Really?

What does the pixel configuration of the recycle bin icon have to do with its functionality?
That's right, very, very little. Even if it were just a yellow square, it'd still have 'Recycle Bin' under it and the fundamental functionality would not be different. Just like a yellow polka dot hammer.

Also: http://stanford25blog.stanford... (reflex hammers)
And Google 'design hammer'. There are definitely hammers out there that look as stupid as all the flat UI crap we're dealing with today.

The big difference here is that switching away from Windows (or the flat design) isn't as easy as not buying a ridiculously looking hammer. I'm pretty sure that if MS would make the icon sets and a lot of the interface easily switchable, that many would indeed switch away from the flat stuff. Sure, a lot of people wouldn't know about it or even give a shit (I've see many an XP desktop with the hideously bloated blue look and the default desktop background) and sure, that would make MS say: "See! They LIKE it!", but for those among us with a brain, it would quickly show the collective dislike for the flat style.

Although GP is clearly a troll, you are attacking his point fallaciously.

1. Even if men were by far the most emotional irrational beings on earth, that would not disprove "emotion is [females'] fundamental mental underpinning"
2. Risk taking, murder and aggression are not necessarily driven by emotion. It's a fine line, but technically those behaviors can be (and might often be) about attaining social status or power.
3. There is evidence that there should be many more 'husband shelters' and that their lack is driven largely by a culture of (implicitly) shaming 'weak men', not by a lack of battered husbands.

Let me state clearly that I do not agree with the GP. The only thing I'm trying to do here is point out some logical fallacies in the hope that this will improve the quality of the discussion.

No, it doesn't.
Hammers come in all kinds of different colors with all kinds of designs.

Also, a UI for an inherently complex and extremely powerful and versatile thing such as an OS is not a fucking hammer. That's like comparing an industrial complex to a dog house.

Except that only works when the world thinks you and your bonds are reliable investments in the first place.
Would you buy any Greek bonds on the day they switch back to the Drachma?
Yeah, me neither. Even if there was a veritably sick interest rate attached to them, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole before at least the first massive devaluation.

The only people for whom it wouldn't really matter are people who have Drachma to spend in the first place (although given the imminent devaluation, they'd be better off changing them to a more stable currency ASAP).

Apparently there has been a reboot effort going on with significant improvements in the noise department.
They had a (miserably failed) indiegogo-campaign 2+ years ago: https://www.indiegogo.com/proj...

The turbulence doesn't look half bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Looking at how close people are standing during the landing procedure, it is much, much better than the same situation for helicopters.

In the noise department the info given by these guys is this:
"Due to advances in technology the fuel consumption has been reduced by 66% and the 98 decibels of noise is now around 62 Decibels; A helicopter main rotor break the speed of sound that is why you can hear it coming for miles and miles.

Now you would be lucky to hear the WASP at 500 feet." (from the Youtube comments at the video above)

Seriously. Both the incident itself and how it was subsequently 'dealt with' are of the kind of shit we only expect from actual police state wannabes like China, Russia and any number of fictitious dystopian states.

On behalf of the civilized world: get your fucking shit together.

It would have to be big rig hacking or physical cracking, not hijacking.

You can't exactly hold a gun to the driver's head and kick him out of the driver's seat if it's AI- (or even remote-)driven.

It would probably be very easy to get the trucks to stop, simply by creating an obstacle. Even then, for a hijacking, you need to gain access to the cabin (if there even is one), override (or prevent) the 'exception: vehicle stopped due to obstacle'-alarm from being sent, prevent all communication of position of the truck, make sure you and your material are unrecognizable for the shitload of live feed cameras on the thing and then perform some control override to get it to actually start moving towards wherever you're planning on stashing it.

Hell, for a successful hijack, it'd be far easier to just hack into the network of the transporter or do some 'social engineering' on an insider and direct the truck to wherever. Obviously not a job for ex-truckers.

Of course, the far easier alternative is just to get the trucks to stop in a fairly quiet place (traffic wise), break them open and transfer the contents to another truck. It would still have to happen fast and visually anonymously, of course.

It was and is relevant to both the OP, this comment thread AND the post I was directly replying to.

I will happily provide proof for these statements if you make an effort to do the same for yours. I do urge you to reread the comment thread first, though.

Christ, everything is politicized in your them vs. us two-party system, isn't it?

If his boss is a closed-minded dick like you are, then yes. Thanks for reminding me and the OP that such people exist.

So what's preventing him from asking his employer for a new contract with different terms?
Nothing.

His employer may say: "Are you kidding me? Get back to work."
Or: "Interesting. Let's talk about this."

With your attitude and 'advice' he'll never know.

Can you read what I'm suggesting in the following quotes?

Mind you: when you take on a job, you also sign a contract. Everything can be done within the law, and from the starting situation of the OP. Off-topic, my ass.

Again, this is where you're wrong. The fact that he even mentions the possibility of going independent indicates that he understands the issues of getting (partial) ownership to products developed 'on company time'.

Your reaction is a complete black and white view, where you're either the employer owning everything and having freedom, or where you're the employee that just has to do his job, collect his paycheck and shut the fuck up. It's silly and it kills all meaningful discussion.

1. You completely disregarded the main point here and only replied to the minor point between parentheses (minor hence the fucking parentheses).

2. Your reply again completely misses the point. You refute nor support my point that we can change our culture and the law ('reality'). The same holds for my statement that it would be an interesting discussion to change current practices in this area. What you do say here is only very remotely relevant, but definitely a distraction from the main point.

3. This is just pulling stuff out of your ass. Please provide the quote from which you so confidently deduce your conclusion. I'll show you how it is done for my conclusions on the matter:
    - "I am interested in sharing the solutions I create, hopefully with the potential of selling." --> 'He wants that ownership'
    - "I have a good relationship with management and can develop on my own personal instance of the platform, but would be doing so on company time. Going contractor is a bit premature for me at this stage." --> "... but doesn't see a way to get it."
    - "Any advice, references or stories to learn from?" --> "He was asking for advice"

4. The above objectively shows you suck at discussions. QED.

1. There is plenty of room within 'the' law (I'm assuming you are US-based, given your disregard of the existence of other rules of law in the world) to do the things I'm suggesting.
2. The 'reality' is something we can change. If we rationally ascertain that we are currently doing things the wrong way, we can start taking actions to fix that. Even if (1) was not true, it would be an interesting discussion to find out how to make it true, especially here on Slashdot.
3. You are creating ridiculous straw men. The OP was asking for advice. He was never claiming he deserved the ownership to the things he currently creates. He wants that ownership but doesn't see a way to get it.
4. Your discussion skills are terrible.