I don't want the president to get a list of 10 countries with WMDs, for example, only one of which actually has anything. Give him a list of 11, 10 of which are correct.
France Britain Russia China Pakistan India Israel Germany South Africa Libya Iraq
Everyone in the world is totally brainwashed. It is an inevitable process that occurs while growing up. The real question is "What exactly have they been brainwashed to believe?"
If you ask me it's worse than North Korea...
Fortunately, no one would ask such an obvious imbecile about matters of Foreign Policy. You do realise that near the border of North Korea and China, Koreans routinely risk being shot to cross into China? And that the number of Chinese that risk being shot to cross into North Korea is roughly zero?
This seems to be degenerating into a shouting match, so let me just say this.
Yes. Inside a school. You do realise the *point* of a school is to educate, right ?
In my opinion, religious instruction is not education. And if parents wish to include religious instruction with their child's education, then there is always the option of sending them to a religious school, or provide religious instruction outside of school hours in a religious institution of their choice.
But you appear to be claiming that religious instruction is part of a person's education. Sorry, I can not and will not agree to that ever, and that is why I send my child to a secular school.
I'm an Atheist. Further, I see no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of knowing about a few different religions. That knowledge is, after all, one of the reasons I'm an Atheist.
Who said anything about being ashamed? I don't want my primary school age daughter indoctrinated with religious dogma. Period. Why is that so hard to understand?
>> I did not say anything to my child about her attending them.
Maybe that was part of the problem.
So you are saying that I should indoctrinate her with my anti-religion dogma?
This is about whether she is exposed to an important and significant aspect of human culture.
No, this is a recruitment drive by the majority religions, aided and assisted by the State. You got the part where she is in Primary School right? This isn't Comparative Religion 101 in her freshman year.
How unsurprising. The good old "you don't have children so you wouldn't understand" argument.
Not only would you not understand, but you have never had to make those decisions yourself. We all are expert parents until we have children, then we need to do something that armchair parents never have to... make choices and live with them.
If you really don't have children, then by all means, enjoy this time of moral superiority when you know best.
Indeed. Perish the thought your little darling make her own decisions instead of following your anti-religion dogma.
That would be funny if it were true. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension because of too much time spent learning about sky gods.
I rang the school to ensure my child did not attend religious classes. I did not say anything to my child about her attending them.
As for making her own decisions... well... I don't know about other children of primary school age, but my daughter has trouble deciding what she will eat for breakfast, which socks she will wear, whether she will attend camp or not, so forgive my surprise at your assertion that she is able to choose a lifelong spiritual belief system right now.
But I'm sure your children had it figured out before they started 1st grade, right?
The "State" isn't teaching religion. The various faiths have to provide a representative.
The State is providing facilities for religious instruction. It is facilitating the teaching of religion by providing location and access to young minds in their formative years.
Further, a system that allows children to sample the teachings of numerous faiths - or none - at their discretion, is an excellent form of exposure to the various belief systems. Making it part of the typical educational process is a perfectly reasonable path to take.
You might have a point IF that was ACTUALLY WHAT OCCURRED. However, each parent is required to nominate A SINGLE FAITH that their child is to attend. Capish?
There is no breach of the separation between Church and State in this system.
You forgot "In my opinion...". My opinion is that it is a breach, however this can only be tested in a court of law, something no Australian would be willing to do (myself included, I don't have the time or the resources).
Yes, the Americans are a little crazy, but at least they will defend their constitution against even perceived infringements. Aussies just don't care.
If you find it offensive, you may elect for your child to not attend the scripture session (this is actually very common).
First of all, I did elect for my child not to attend the scripture session, and my child attended anyway, at least until she spouted off some offensive catholic dogma and I rang the school and put in a 'special order' to ensure she no longer attended that.
And secondly, it's the teaching of it in a public school that I find offensive in particular. I have no issue with scripture being taught outside of a public facility in a religious institution, however I personally believe in the separation of church and State.
I attended public schools in Australia for my whole school career and while I agree there's plenty of teachers who are lazy or plain not interested in what they teach, I've come across lots of teachers that care deeply for their given subjects and pupils. My wife is one of them.
I'm glad that your wife cares deeply for her subject of erudition and the pupils she imparts it to, however I did not say ALL of the good teachers have left the country, only MOST.
If you can honestly say that the quality of teachers (on average) in your wife's school has not declined in the last 10-15 years, then a) you are very lucky and b) do you mind telling me where your wife's school is located?
not as many as you would think unfortunately... there's a place called kansas and dover that tried to put religion in schools and a presigent called bush who thinks it was a fantastic idea...
Yes, unfortunately. However, my understanding is that they failed in the attempt. Is that correct?
The facts stand, regardless of my opinion of them.
Each week there are a couple of slots set aside for religious education in public schools.
Yes, time that my taxes are paying a State employee to be engaged in the process of teaching my child relevant and usefull knowledge and skills.
Children attend the class of choice, and have the freedom to do a non-religious activity during that time.
True. Unfortunately, the non-religious activity does not include education, it's just baby sitting and movie watching, something they can do on their own time.
It's a good system.
You forgot "In my opinion...". Children can go to Church on their parent's time, not mine.
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be religious as well as the freedom not to participate in religion.
Not in a public school it doesn't. The public school is an instrument of the State, engaged in State activities, paid for by the State (i.e. my taxes). It is NOT, I repeat NOT, an institution for the teaching of religion. That is the role of private religious institutions such as religious schools and churchs (mosques, temples, synagogues etc).
They should have saved time and money and just installed Cygwin.
How would that have saved any time? I just tried to install Cygwin, it spent 30 minutes installing stuff, and then it wouldn't start because it was missing 'cygwin1.dll'. I mean sheesh, you think of all the frickin files the installer would fail to install, the actual cygwin dll would not be one of them.
As a side note, it's also interesting that the first two posts in response to this story seemed to advocate the censorship instead of considering whether the "defamed" teachers might in fact be unfit.
Unfortunately, the quality of teachers has decreased markedly in the last 10-15 years in Australia. This is simply because, like every other profession that requires skill or knowledge or competence, there has been a diaspora of excellent teachers to the UK, the USoA, Europe and Asia.
Of those teachers that took the place of the excellent teachers who left, the majority are uptight, narrow minded control freaks, and the idiot population likes it that way. These teachers are not only relatively incompetent as teachers, they are also having an influence on public school culture and curriculum.
For example, many Americans would be outraged to learn that scripture is being taught in Australian Public Schools. I personally find this highly offensive, and it makes me long for a US style constitution that guarantees separation of church (blech) and State.
Are Aussies really that OK with censorship?
Unfortunately, most of the rational, intelligent parents have also left with the teachers in the great Australian diaspora.
I'll bet you that U.S. government is one of the least corrupt governments you can find.
Define "least", and then state what stake you are willing to put up.
Couple with a few greedy men/women and there's the image of corruptions far bigger than what it really is.
Actually, my experience in the first world is that the image of corruption is usually much smaller than it really is, because most people are not directly affected by corruption in the first world.
For example, in the developing world, the most common form of corruption is low-level bribery that the average person pays often enough to resent it, but in the first world the corrupttion involves millions of dollars that is then hidden in taxes, and so goes unnoticed by the average person.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience was formed by a producer. It's not all tripe, but I expect good bands that come out of this system are more the exception than the rule.
I think you are drawing a long bow in calling Chas Chandler a 'producer'. Chas Chandler was an artist who went into managing and producing bands after his accomplishments as an artist. He wasn't some Ken doll marketroid fresh out of Music Marketing 101.
And even given that Chas took James to London to round up some musos for the Experience, Noel and Mitch had played together previously and were accomplished musicians, not some all-singing all-dancing wanna boys.
All in all, I think your example fails to make the point.
an electric vehicle really cost so much less to maintain, it'd be VERY easy to market - simply jack up your sticker price, but offer free maintenance for the next 2 decades. Customers LOVE to see the word FREE, and FREE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS! looks even better. Show your customers a price chart of how much it would cost them to maintain a vehicle bought from your competitor, vs the money they'd be saving by buying from you. While you're at it, have some charts handy depicting the projected growth curve of fossil fuels over the next 20 years, vs the relatively low cost of grid electrical energy. It's not hard to develop a workable business model around a vehicle which has low maintenance costs, and you'd make a killing in the long run.
BWA HA HA HA HA. Educate the customer in the calculation of TCO as a sales strategy. That's so crazy it just might work... or NOT.
>>If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's wrong.
Did your brain have a seizure in the middle of that reply, or do you just not know why that idea is wrong?
Your arrogance would be amusing, if it weren't so horribly misplaced.
The other thing that this "supressed technology" conspiracy fantasies ignore is the fact that there is no monopoly on cars.
No, there is something much more effective. It's called High Barrier to Entry, and it is extremely effective at keeping out small car manufacturers, with expensive safety tests and regulation compliance (read, lawyers fees) etc (basically all of the lame attempts by American auto manufacturers to keep the Japanese out of the American car market by corrupting the political process). Unfortunately, the Japanese were smart enough to change their manufacturing process fast enough to keep up with the regulatory changes, and had the financial fortitude to push on through the pain.
If GM... had a way to offer a vastly better product than their current product line, you'd better believe they'd do it as fast as they could, because that's the way to make money.
Bzzzt, wrong, but thankyou for playing. The way to make money in the car business (like any other) is to make sales. In GMs case they do this through a dealership network. The dealership network makes almost no profit from the initial sale of the car, and nearly all of the profit through service and maintenance, in which they sell small products at ridiculous markups. When GM trialled the EV1, the dealerships realised that an electric motor has very little maintenance costs, and so there was no profit in selling them.
Second, to make cars requires a large investment in manufacturing equipment. Billions of dollars in fact. This investment is amortised over a long time horizon. If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment, something no CEO is going to be willing to explain at the next shareholder's quarterly.
Perhaps our group is atypical in EDS... most projects I've seen have been renewed far past anybody's expectations - and that speaks to customer's satisfaction.
Your group has somehow escaped the EDS mandate to never finish a project within anyone's expectations. In the arts end of the world, EDS working on a project is a guarantee for failure.
Hey, thanks for playing along. First of all, I think that any attitude at the extremes is probably bad. While I agree that IT staff are part of a team and are a single function in a working business, quite frankly the arrogance and condescension in your posts brought out the devil's advocate in me and I decided to take the opposite position of your extreme.
By your replies, I think that you have some personal issues simmering under the surface that colour the objectivity of your work philosophy. Take this for example...
You'll keep working in your barely adequate little petty way thinking you do a great job until a real leader comes along and leads those employees to a) be highly motivated, b) make your life hell as they get better at manipulating the tools and find all your bugs/flaws. B is inevitable because you're not perfect... your day will come.
My day will come? LOL. Did you get that from a science fiction movie you saw recently, or is that one that granpappy used to say?
And then this... What's really funny about your comments is that you also immediately turned it around into a personal attack on me, attempting to bully me. You don't know me, nor do I care what you think I know or don't know... but just for your edification if you're paying any attention at all here: I happen to be a sysadmin who's been happily maintaining, installing and designing large scale telecom and ISP systems for almost... wow, 20 years now?
Yeah... sure you know what you're talking about, kid. How long have you been doing this?
Ok, so I pushed a button do get that out of you. You thought you were saving that up for the finale right? Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to one's work attitude or corporate philosophy, but I have been programming for about 28 years, and for most of that time Sysadmins were just a line function to me, and they certainly would have been much more usefull if they had more of your attitude of service. However, there were other employees at the companies I worked for that drained the resources of the Sysadmin through their ineptitude and general unwillingness to learn the simplest things about the machine/tool they used to do their job. In the small/medium size companies I worked for, those types of employees did not last long, in the large companies I've worked for, they have hung around wasting other people's valuable resources, and generally driving the IT support desk to distraction, which DOES adversely affect the performance of the other employees and the company.
Now, these people have always existed, but the introduction of computers to the workplace has highlighted how destructive these useless reprobates can be to OTHER PEOPLE'S PRODUCTIVITY and consequently, that of the company as a whole.
So with that out of the way, let me address the pissing contest content of your post....
What is it chief? You're either making up bullshit or you're REALLY insecure about it.
Sure, tell yourself that.
You think you'll be relevant in 10 years? 5? In 10 years, I'll be doing something different (within the IT field), like I was 10 years ago and 20 years ago. I have the flexibility needed to learn new skills and domains of knowledge. On the other hand, by your own admission, you have been doing the same job for 20 years. Maybe it's you that is insecure?
You think I can't find 20 people to replace you tomorrow if I needed to for some reason?
I know you can't, because I've spent the last 3-4 weeks recruiting for programmers to do exactly that; replace me so I can move on to other things. I know I haven't said what it is I do, but perhaps your should refrain from guessing before you make a silly statement like the one above.
Good luck with that "indispensability" thing. I've watched better men than you run over by technology changing faster than they could adapt. Truthfully I relish in watchi
If you can't help them use the machine, you're the company's problem, not them.
Eerp. Wrong. But thankyou for playing. If 'they' are incapable of learning, then they are the companies problem. If 'they' need to be assisted with every task 'they' attempt on a computer, and 'they' are typical, then the company is going to have to hire one IT guy for every one of 'them'. It is not the IT guy's job to ensure that the line staff are capable of learning. Having one person monopolise the time of the expensive IT resource is not an efficient use of resources.
They're producing products or services that make money. You're overhead.
Eerp. Wrong again. I am producing tools that make money, 'they' are just the operators of the tools, and if they can't learn to operate the tools, then we fire them and hire some monkey who can.
Handwaving... handwaving... blah blah blah
Did you ever stop to think that people responsible for the hiring already took care of hiring the right person for the job at hand, INCLUDING their skill level and salary requirements -- and that might have limited the level of intelligence of the end-users you're dealing with?
Actually the people responsible for the hiring at my company are about as clueless as the people they have hired to operate the machinery. And it's not that the people they hired weren't intelligent, they were just as arrogant, beligerent and untrainable as you appear to be. They seemed to think that they were precious and the lifeless machinery would be taken care of automagically for their superior selves by the carpet fluff mechanics in the corner. I guess what happened next was a shock then (see below).
Hiring and firing are NOT your job. But HELPING people use the machines IS your job.
Wow, wrong again. I just fired a monkey last week with exactly that attitude. I think you are really in for some future shock.
they WILL remember what a prick you are, when layoffs roll around and you try to get hired at the next company.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The role I am in now can be accomplished by very few people even in the IT industry. Those glorious users whose praises you sing on the other hand are a dime a dozen. We can replace them any time. This is because the value add has shifted to those who build even better and faster 'machines', and no longer rests with the operators of those tools.
More handwaving... blah blah blah
Computers are only "complex" because IT people would never RECOMMEND to their employers to actually train people properly in their use. If people know how to use computers, IT is no longer a necessary line item in the budget. They could even set up their own servers (gasp), and do "advanced" things like that... if they only knew...
Hey, be our guest. If it is so easy, fire away. Build your servers, keep them running all by yourselves. It's just point and click and a few wizards right? [shakes head]
I bank with HSBC, and they have issued me an RSA key generator (some kind of hash function presumably). A key is required to log in, transfer money, pay bills, etc. Anything that means moving money out of my account. Sure the trojan could capture the log-in key and displayed an error page, but after that they would not be able to complete any transactions without another key.
Now the bank I work for on the other hand.... let's just say that I don't keep much money in that account.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want the president to get a list of 10 countries with WMDs, for example, only one of which actually has anything. Give him a list of 11, 10 of which are correct.
France
Britain
Russia
China
Pakistan
India
Israel
Germany
South Africa
Libya
Iraq
Done.
Let any country torture their citizens (or invade other countries, or fund terrorism, or use Microsoft software),
Really, I thought the US was working on a monopoly in those areas, except maybe using Microsoft software.
Yes, the public in China are totally brainwashed.
Everyone in the world is totally brainwashed. It is an inevitable process that occurs while growing up. The real question is "What exactly have they been brainwashed to believe?"
If you ask me it's worse than North Korea...
Fortunately, no one would ask such an obvious imbecile about matters of Foreign Policy. You do realise that near the border of North Korea and China, Koreans routinely risk being shot to cross into China? And that the number of Chinese that risk being shot to cross into North Korea is roughly zero?
This seems to be degenerating into a shouting match, so let me just say this.
Yes. Inside a school. You do realise the *point* of a school is to educate, right ?
In my opinion, religious instruction is not education. And if parents wish to include religious instruction with their child's education, then there is always the option of sending them to a religious school, or provide religious instruction outside of school hours in a religious institution of their choice.
But you appear to be claiming that religious instruction is part of a person's education. Sorry, I can not and will not agree to that ever, and that is why I send my child to a secular school.
I'm an Atheist. Further, I see no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of knowing about a few different religions. That knowledge is, after all, one of the reasons I'm an Atheist.
... make choices and live with them.
Who said anything about being ashamed? I don't want my primary school age daughter indoctrinated with religious dogma. Period. Why is that so hard to understand?
>> I did not say anything to my child about her attending them.
Maybe that was part of the problem.
So you are saying that I should indoctrinate her with my anti-religion dogma?
This is about whether she is exposed to an important and significant aspect of human culture.
No, this is a recruitment drive by the majority religions, aided and assisted by the State. You got the part where she is in Primary School right? This isn't Comparative Religion 101 in her freshman year.
How unsurprising. The good old "you don't have children so you wouldn't understand" argument.
Not only would you not understand, but you have never had to make those decisions yourself. We all are expert parents until we have children, then we need to do something that armchair parents never have to
If you really don't have children, then by all means, enjoy this time of moral superiority when you know best.
Indeed. Perish the thought your little darling make her own decisions instead of following your anti-religion dogma.
... well ... I don't know about other children of primary school age, but my daughter has trouble deciding what she will eat for breakfast, which socks she will wear, whether she will attend camp or not, so forgive my surprise at your assertion that she is able to choose a lifelong spiritual belief system right now.
That would be funny if it were true. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension because of too much time spent learning about sky gods.
I rang the school to ensure my child did not attend religious classes. I did not say anything to my child about her attending them.
As for making her own decisions
But I'm sure your children had it figured out before they started 1st grade, right?
You do *have* children?
And that makes you better than the parents that force their children to attend religious classes against their will because...?
What's the point of your question?
The "State" isn't teaching religion. The various faiths have to provide a representative.
...". My opinion is that it is a breach, however this can only be tested in a court of law, something no Australian would be willing to do (myself included, I don't have the time or the resources).
The State is providing facilities for religious instruction. It is facilitating the teaching of religion by providing location and access to young minds in their formative years.
Further, a system that allows children to sample the teachings of numerous faiths - or none - at their discretion, is an excellent form of exposure to the various belief systems. Making it part of the typical educational process is a perfectly reasonable path to take.
You might have a point IF that was ACTUALLY WHAT OCCURRED. However, each parent is required to nominate A SINGLE FAITH that their child is to attend. Capish?
There is no breach of the separation between Church and State in this system.
You forgot "In my opinion
Yes, the Americans are a little crazy, but at least they will defend their constitution against even perceived infringements. Aussies just don't care.
If you find it offensive, you may elect for your child to not attend the scripture session (this is actually very common).
First of all, I did elect for my child not to attend the scripture session, and my child attended anyway, at least until she spouted off some offensive catholic dogma and I rang the school and put in a 'special order' to ensure she no longer attended that.
And secondly, it's the teaching of it in a public school that I find offensive in particular. I have no issue with scripture being taught outside of a public facility in a religious institution, however I personally believe in the separation of church and State.
I attended public schools in Australia for my whole school career and while I agree there's plenty of teachers who are lazy or plain not interested in what they teach, I've come across lots of teachers that care deeply for their given subjects and pupils. My wife is one of them.
I'm glad that your wife cares deeply for her subject of erudition and the pupils she imparts it to, however I did not say ALL of the good teachers have left the country, only MOST.
If you can honestly say that the quality of teachers (on average) in your wife's school has not declined in the last 10-15 years, then a) you are very lucky and b) do you mind telling me where your wife's school is located?
We do (in this context). The Australian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.
But not separation of church and State.
not as many as you would think unfortunately... there's a place called kansas and dover that tried to put religion in schools and a presigent called bush who thinks it was a fantastic idea...
Yes, unfortunately. However, my understanding is that they failed in the attempt. Is that correct?
That's overstating the facts.
...". Children can go to Church on their parent's time, not mine.
The facts stand, regardless of my opinion of them.
Each week there are a couple of slots set aside for religious education in public schools.
Yes, time that my taxes are paying a State employee to be engaged in the process of teaching my child relevant and usefull knowledge and skills.
Children attend the class of choice, and have the freedom to do a non-religious activity during that time.
True. Unfortunately, the non-religious activity does not include education, it's just baby sitting and movie watching, something they can do on their own time.
It's a good system.
You forgot "In my opinion
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be religious as well as the freedom not to participate in religion.
Not in a public school it doesn't. The public school is an instrument of the State, engaged in State activities, paid for by the State (i.e. my taxes). It is NOT, I repeat NOT, an institution for the teaching of religion. That is the role of private religious institutions such as religious schools and churchs (mosques, temples, synagogues etc).
Period.
They should have saved time and money and just installed Cygwin.
How would that have saved any time? I just tried to install Cygwin, it spent 30 minutes installing stuff, and then it wouldn't start because it was missing 'cygwin1.dll'. I mean sheesh, you think of all the frickin files the installer would fail to install, the actual cygwin dll would not be one of them.
As a side note, it's also interesting that the first two posts in response to this story seemed to advocate the censorship instead of considering whether the "defamed" teachers might in fact be unfit.
.....
Unfortunately, the quality of teachers has decreased markedly in the last 10-15 years in Australia. This is simply because, like every other profession that requires skill or knowledge or competence, there has been a diaspora of excellent teachers to the UK, the USoA, Europe and Asia.
Of those teachers that took the place of the excellent teachers who left, the majority are uptight, narrow minded control freaks, and the idiot population likes it that way. These teachers are not only relatively incompetent as teachers, they are also having an influence on public school culture and curriculum.
For example, many Americans would be outraged to learn that scripture is being taught in Australian Public Schools. I personally find this highly offensive, and it makes me long for a US style constitution that guarantees separation of church (blech) and State.
Are Aussies really that OK with censorship?
Unfortunately, most of the rational, intelligent parents have also left with the teachers in the great Australian diaspora.
Sigh. What am I still doing here
Perhaps you should look into how corrupt governments of the rest of the world before crying.
... http://www.transparency.org/content/download/10825 /92857/version/1/file/CPI_2006_presskit_eng.pdf
Perhaps someone already did
I'll bet you that U.S. government is one of the least corrupt governments you can find.
Define "least", and then state what stake you are willing to put up.
Couple with a few greedy men/women and there's the image of corruptions far bigger than what it really is.
Actually, my experience in the first world is that the image of corruption is usually much smaller than it really is, because most people are not directly affected by corruption in the first world.
For example, in the developing world, the most common form of corruption is low-level bribery that the average person pays often enough to resent it, but in the first world the corrupttion involves millions of dollars that is then hidden in taxes, and so goes unnoticed by the average person.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience was formed by a producer. It's not all tripe, but I expect good bands that come out of this system are more the exception than the rule.
I think you are drawing a long bow in calling Chas Chandler a 'producer'. Chas Chandler was an artist who went into managing and producing bands after his accomplishments as an artist. He wasn't some Ken doll marketroid fresh out of Music Marketing 101.
And even given that Chas took James to London to round up some musos for the Experience, Noel and Mitch had played together previously and were accomplished musicians, not some all-singing all-dancing wanna boys.
All in all, I think your example fails to make the point.
Aww sweetie, did I hurt your feelings?
Does Windows always work as designed or as expected?
Windows was designed?????
an electric vehicle really cost so much less to maintain, it'd be VERY easy to market - simply jack up your sticker price, but offer free maintenance for the next 2 decades. Customers LOVE to see the word FREE, and FREE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS! looks even better. Show your customers a price chart of how much it would cost them to maintain a vehicle bought from your competitor, vs the money they'd be saving by buying from you. While you're at it, have some charts handy depicting the projected growth curve of fossil fuels over the next 20 years, vs the relatively low cost of grid electrical energy. It's not hard to develop a workable business model around a vehicle which has low maintenance costs, and you'd make a killing in the long run.
... or NOT.
BWA HA HA HA HA. Educate the customer in the calculation of TCO as a sales strategy. That's so crazy it just might work
>>If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment
I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's wrong.
Did your brain have a seizure in the middle of that reply, or do you just not know why that idea is wrong?
Your arrogance would be amusing, if it weren't so horribly misplaced.
Where do you suggest that I place my arrogance?
The other thing that this "supressed technology" conspiracy fantasies ignore is the fact that there is no monopoly on cars.
... had a way to offer a vastly better product than their current product line, you'd better believe they'd do it as fast as they could, because that's the way to make money.
No, there is something much more effective. It's called High Barrier to Entry, and it is extremely effective at keeping out small car manufacturers, with expensive safety tests and regulation compliance (read, lawyers fees) etc (basically all of the lame attempts by American auto manufacturers to keep the Japanese out of the American car market by corrupting the political process). Unfortunately, the Japanese were smart enough to change their manufacturing process fast enough to keep up with the regulatory changes, and had the financial fortitude to push on through the pain.
If GM
Bzzzt, wrong, but thankyou for playing. The way to make money in the car business (like any other) is to make sales. In GMs case they do this through a dealership network. The dealership network makes almost no profit from the initial sale of the car, and nearly all of the profit through service and maintenance, in which they sell small products at ridiculous markups. When GM trialled the EV1, the dealerships realised that an electric motor has very little maintenance costs, and so there was no profit in selling them.
Second, to make cars requires a large investment in manufacturing equipment. Billions of dollars in fact. This investment is amortised over a long time horizon. If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment, something no CEO is going to be willing to explain at the next shareholder's quarterly.
There is more to business than just product.
LOL and all that, but no one uses VS2002 anyway,
.NET runtime work perfectly well in Vista.
Really? We still use VS6 alongside VS2005.
run VS2003 on an HP laptop with Vista Business and aside from a few minor annoyances it works well enough.
That's very interesting, but so fucking what?
Applications written with previous versions of the
So no new applications then?
Perhaps our group is atypical in EDS... most projects I've seen have been renewed far past anybody's expectations - and that speaks to customer's satisfaction.
Your group has somehow escaped the EDS mandate to never finish a project within anyone's expectations. In the arts end of the world, EDS working on a project is a guarantee for failure.
Hey, thanks for playing along. First of all, I think that any attitude at the extremes is probably bad. While I agree that IT staff are part of a team and are a single function in a working business, quite frankly the arrogance and condescension in your posts brought out the devil's advocate in me and I decided to take the opposite position of your extreme.
...
... ... wow, 20 years now?
....
By your replies, I think that you have some personal issues simmering under the surface that colour the objectivity of your work philosophy. Take this for example
You'll keep working in your barely adequate little petty way thinking you do a great job until a real leader comes along and leads those employees to a) be highly motivated, b) make your life hell as they get better at manipulating the tools and find all your bugs/flaws. B is inevitable because you're not perfect... your day will come.
My day will come? LOL. Did you get that from a science fiction movie you saw recently, or is that one that granpappy used to say?
And then this
What's really funny about your comments is that you also immediately turned it around into a personal attack on me, attempting to bully me. You don't know me, nor do I care what you think I know or don't know... but just for your edification if you're paying any attention at all here: I happen to be a sysadmin who's been happily maintaining, installing and designing large scale telecom and ISP systems for almost
Yeah... sure you know what you're talking about, kid. How long have you been doing this?
Ok, so I pushed a button do get that out of you. You thought you were saving that up for the finale right? Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to one's work attitude or corporate philosophy, but I have been programming for about 28 years, and for most of that time Sysadmins were just a line function to me, and they certainly would have been much more usefull if they had more of your attitude of service. However, there were other employees at the companies I worked for that drained the resources of the Sysadmin through their ineptitude and general unwillingness to learn the simplest things about the machine/tool they used to do their job. In the small/medium size companies I worked for, those types of employees did not last long, in the large companies I've worked for, they have hung around wasting other people's valuable resources, and generally driving the IT support desk to distraction, which DOES adversely affect the performance of the other employees and the company.
Now, these people have always existed, but the introduction of computers to the workplace has highlighted how destructive these useless reprobates can be to OTHER PEOPLE'S PRODUCTIVITY and consequently, that of the company as a whole.
So with that out of the way, let me address the pissing contest content of your post
What is it chief? You're either making up bullshit or you're REALLY insecure about it.
Sure, tell yourself that.
You think you'll be relevant in 10 years? 5?
In 10 years, I'll be doing something different (within the IT field), like I was 10 years ago and 20 years ago. I have the flexibility needed to learn new skills and domains of knowledge. On the other hand, by your own admission, you have been doing the same job for 20 years. Maybe it's you that is insecure?
You think I can't find 20 people to replace you tomorrow if I needed to for some reason?
I know you can't, because I've spent the last 3-4 weeks recruiting for programmers to do exactly that; replace me so I can move on to other things. I know I haven't said what it is I do, but perhaps your should refrain from guessing before you make a silly statement like the one above.
Good luck with that "indispensability" thing. I've watched better men than you run over by technology changing faster than they could adapt. Truthfully I relish in watchi
If you can't help them use the machine, you're the company's problem, not them.
... handwaving ... blah blah blah
... blah blah blah
Eerp. Wrong. But thankyou for playing. If 'they' are incapable of learning, then they are the companies problem. If 'they' need to be assisted with every task 'they' attempt on a computer, and 'they' are typical, then the company is going to have to hire one IT guy for every one of 'them'. It is not the IT guy's job to ensure that the line staff are capable of learning. Having one person monopolise the time of the expensive IT resource is not an efficient use of resources.
They're producing products or services that make money. You're overhead.
Eerp. Wrong again. I am producing tools that make money, 'they' are just the operators of the tools, and if they can't learn to operate the tools, then we fire them and hire some monkey who can.
Handwaving
Did you ever stop to think that people responsible for the hiring already took care of hiring the right person for the job at hand, INCLUDING their skill level and salary requirements -- and that might have limited the level of intelligence of the end-users you're dealing with?
Actually the people responsible for the hiring at my company are about as clueless as the people they have hired to operate the machinery. And it's not that the people they hired weren't intelligent, they were just as arrogant, beligerent and untrainable as you appear to be. They seemed to think that they were precious and the lifeless machinery would be taken care of automagically for their superior selves by the carpet fluff mechanics in the corner. I guess what happened next was a shock then (see below).
Hiring and firing are NOT your job. But HELPING people use the machines IS your job.
Wow, wrong again. I just fired a monkey last week with exactly that attitude. I think you are really in for some future shock.
they WILL remember what a prick you are, when layoffs roll around and you try to get hired at the next company.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The role I am in now can be accomplished by very few people even in the IT industry. Those glorious users whose praises you sing on the other hand are a dime a dozen. We can replace them any time. This is because the value add has shifted to those who build even better and faster 'machines', and no longer rests with the operators of those tools.
More handwaving
Computers are only "complex" because IT people would never RECOMMEND to their employers to actually train people properly in their use. If people know how to use computers, IT is no longer a necessary line item in the budget. They could even set up their own servers (gasp), and do "advanced" things like that... if they only knew...
Hey, be our guest. If it is so easy, fire away. Build your servers, keep them running all by yourselves. It's just point and click and a few wizards right? [shakes head]
Really, how could this be prevented?
.... let's just say that I don't keep much money in that account.
I bank with HSBC, and they have issued me an RSA key generator (some kind of hash function presumably). A key is required to log in, transfer money, pay bills, etc. Anything that means moving money out of my account. Sure the trojan could capture the log-in key and displayed an error page, but after that they would not be able to complete any transactions without another key.
Now the bank I work for on the other hand