Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: What the fuck, America. (Score 1) 201

by dinfinity (#49717255) Attached to: Baton Bob Receives $20,000 Settlement For Coerced Facebook Post

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.

Comment: Re:Markets, not people (Score 1) 612

by dinfinity (#49706703) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

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.

Comment: Re: Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

by dinfinity (#49679591) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Own the Rights To Software Developed At Work?

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

I've personally entered a number of contracts in which there was an explicit separation between the domain-independent and domain-specific elements.

Effectively, you agree on dividing your work between a general purpose library and domain-specific code. I believe and find it works quite well and is an honest reflection of the merits and efforts of all parties involved.

Following your own (again: obtuse) line of reasoning, you should have said: "well, make sure you strike up a new agreement with management that allows you to keep ownership on parts of your code."

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.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

by dinfinity (#49679577) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Own the Rights To Software Developed At Work?

He wants to develop stuff on company time but sell the fruits of that labor

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.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

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.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

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.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

Your 'smurfhammer' is not part of the construction

Is a script, written by a devver, to enumerate a bunch of files in a directory 'part of the construction'?
The answer is that it is impossible to tell without knowing what the devver was supposed to build. Some people here argue that it is code, that the developer is 'paid for writing code' and thus that he does not own that script. His employer does.

I argue that the devver has created a tool enabling him to better do his job. A tool which the employer was not expecting the devver to deliver and where the lack of existence of that tool would not change the relation between employer and devver at all. The construction worker gets paid, smurfhammer or no smurfhammer, as long as he does his job properly (although one could say that the employer has reason to question the amount of time he spends on investigating the effect of attaching smurfs to various implements). The same holds for devvers that do not develop great tools or libraries in the process of meeting the requirements of their jobs.

And no, 'spare time' is relevant.

No, it is not. It is besides the point, because nobody is disputing that the things you do in your spare time should be yours. There is no discussion and nothing interesting there. The (/my) point is that people can create things during their workday which should principally not belong to their employer. A secondary point is that allowing employees to retain some ownership of things they create creates a more constructive environment, which actually benefits their employers.

Let me reiterate the importance of being able to reuse your own code. A lot of constructs in software development are reusable and the same coder will favor certain constructs. Imagine switching jobs or projects and going into a similar job or project. Having handed over the ownership of everything you've written in that previous job or project means you are technically obliged to obtain a license to reuse any part of the code that you have written previously. I think that is absolutely retarded.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

Absolutely not - it will more than likely get him fired

That is ridiculous, an appeal to fear and completely unfounded.

If the invention is directly connected to your job as an employee (and the smurf hammer is) and it's invented on company time using company resources, legally the employer owns it.

The point is that they shouldn't. Try thinking outside your box.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

Don't be so obtuse. It is very clear that the poster is looking for 'a way out'.

He knows damn well that his current situation will not allow selling the developed goods. The question is how he can find a way between his current situation and going full blown independent.

Following your own (again: obtuse) line of reasoning, you should have said: "well, make sure you strike up a new agreement with management that allows you to keep ownership on parts of your code."

That would have been helpful. It would have also been nice if you'd have come up with a proper reply to my hypothetical situation (which is still in the domain of 'entirely work for hire').

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

You are misrepresenting the situation and are defending straw men.

The entire point is that the construction worker invented the hammer during his workday and that the hammer helps him in his job. As software developers might (and regularly) similarly do during their workday. Forget about spare time. It is besides the point.

It's a terrible and uninformed simplification that software developers are paid for 'writing code'. It's not as if any code will do. Developers are hired to make sure certain requirements are met within the project. That is what they are paid for, not to be a source of software development ideas in general.

People may disagree with this line of thinking, but I know I'm never going to sell everything in my mind for 8+ hours a day and consequently fear reusing my own code again.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

Working...