Ethics

But I've seen it done on more than one occasion. Personally I don't know how they live with themselves, but in fairness sought of they go out and buy what they want and then invoice for more expensive parts.

The one that got me was a woman was proudly showing me her upgraded computer which her son had done for her saving her heaps of money and when I looked at the invoice a 128 MEG Video card was listed but there was an Intel 740 Video card in the computer.

I really do not know how some people can sleep at night!

Col ]:)

That is what we do with trouble makers around here. Hang'em high!

I can't believe so many people got so worked up over my post. Doesn't ANYONE have a sense of humor anymore? Get over it and lighten up ya know?

Quit taking EVERYTHING so damn serious, no one gets out alive.

There's an Oingo Boingo song about that. Maybe the problem is that some people just don't listen to good music.

The important factor is not harm done, but initiation of force. If someone initiates force against you, there's no ethical prohibition against using reciprocal force (either personally or through some external agent, such as the police or some other person with more ability to defend you) in your defense. You really can't control what harm befalls others, in the end; you can only control your own violation of the rights of others and, through refusing to initate force against them, you can avoid violating rights.

Not sure if it the lack of music or maybe their panties are on too tight?

It really does make you wonder though.

Must not have cared too much about what ever it was that ruffled their feathers because they didn't pop their nappy little heads back up.

I have several little keyring devices which not only locate a Wireless signal but are directional as well.

They show how strong a signal is and where it is coming from and I brought them from the US as well for about $20.00 US. Theses are one of the cheapest tools I've ever brought and one of them could lead you right to the source of the signal.

As far as locking it down I wouldn't even consider this option as most home networks and particuarly wireless networks are used to play games. That just roll up with whatever and play away, but like all games they can and do trash OS's my son is a good one for this. I would just let them know and then suggest that it might be an idea to lock it down to a registered user group or whatever but don't let on that you can actually connect to it and never offer to lock it down, if you do you'll be forever making house calls to fix up what they have messed up and game players do this far more often that I care to think about.

Col ]:)

I cede on 1 and 2, but still challenge 3 based on the language you chose for your previous post which seems at odds with your assertion.

You stated that "You really can't control what harm befalls others" and thus you excuse any obligation one might have to prevent or mitigate any harms or initiations of force against others. So then, in essence, you are saying that one has no ethical responsibility to defend another person since we are excused from any obligation to interfere due to a stated lack of control.

Is man an island or not?

In regards to a dictionary; if that's your way of offering to buy me a present then by all means go ahead, mine was stolen a long time ago.

To sum up the implications of what I've said about what you can do for others:

You have the right to engage others in your defense, if they are willing. Nobody is obligated to defend you, unless an agreement is made that creates such an obligation. Others, also, may choose to help you of their own free will, so long as they are clearly not initiating force in the circumstances at hand.

I hope that clears things up somewhat.

[i]"You have the right to engage others in your defense, if they are willing."[/i]

So someone who initiates force against me has to be willing to let me defend myself? (since you're such a nitpicker about language and dictionaries yourself.)

[i]"Nobody is obligated to defend you,"[/i]

So... you're saying that there is no ethical obligation to help others unless you get paid for it. Thanks for clearing up your view of ethical responsibility, even though I disagree with it.

"So someone who initiates force against me has to be willing to let me defend myself? (since you're such a nitpicker about language and dictionaries yourself.)"

. . . there's just no such thing as a reasonable discussion with you. That has zero relation to what I said. The "they" to which I referred would be those you have a right to engage in your defense, not those against whom you are defending.

Learn to read. Seriously. It'll help.

Really now, you sound like some pouty little brat resorting to that.

Anyway... Isn't it said that it's the responsibility of the communicator to be understood?

Wish I could ask for a third [b]neutral[/b] party reading on how what you said really sounds like you're suggesting that one must get permission from an assailant before defending oneself. But I know nobody of any consequence is reading our exchanges by this point. *shrug*

This thread reminds me of that one about Techies never admitting to their mistakes, oh well.

I fail to see how anyone could have jumped to the conclusion you did without either being stupid or having malicious intent.

When the guy who occupies the White House and the guy who stands as the Majority Leader of the US House and the guy who is the Majority Leader of the US Senate all show that ethics, truthfulness, morals and honor are of no value, what lessons are we in IT to take away?

What would make you think that this would be free services? Just because there is a live ethernet jack in a parking lot does not mean that it is a free service. FBI or no. If there is not a sign that says Free live ethernet jack access, what are you doing messing with it? Do you own it? I really do not understand the rational. Why is it that someone would think that if it is in plain sight and accessible, they have a right to mess with it or use it? All I know is that if I am not involved in it, whatever it is, I do not have permission for it's use. Please explain to me why it would be OK to use whatever it might be without permission from the owner?

As an atheist (and, no, I don't need to prove anything: there's simply no proof to the contrary) I feel I have a much greater commitment to treating my fellow with respect than I see from a great number of espoused "religious people". There are religious people who can invoke their religious inspirations to move people to good and...

It is a statement of condition. A corporation's only legal responsibility (as enforced by potential shareholder lawsuits) is to produce profit. It assumes no obligation to serve the public good. In fact, if it can pass costs on to other entities in order to maximize its own profits, it is richly rewarded.

I would even expand the business and create some sort of franchise.

How often do you find a business where customers want to pay more and get it later. You could offer value-added service by getting it fixed 1 week ahead of your competitors.

However, job satisfaction is a personal thing and it probably doesn't matter if you earn a lot of money or not.

To me it is still ethical if you achieve the customer's objective within your means. Just give your best and don't feel guilty about it.

After all I used to charge the proper rate and do a good job but I didn't need machines cluttering up the place for weeks at a time and I really couldn't live with myself if I sent them back knowing I had been paid for work I had not done just so the people could bring them back in and get stung again.

In the case of the bobbins it was a 600% markup from Recommended Retail what I thought was a reasonable price and the needles was something like a 900% markup from Recommended Retail and that was only the common ones the specials where anything up to 1500% over priced above the Recommended Retail.

I was making well over $1,000.00 AU a day in labor alone I just didn't need any more and I certainly didn't need the profits with the tax system at the time as if I had actually made a profit the first year I would have been looking at a tax bill of 120% of that years income. At the time we had provisional tax so after the first year we had to effectively pay 2 years tax just in case you went broke durring the second year, after all the tax man has to get his money doesn't he? :D

It's all changed now but at the time you just had to run at a slight loss for the first year and keep things down as much as possible for the first 4 years but on the second & third years I was running well in excess of a 50% profit margin so I had to find ways to spend money for stock. It was a real pain at tax time as just before the tax year ended you had to do your sums and spend any excess money before the tax year ended. :(

But it was great for buying new tools even if at an audit I had I was asked just why I needed a CRO to repair Sewing Machines.

That little beauty was a $50.000.00 AU unit and I said have you seen a sewing machine lately they are all computer controlled. That worked a treat and no more questions but while they did have computers or I should say microprocessors running them they where only Z80's.

The audit for the first year was another real charm after 1 week of traveling 160 K's each way I was informed that a mistake had been made and I had paid 10 cents AU too much in TAX so I suggested we forgo the audit next year and they could keep the 10 cents.

Col ]:)

like the robotic laws (I'm an Asimov fan).

Been there. I'm just trying to hang on for 5 more years for full retirement. Then maybe find someplace to work where I won't be punished for pointing out ineffiency and wrongdoing.

I think we'll all agree that using this medium, that it's very easy to not receive a message the way it was intended by the poster. I also think that should be considered when making other than a serious post.

Exactly what I was thinking!!! :)

I couldn't cope with all of what I saw and had to walk away just to keep what little sanity I had left. :(

But now that I'm no longer directly involved I can laugh at what I'm told by those who are still there. The way I see it most of what I pay in taxes are going toward the "Screwed Up System" to keep it going. Heaven forbid I should refuse to pay my taxes until they had some accountability in the system. :D

Actually I have a nephew in the Tax Department who refuses to file tax returns so far he has been taken to court 3 times and didn't bother showing up on the first two occasions on the third when he was forced in there he just rattles off the actual costs that where involved in scanning his tax return and how much the Department was paying for him to be in the court. The poor old judge couldn't believe the figures and when he was told that they where correct and if anything way on the conservative side he just let him go. As my nephew says he on a pay as you earn system so he is paying more in tax than he should be and he prefers to donate that extra money to the Government rather than have the bureaucracy pay a lot more to refund him the few $ that he is owed.

The judge allowed him to continue on his own sweet way but I understand that the Department is appealing the ruling. The really funny thing here though is that he is an Inspector for the Tax Department who catches out people underpaying or evading paying their tax. :D

Col ]:)

You're right, vltii. On the other hand, it's just a good idea to assume good faith wherever practical and possible. Make others [b]prove[/b] they're being malicious, and not only will you not accidentally assume the worst where not warranted, but you'll look more like the "good guy" and they'll look more like the "bad guy" in public discussions.

I don't follow my own advice in this matter with perfect strictness, but I try to lean in that direction, at least.

The free samples were a good example, but finding a wallet, even if you didn't take it, you know that it's not yours. Most likely there is ID in it which can be used to contact the lawful owner.

I can't agree more. I'd like to add another rule of thumb that I personally follow. I capitalize on users awareness not on their stupidity. If they don't know, I make sure they know. On the long run (at least), it will generate good business as well as good reputation !

In my opinion, unsecured wireless networks are like unattended purses. Intentionally using someone else's unsecured wireless network is just like stealing an unattended purse in a grocery store. A good samaritan would attempt to notify the potential victim. . .

Unfortunately, many honest people view unsecured wireless networks like they do air -- i.e., public domain. Our job is to get out the word in a non-judgemental way.

Craig Herberg