On one hand, yes, I think you can say that to be a winner, you had to dope. But if you took all of the dopers out, we would still have a winner.
Consider Cadel Evans. In my opinion, I don't think he doped. He was always in the conversation with Vinokourav, Ullrich, and the other top guys. For years.
He eventually won, but the sport was much cleaner by then.
I was a huge Armstrong fan. When I heard that Hincapie admitted to doping, I knew it was over. Over because Hincapie was always Lance's right-hand man, and also over because Armstrong wouldn't go after Hincapie.
I think Armstrong was one of the best cyclists ever, but he is tarnished now just like the others. It's a cruel sport.
"It was at this meeting that L.& H. proposed shifting the $580 million deal from half stock and half cash to all stock. The Bakers, with their high-priced investment bankers M.I.A., agreed."
That's a good point, and it is likely that if they did not 'play ball' that they might have been thrown out. But in such a situation you could consider becoming a whistle blower. One thing is for sure, the moment you play along with a scheme like that when the chickens come home to roost you won't be able to deny you were involved and thus likely culpable. Some things are not worth any amount of compensation. Going to jail for some company or ending up holding the bag because everybody else pretends they have no idea why you did what you did would really suck.
Just imagine. Some German engineer was pressured into doing this. I guess it only counts when your decisions materially affect your own situation, in all other situations principles are free. Engineers should stick to their oath, and should use their fraternity to block stupid decisions such as these, even if that leads to individual hardship.
After all, what's next? Bridges that collapse? Buildings that you can't trust? Aicraft manufacturers? You have to draw the line somewhere and it is generally recognized that the engineering profession needs to be trusted by the rest of society if society is to continue to function. You can make mistakes as an engineer but you simply can not be caught even accessory to fraud, that's risking the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Sorry, but whistleblowers, at least in the US, get screwed. Playing along or quitting is the smarter play; there's at least a chance you won't be badly hurt.
Examples abound. Do you know who is the only person sent to prison for waterboarding prisoners (and to be clear, torture)? The guy who told the press about it [1]. Hell, just yesterday there was a JPMorgan whistleblower on here who got fucked out of his job; they made sure he had 3 complaints on his record then lied under oath about who wrote the complaints so he can't find a new employer.
The upshot is, at least in the US, only fools report on their employers because there's a very real chance you lose your ability to earn a living. The anti-retaliation laws may be very pretty but appear to have zero teeth.
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation in Germany is similar. I'm not saying engineers should do this sort of stuff, but imagine for a second the costs to telling various governments what they were busy not seeing. So if the price of being honest is you have to quit one of the largest employers in Germany, who is quite possibly the sole employer of what you do where you live, it may well require you and your family to move. At minimum! Not to mention a backchannel negative reference if your boss feels like hurting you.
Yes, whistleblower is not an easy path but there are many ways in which this could have been done without direct danger to the people involved (too many people knew about it to figure out who sent that anonymous package to the top 10 German press outlets). There are also some pretty powerful unions that could have helped with this.
And on the other side is the local government concerned about the largest local employer and the national government concerned about a systemically-important employer and industry.
I think (but hope otherwise!) that you're totally wrong about how the power structures in Germany would have reacted to this very unwelcome news.
We also don't know how many, if any, engineers were asked to be a part of this, refused, and quit or were fired as a result. And possibly pressured in various ways to not say anything about what they were asked to do.
This happened in Germany. Believe me that no executive wants to fight with Bernd Osterloh and there isn't a single engineer who doesn't now how to fight back with the labour union as a backup.
I believe their point was that they want to track their traffic, but when they use a third party like Google, Google provides tracking services for SpiderOak, Google also tracks you as well, which SpiderOak has no control over.
The article seems to be confused over content viewed by way of advertisement and content delivered by users actively seeking content.
When I want to read up on some news, I go to the publisher's site directly or to a preferred aggregator, which is not going to be facebook/twitter/etc.
Advertised content is typically very poor, and really not worth defending.
Already done. It's funny how the press is only talking about VW but meanwhile there are first tests showing that many other manufacturers do/did the same.
That wasn't "the same". In those cases, they optimized for the kind of environment the tests have (which regulators encourage as that test is supposed to be representative). They didn't have the computer detect whether a specific run was a test, as VW did.
I believe you may not have addressed what your tech lead is worried about. He/She has to make sure that everyone can do what you are trying to do from an architectural standpoint if you are all going to build upon it.
You are outlining the benefits, but JavaScript is very different from other languages and can be hard to understand, let alone master all of the libraries based on it.
If you can address those issues, then you may be able to convince your lead.
I've been on both sides of the coin here. When deciding on a platform or language, I usually choose what is going to be the easiest to use, or what has a high adoption rate which will provide the documentation and Q&A information online.
$10 poses an interesting decision in comparison to Spotify.
Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music.
Youtube provides ad-free video, but I don't think the ad's are very intrusive for videos compared to listening to music, where it can definitely be annoying.
> Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music.
OTOH, Google Play Music is also a music app, and designed for the user to catalog all their personal music, and is already free, and the subscription that includes unlimited streaming of the Google Play Music catalog is rolled included with the new Youtube Red subscription.
I recently trialed both Google Play Music and Spotify. While pricing is the same, I found that for my needs Google had a better offering - being able to upload my personal library was something I definitely wanted, and the radios/suggestions seem to give me more of what I want than Spotify did.
To me, this is a no-brainer if you're paying for spotify. Google music is at least as good as spotify (and better in many ways) at the same price. If you want to pay $10/mo for music streaming, you now can get ad-free youtube for no extra money if you choose google music instead of spotify.
Consider Cadel Evans. In my opinion, I don't think he doped. He was always in the conversation with Vinokourav, Ullrich, and the other top guys. For years.
He eventually won, but the sport was much cleaner by then.
I was a huge Armstrong fan. When I heard that Hincapie admitted to doping, I knew it was over. Over because Hincapie was always Lance's right-hand man, and also over because Armstrong wouldn't go after Hincapie.
I think Armstrong was one of the best cyclists ever, but he is tarnished now just like the others. It's a cruel sport.