not to belittle or anything . . .

[Chong Yu Meng]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kurt Wall wrote:
~ > ; So its better to put your family out on the streets just so that
you can
| ; say you stood up to SCO?
|
| Those that are still working there have had two years to find other work.
| So, they either believe SCO is right, expect their stock options to be
| worth something when SCO wins, or they've traded ethical solvency for
| financial solvency.
|
| At this point, I have darn little sympathy for anyone who's stayed on
| at SCO. Some people are stupid; others are aggressivly stupid. Those that
| have stayed on at (fia)SCO are aggressivly stupid.

This is a very interesting moral dilemma you brought up, Kurt. I'm going
to play Devil's advocate here and propose this (hypothetical) scenario:

Person A is a barely competent pre-sales engineer with a lot of
financial liabilities (say an expensive car and a house -- which in
Singapore is *extremely* expensive, not sure about the USA). He knows
that there is a high possibility that he will not be able to find a job
with equivalent pay. Following his "moral compass" would mean giving up
his lifestyle and a lot of the comforts he has grown used to. Does he
give it all up for an abstract concept like ethics ? Staying in an
unethical company would be a small sin compared to the hardships he will
subject his family to.

Of course, in cases like this, the gravy train will inevitably, and
sometimes very quickly, come to a screeching halt. But what's the harm
in sitting out the ride as long as it lasts?

Regards,
pascal chong


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB0M39mVdpiRJSldgRAj34AKC+zKYynOj0KxoKXtYVUEgXpNjqrwCghaoo
Bguy5KE00HgQ1uc1KlxaDuE=
=lma6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----