I was thinking, people might still steal, but if they didn't lie about it, you'd catch them quickly, and so deal with the problem more directly and efficiently than by using passwords.
This is like saying the command-line is better than a GUI. Sure, if you've made the investment to learn the command line. But if you have to do something quickly, never having done it before (or done it so long ago you can't remember how you did it), an intuitive, natural interface that accepts input in the way that is most efficient and natural for you to provide it, is better.
as someone who had to use notes for 10 months at a previous job, LOL...I particularly loved their idiosyncratic ui conventions, like in the vba editor as i remember...notes is a virus!
damn, I knew it! screw all those liberal pinko elementary school fellow-traveling teachers who introduced the wrong-headed idea of cultural relativism to me...
interesting is a matter of taste, you can't really criticize someone because they have bad taste unless you set yourself up as the arbiter of all that is tasteful. I find the autograph story interesting. If you don't, move along...
so, working the same as everyone else is good in and of itself, regardless of whether one person might work more efficiently with more flexible hours?
Personally I empathize with the parent poster; I too find the office setting less productive because of all the distractions.
One day maybe bosses will realize that people who work better in a non-office setting can contribute to the company bottom line. These people are not necessarily "slacking off" or "stealing from the company"; you have to go beyond appearances and look at the work that is actually getting performed.
The flip side of course is that managers can take time off and work from home whenever they want...because they're managers, I guess.
But they generally won't settle for just performance they want performance and appearance
I suppose you have a point: if an employee is working hard, but comes in late or leaves early or whatever, they might suspect that even though he's working hard, he could be working even harder...
it comes down to trusting your employees, treating them as adults. are you going to use fear to motivate your employees, or create a work environment where they are self-motivated to produce the best product they can? If the latter, can you tolerate employees who may appear to be slackers, but who are actually working up to the best of their ability?
that in the civilian structure you don't have a legal recourse against people that work outside of what considered to be, ideally, ethical and moral constraints that are expected of civil persons so manuvering politically is the best defense in that arena
no legal recourse, but a healthy company will realize that all that political maneuvering takes away from the goal of the company, which is to create a work environment where employees can function at peak efficiency.
okay, that was an assumption; perhaps the goal of the company is to "maneuver politically" their way to success - these are the companies that will happily rip you off when you buy stuff from them. Hopefully, technology companies are more honest because you can't "maneuver politically" when you're writing code, you have to be honest with yourself or you won't catch your bugs...if your team mates are also honest, what harm is there in tolerating those who are not politically adept? Unless of course your bosses believe that "maneuvering politically" is a better way to defeat the competition than producing a better product in a more efficient way.)
at least you acknowledge that the present mentality you espouse does not produce the optimal environment for a business to function efficiently.
will you also acknowledge that things change, that a couple years ago the "prevailing opinion" was quite different?
do we really need to go through these pendulum swings? if each swing stops a little short of the last, could we reach some sort of equilibrium where employees and managers can function at peak efficiency, without wasting time on "politics"?
of course, I'm assuming peak efficiency is the goal. For many, perhaps the "political game" is an end in and of itself.
I've seen many skilled people get canned for lack of social/political abilities.
Is this a good thing for the company? If the employee provides value through his/her work, wouldn't the company be better off tolerating the employee's lack of social/political abilities, instead of using it as an excuse to get rid of the person and incur financial expenses to the company of replacing the person?
How does it help the company financially if you pretend to be working when you're not?
The people who are responsible for the financial performance of the company will eventually realize that appearance is not a good indicator of value to the company. And then geeks will be able to come and go as they please from the office, telecommute without being questioned, etc., just as it used to be in the days when employees were considered valuable assets.
Slashdot Mirror
"should" and "build this under deadline pressure or get fired" often conflict.
I was thinking, people might still steal, but if they didn't lie about it, you'd catch them quickly, and so deal with the problem more directly and efficiently than by using passwords.
This is like saying the command-line is better than a GUI. Sure, if you've made the investment to learn the command line. But if you have to do something quickly, never having done it before (or done it so long ago you can't remember how you did it), an intuitive, natural interface that accepts input in the way that is most efficient and natural for you to provide it, is better.
imho
passwords suck. why should I have to prove who I am? if people had no incentive to lie passwords would be uneccesary.
as someone who had to use notes for 10 months at a previous job, LOL...I particularly loved their idiosyncratic ui conventions, like in the vba editor as i remember...notes is a virus!
damn, I knew it! screw all those liberal pinko elementary school fellow-traveling teachers who introduced the wrong-headed idea of cultural relativism to me...
I see no reason that they should be able to use my bandwidth to serve their content to other people.
Thanks for sharing, no one's forcing you to use the software...
Scarcity? Anyone can create software, there is no scarcity.
The copyright laws and DMCA etc. make it illegal to create certain programs.
ya but rms has a girlfriend! he's our hero!
interesting is a matter of taste, you can't really criticize someone because they have bad taste unless you set yourself up as the arbiter of all that is tasteful. I find the autograph story interesting. If you don't, move along...
I admire the intensity and dedication of serial killers and terrorists, just not the object of their intensity and dedication.
except that rms doesn't use violence. besides, suicide bombers rule!
Personally I empathize with the parent poster; I too find the office setting less productive because of all the distractions.
One day maybe bosses will realize that people who work better in a non-office setting can contribute to the company bottom line. These people are not necessarily "slacking off" or "stealing from the company"; you have to go beyond appearances and look at the work that is actually getting performed.
The flip side of course is that managers can take time off and work from home whenever they want...because they're managers, I guess.
...except that apache's tomcat is not a competing product, since it is the official reference servlet/jsp implementation.
the economy?
that kid was so cool.
the reason goatse.cx is so funny is that it pisses people like you off...
or we may be asking "Do you want fries with that?"
won't even those jobs be automated soon?
The politically inept are no threat.
But they may help your company compete more effectively.
Why is tolerating them so hard? Especially when you benefit?
But they generally won't settle for just performance they want performance and appearance
I suppose you have a point: if an employee is working hard, but comes in late or leaves early or whatever, they might suspect that even though he's working hard, he could be working even harder...
it comes down to trusting your employees, treating them as adults. are you going to use fear to motivate your employees, or create a work environment where they are self-motivated to produce the best product they can? If the latter, can you tolerate employees who may appear to be slackers, but who are actually working up to the best of their ability?
that in the civilian structure you don't have a legal recourse against people that work outside of what considered to be, ideally, ethical and moral constraints that are expected of civil persons so manuvering politically is the best defense in that arena
no legal recourse, but a healthy company will realize that all that political maneuvering takes away from the goal of the company, which is to create a work environment where employees can function at peak efficiency.
okay, that was an assumption; perhaps the goal of the company is to "maneuver politically" their way to success - these are the companies that will happily rip you off when you buy stuff from them. Hopefully, technology companies are more honest because you can't "maneuver politically" when you're writing code, you have to be honest with yourself or you won't catch your bugs...if your team mates are also honest, what harm is there in tolerating those who are not politically adept? Unless of course your bosses believe that "maneuvering politically" is a better way to defeat the competition than producing a better product in a more efficient way.)
will you also acknowledge that things change, that a couple years ago the "prevailing opinion" was quite different?
do we really need to go through these pendulum swings? if each swing stops a little short of the last, could we reach some sort of equilibrium where employees and managers can function at peak efficiency, without wasting time on "politics"?
of course, I'm assuming peak efficiency is the goal. For many, perhaps the "political game" is an end in and of itself.
If you come off as paranoid, nobody's going to put you in charge of stuff.
Unless you're Andy Grove...
I've seen many skilled people get canned for lack of social/political abilities.
Is this a good thing for the company? If the employee provides value through his/her work, wouldn't the company be better off tolerating the employee's lack of social/political abilities, instead of using it as an excuse to get rid of the person and incur financial expenses to the company of replacing the person?
Appearence is also important.
How does it help the company financially if you pretend to be working when you're not?
The people who are responsible for the financial performance of the company will eventually realize that appearance is not a good indicator of value to the company. And then geeks will be able to come and go as they please from the office, telecommute without being questioned, etc., just as it used to be in the days when employees were considered valuable assets.