1) uniformity and consistency across all 5 stations (reduced downtime and troubleshooting) 2) tighter controls/policies minimize security risks 3) faster turnaround on issue resolution (engineers aren't busy with other tasks)
If there is no perceived problem in these areas right now then it is a climb akin to Mt Everest in justifying this change to management. I've seen IT directors allow problems to fester and blow up because it is easier to get management on board for changes in light of a crisis. Mind you, this is after sending memos apprising them of the risks and current situation before things blow up--but it does no good to push things if upper management isn't concerned about it at the time. No fire, no problem. Your fires are not their fires.
An IT Department will evaluate needs of the other departments and determine ways computers can streamline day to day functions, primarily by automating current manual processes
An IT Department will help build computer usage policies that keep employees productive and the data systems reasonably secure
An IT Department will help determine systems to expand service to the customer base. i.e. web applications
An IT Department will recommend avenues to promote the company online to the marketing department
** IF you have a culture that will allow these things to happen. **
"likely because it seems so obviously the way it should be and is done everywhere else. "
Because it is done that way everywhere else is your cue that it may not be the best idea. Begin with identifying the real problems you perceive and determine if they mean anything to the business and if changing them is going to make your business and people more productive and happy.
If you can't find rock solid evidence for that then leave it alone, maybe making minor changes that would yield a benefit.
I think I did die a little. This is really sad considering I grew up with Microsoft software and had a great time developing with their tools and languages. I jumped the MS dev tools bandwagon over a decade ago but this is still just plain sad. I almost feel sorry for them.
If Windows is Coca-Cola then Windows phone is like Coke trying to sell coffee . Band mismatch that doesn't resonate with customers. In the mobile world people look for Android and iPhone, that is it. The Windows name is going to sour all kinds of products if they keep using it. Not that consumers hate Windows, it's just a brand mismatch that is kind of a turn off (what if they branded the XBox on Windows? same thing). If you want to change that you need to hit really hard with something people want or need using a different brand. That is a scary proposition for a company in Microsoft's shoes.
As a single person you are paying about $700 a month in taxes MORE than the person with a family of four (at the 16.50 rate). In fact he is given $4000 a year on top of not paying those taxes.
We have a few at our college. The IT department is ALWAYS working on them. I have also discovered that "mobile labs" (carts full of laptops) go underutilized but politics and an untested and unmeasured perception of need fuels constant expenditure on them. When they are finally retired they look brand new. There is little need for fancy interjections of technology into education (I haven't even encountered a need for a graphing calculator). The best way to implement technology into education is to enhance collaboration--the whole reason and root of the Internet. I think in class live quizzing with instant feedback is beneficial though. iPads are a joke unless the cost comes WAY down ($100 a pop).
You have to have excess food, universities, a thriving and dynamic economy, stable liberal government, and a mobile work force to arrive at the means to produce technology on the level which we now have. If any of these factors suffer a setback you can forget it because it is created by people with time on their hands who don't have to worry about where they are going to live or what they are going to eat or if their family is going to be robbed in the night.
All of this is post Renaissance which is a phenomenon born of a totally different set of circumstances. Had their not been a need for the renaissance you could subtract the time between antiquity and the Renaissance that was needed to advance technology of any nature. This time subtraction amounts to about 1000 years (the dark ages).
From my study of Catholic cultural intervention (the various crusade activities) I realized that we would have had our current level of technology about 1000 years ago had they not meticulously stamped out all attempts to gather and exchange knowledge (particularly the Albigensian era). To the minds of most educated people I think this trend kicked off at the two burnings of the library of Alexandria.
"Social Security Disability has become in this country and that bit alone is bankrupting the federal government."
Not that I agree with runaway entitlements, but that statement is only true in a moral sense. As it pertains to physical resources it is not causing any finacial hardship to the government. The government is doing just fine.
They are not limitless. How do conversations between seemingly smart people on slashdot peel off on fact free tangents like this? No, I'm not new here.
Yes, but you could provide digital copies for a dollar or two and stamp them with the person's name. That is enough friction. I have purchased Manning books ("in Action" series) and they allow you to download a nice PDF version that is stamped with your name--they have done this for years.
We should just consider it a tax (on publishers) to help libraries and leave it at that. Libraries are underfunded right now and it shows--unless one has benefited from a private donor. After all, as a society we can morally dictate the compliance of publishers to distribute to libraries. They are not the authors, they merely distribute works by exploiting (define: exploit) authors. It is just like retail, if Wal-Mart ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn't hurt anyone as a new retailer would spring up instantly; one with a sustainable business model that matches the current environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Meat is not profitable. You will notice that processed food companies sell carbs at the same price or more than meat. Simple math.
1) uniformity and consistency across all 5 stations (reduced downtime and troubleshooting)
2) tighter controls/policies minimize security risks
3) faster turnaround on issue resolution (engineers aren't busy with other tasks)
If there is no perceived problem in these areas right now then it is a climb akin to Mt Everest in justifying this change to management. I've seen IT directors allow problems to fester and blow up because it is easier to get management on board for changes in light of a crisis. Mind you, this is after sending memos apprising them of the risks and current situation before things blow up--but it does no good to push things if upper management isn't concerned about it at the time. No fire, no problem. Your fires are not their fires.
An IT Department will evaluate needs of the other departments and determine ways computers can streamline day to day functions, primarily by automating current manual processes
An IT Department will help build computer usage policies that keep employees productive and the data systems reasonably secure
An IT Department will help determine systems to expand service to the customer base. i.e. web applications
An IT Department will recommend avenues to promote the company online to the marketing department
** IF you have a culture that will allow these things to happen. **
I think I just died a little.
"likely because it seems so obviously the way it should be and is done everywhere else. "
Because it is done that way everywhere else is your cue that it may not be the best idea. Begin with identifying the real problems you perceive and determine if they mean anything to the business and if changing them is going to make your business and people more productive and happy.
If you can't find rock solid evidence for that then leave it alone, maybe making minor changes that would yield a benefit.
ZOMG! If this stuff gets out they can really forget it. Check this out guys!! (as mentioned above, prepare to die a little)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqUi1xlvDkI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSAXEVXvNz8
I think I did die a little. This is really sad considering I grew up with Microsoft software and had a great time developing with their tools and languages. I jumped the MS dev tools bandwagon over a decade ago but this is still just plain sad. I almost feel sorry for them.
and why wouldn't you login for this comment?
"I'll NEVER switch back to an icon-grid based smartphone OS after using WP7"
LOL, you may have to.
If Windows is Coca-Cola then Windows phone is like Coke trying to sell coffee . Band mismatch that doesn't resonate with customers. In the mobile world people look for Android and iPhone, that is it. The Windows name is going to sour all kinds of products if they keep using it. Not that consumers hate Windows, it's just a brand mismatch that is kind of a turn off (what if they branded the XBox on Windows? same thing). If you want to change that you need to hit really hard with something people want or need using a different brand. That is a scary proposition for a company in Microsoft's shoes.
They are both in the same barn.
Kids don't want books. I've heard "I hate reading" more times than I can count at the college this year alone.
As a single person you are paying about $700 a month in taxes MORE than the person with a family of four (at the 16.50 rate). In fact he is given $4000 a year on top of not paying those taxes.
We have a few at our college. The IT department is ALWAYS working on them. I have also discovered that "mobile labs" (carts full of laptops) go underutilized but politics and an untested and unmeasured perception of need fuels constant expenditure on them. When they are finally retired they look brand new. There is little need for fancy interjections of technology into education (I haven't even encountered a need for a graphing calculator). The best way to implement technology into education is to enhance collaboration--the whole reason and root of the Internet. I think in class live quizzing with instant feedback is beneficial though. iPads are a joke unless the cost comes WAY down ($100 a pop).
Hence free energy in our age. We would just kill each other in short order.
You have to have excess food, universities, a thriving and dynamic economy, stable liberal government, and a mobile work force to arrive at the means to produce technology on the level which we now have. If any of these factors suffer a setback you can forget it because it is created by people with time on their hands who don't have to worry about where they are going to live or what they are going to eat or if their family is going to be robbed in the night.
All of which were set back about 1000 years by the dark ages and the mentality that still pervades.
All of this is post Renaissance which is a phenomenon born of a totally different set of circumstances. Had their not been a need for the renaissance you could subtract the time between antiquity and the Renaissance that was needed to advance technology of any nature. This time subtraction amounts to about 1000 years (the dark ages).
From my study of Catholic cultural intervention (the various crusade activities) I realized that we would have had our current level of technology about 1000 years ago had they not meticulously stamped out all attempts to gather and exchange knowledge (particularly the Albigensian era). To the minds of most educated people I think this trend kicked off at the two burnings of the library of Alexandria.
[uncomfortable silence]....HOW ABOUT them Bears!
"Social Security Disability has become in this country and that bit alone is bankrupting the federal government."
Not that I agree with runaway entitlements, but that statement is only true in a moral sense. As it pertains to physical resources it is not causing any finacial hardship to the government. The government is doing just fine.
They are not limitless. How do conversations between seemingly smart people on slashdot peel off on fact free tangents like this? No, I'm not new here.
Yes, but you could provide digital copies for a dollar or two and stamp them with the person's name. That is enough friction. I have purchased Manning books ("in Action" series) and they allow you to download a nice PDF version that is stamped with your name--they have done this for years.
No one mentions on-demand publishers.
http://www.lulu.com/publish/
https://www1.lightningsource.com/default.aspx
Freelance editors should appear. I think they already exist as there are plenty of freelance writers offering services on the Internet.
We should just consider it a tax (on publishers) to help libraries and leave it at that. Libraries are underfunded right now and it shows--unless one has benefited from a private donor. After all, as a society we can morally dictate the compliance of publishers to distribute to libraries. They are not the authors, they merely distribute works by exploiting (define: exploit) authors. It is just like retail, if Wal-Mart ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn't hurt anyone as a new retailer would spring up instantly; one with a sustainable business model that matches the current environment.