Concerns about ability to kill animals after relocation are a really big deal to most of us, Hemingway.
Not too easily purposed to warfare and domination of other peoples. Just what we need more of.
The research could be used for health-tracking apps, baby monitors, and for the military and law enforcement.'
Of course, always for the military and law enforcement. The ethos of technology development in this country, spreading to the world, increasingly sickens me.
This is not for the question submitter, but in general, do not fuck your coworkers. About once or twice a year I end up attracting the attention of a younger engineer of the opposite sex who mistakes mentoring and being a nice guy for mate material. This is a workplace complication you do not need. If you're confident in the middle of the biggest engineering shitstorm ever and manage to right the ship, you're going to attract attention, and not just from management.
Yeah, women are practically automatons, naturally drawn to confident alpha male types. In these situations their genes and hapless little neurological and hormonal structures dictate to them to fuck, and the unsuspecting prime specimen that is the object of their attention is put into the awkward position of having to ward them off (repeatedly, as you report), or kind-heartedly acceding to their animal wishes, which sure puts that fella in a heckuva spot (as you can attest!)
They can also be controlled easily with shiny rocks, such little restraint and higher cognitive function they have.
I instead, genuinely, showed interest in hearing about their antics, which they enjoyed sharing with me.
You did this convincingly, and without having disgust overtake your work life, how?
What other essential knowledge or skills should we add to this imaginary 'toolbox'?"
Whatever they are (and Heinlein's list is very good), the skills that we need to live as well-rounded humans cannot be perceived, checked off, or checked in like items on a requirements list or lines of code. A great problem with technology, and with most practitioners of it, is the instrumental view of the world it inculcates. As the Dean says, the humanities represent a very different way of thinking and understanding the world.
Probably the best thing that could happen to most technology majors is a several-years-long break from it.
Working for a "defense" contractor, you can be extremely sure you are contributing to evil.
At some point between 9/11/2001 and 6/5/2014, I worked for a defense contractor for several years....I had no idea! Do you honestly think they'd tell someone like me?
You worked for a defense contractor, and then claim plausible deniability that the shit you're contributing to is used for evil?
That's convenient, isn't it? Because in your worldview individuals are exempt from making moral choices - they need just point out some other person or entity which has a lot of influence.
What rationalizing bullshit, as if programmers don't have brains and can't be expected to develop and follow moral consciences. As if they are somehow exempt from the moral duties we all have.
You can feed your family doing other things, which may not give you as much comfort as you want, but which don't have you hurting other people to the same degree.
...but sometimes you just have to shut up and play the game if you want the rewards of the game.
Basically, you chose to shut up and do unethical things, to keep getting your hands on those $$$$ greasy paychecks. So quit rationalizing.
You had and have options.
"Are you going to be an asshole who chooses to accept money for working, directly or indirectly, for the military?"
(This is what the "defense industry" is, kiddies. Very lucrative and widespread.)
"Are you going to be an asshole who chooses to accept money for working, directly or indirectly, for spy agencies?"
Addressing these ethical problems requires personal political and social awareness, something often missing from young people's time allotments.
Slashdot would like to be taken seriously, I assume. But "Condi" isn't our friend; we don't know Rice on a first-name basis, much less on a nickname basis. Serious journalism/reporting/blogging doesn't refer to public figures by their first names.
The same goes for all the Google billionaires and other tech luminaries, whom tech outlets like Slashdot routinely refer to as, e.g., "Sergey" or "Larry".
They are not our friends. We're not all part of some big club together - the concerns of tech CEOs are vastly different from those of most working tech people. Tech blogging doesn't serve the tech community well by employing these kinds of linguistic devices, which help to disarm the critical thinking of readers.
The crypto tools were part of a classified NSA project he was working on at Stanford in the mid 1970s to build a secure, classified Internet. 'At the time I couldn't share that with my friends,' Cerf said."
Another one drops into my asshole category for working for intelligence/military/military contracting. And they probably almost all think they were "serving America".
...that the advertisements that they serve are "wanted".