those people.
Of course, IANAT, so YMMV.
...ya just can't buy.
Sure, the article's not funny or enlightening in the least, but I've been there. I've never managed to get all the way to work without my laptop, but I've gotten a few miles before the D'oh moment.
Nowadays, I hang my laptop bag from the doorknob. Seems to do the trick.
* Bots are scraping names off the web
* Scammers use those names to do bad things
* Therefore, you should put your name on the web
That seems like a bad syllogism. I'm not saying the conclusion (that you need a strong web presence) is wrong. I'm just saying that if you're going to make a counter-intuitive conclusion, you need to connect the dots. You know, for us dumb guys.
> The underlying supposition is that "People Are No
> Good", the government needs to protect us, and,
> coincidentally, government cronies happen to be
> available who are qualified to perform the
> services. It sucks, doesn't it?
It sure doesn't sound like Texas, I'll tell you what.
It is interesting, and certainly suggests strongly that I'm missing something. That suit appears to be a preemptive response to some uncertainty about the law's potential enforcement rather than an actual test case.
I just don't see anything in the wording of the law that might cause people to think that repairing computers requires a PI license. I read the damn thing twice, and the language is plain enough for a law. Where is that requirement spelled out?
That's insightful, but I think what it says to an advanced civilization is "This Planet Has An Atmosphere, And Therefore Edible People. Now Turn Down The Damn Radio."
> Installing a "mechanical security device" or an
> "electronic security device," which are covered by
> the exceptions you showed, are not synonymous with
> COMPUTER REPAIR. How did you come to the notion
> they are?
Because I read the law. The part of the law that outlines who's subject to it doesn't mention repair at all. It only mentions computers once, and in the context of security consultants. So if a computer ISN'T a security device, then it isn't covered by the inclusions part of the law. If a computer IS a security device, then computer repair is excluded. So it actually doesn't matter whether a computer is a security device or not; the story is false.
I dunno what PC Mag is smoking, but computer repair is specifically excluded from the new requirement. From the text of 80(R)HB 2833:
(b) This chapter does not apply to:
* * *
(12) a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer:
(A) installs, changes, or repairs a mechanical security device;
(B) repairs an electronic security device;
...it's a scream. To the aliens, it's the siren's call of potential conquest.
> Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6
> minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use
> it for anything else during this time.
> What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes?
> That is crazy. This is after the download was
> finished.
Shit. I've always wondered that about Windows, and was slightly comforted by the thought that someone KNEW what it was doing, and that it was important.
...thing about the study of software design is good analogies. Without good analogies, your thesis won't make any sense at all.
Compare software development to carpentry, automotive repair, civil engineering, cooking, music composition, sex, stamp collecting, spelunking, bird-watching... software developers can't understand treatises on software development unless there's metaphor involved.
And mix it up a bit. If you use carpentry in a paragraph about class modeling, make sure to use automobiles in a paragraph about unit testing.
Or, if you find mixed metaphor lacks grace, just stick with cars.
Ouch! Just, ouch!
Pointing out design flaws in products isn't skepticism, is all I'm saying. Every time I make a call on my cell phone, I have to adjust the volume. Why doesn't it remember the volume setting of my last call? That sure would be nice. But, so what, me noticing that? When I open a gallon of milk, it leaves behind a plastic ring that eventually falls into my Cheerios as I pour. But, so what, me noticing that?
> If you actually read the summary, you see that> it's not asking about the *general* concept of
> skepticism we normally refer to with the term,
> but the ability to look at a design and jump to
> its nonobvious shortcomings.
No, it mentions design improvement as a potential benefit of general skepticism, then asks how to best teach general skepticism we normally refer to with the term.
And I'm telling you, it's the optical illusions in Highlights magazine!
I see no evidence of an "ability." How would I know how you learned it?
> headlight/instrumentation connection at nighttime
> before you bought your car?
I'm night-blind, you insensitive clod!
But seriously, if you're a skeptic--and none of the examples you mentioned suggest that you are, everyone notices myriad problems with consumer products--it is something that you learned (I didn't say "were taught") by your experiences.
And to answer the main question at hand: I think that optical illusions are a great way to teach skepticism to children.
Okay, I'll bite. How does skepticism being an innate skill follow from you having it? Are all of the skills you possess innate? You've never learned anything?
On the contrary; behavior, like many things, defaults to the path of least resistance. We form expectations based on past experiences, and we do things based on what we've done before. This usually serves us well.
A skeptic learns to mistrust the apparent patterns. You assumed that your new car's lights would behave like your old car's lights. So you bought the car with that expectation, and you were annoyed when the pattern changed. That's not skepticism; that's noticing something's different. A skeptic would have figured that out before buying the car, and would have weighed the significance of the issue in a purchasing decision.
I dunno... you give 'em a subclass, and they'll fill it. It's getting mighty crowded out there. It scares me.
> Yes, we like to classify things to organize our
> thoughts. But this seems a step too far.
You think adding a sub-classification of dwarf planets is going too far? No; giving even individual plutoids their very own names--like "Eris" and "Pluto"--THAT'S going too far. Next thing you know, they're going to be giving names to FEATURES of Eris and Pluto. Don't even get me started on that level of crazy.
My son is a supper bug, you insensitive clod!
...to make a velociraptor skull? Oh yeah, that was Jurassic Park 3. In 2001.
I love LAMP, too. That\'s all.
...welcome our new spear-wielding overlords.
> How is this like Superman 3?
Yeah, I probably would have gone with Office Space. At least that shaky comparison has a bit of pull with geeks.
> With PHP, you can pick whatever character isn't in your regexp. How do Perl people handle that? Repeated escaping?
No, they handle it the same way that PHP people do; picking a character (or matching set) other than /