I've read a lot of people going on about the positive aspects of flex-time, but I think many would agree, there are a few negative aspects as well.
I work in a job that allows flex-time, and I'll admit I generally like the flexibility. But, quite frankly, I'm one of those people that needs either the stress of a deadline or to be forced to sit in front of my terminal to feel very motivated. Usually then I feel very motivated, so I get a lot done, however.
One thing that working a job with regular hours (which were still semi-flexible, but much more rigid than I have now) was that I got a tremendous amount done. I still make all my deadlines (or at least most of them), but before I'd hit my deadlines early and with flying colours... That's one thing I miss about my old job, the attention one tends to recieve when one does an excellent, as opposed to just a good, job.
Now I find myslef trying to make appointments with co-workers, etc. just to ensure that I go into the office regularly. I swear I'm ready to block Slashdot from my web browser so that I stay on task when I'm there.
In short, flex-time only works if you're not a brutal procrastinator, which I am. I think that a system that expects fairly regular hours, but is willing to give a little (or a lot sometimes) is a much better alternative for some of us.
I agree. One place that computers still haven't surpassed humans is dealing with complex scenarios with insufficient information. Putting IFF on everything in sight may seem reasonable at first, but then someone might jam them. Put in swanky image recognition software, and the enemy repaints their planes to look like your allies... and so on.
Basically, any method you use to try and ensure no screw-ups occur can be broken by the enemy.. Find me a computer that can deal with situations as complex as identifying friend vs. foe in a heated battle situation - with very little time, and when the enemy is actively trying to decieve it, and I'll show you a human brain.
Perhaps a computer like this lies somewhere in the future.. I hope so, quite frankly. But I firmly believe that until then, humans are the best thing we have - by a long shot.
One other thing, regarding the ethical situation. Sure, there are losses to friendly fire in every war - these are likely inevitable. But risking large amounts of human life based on some new program or machine is potentially very stupid, given just how well tested the human being is in combat.. a very safe bet over the latest technological development.
I understand that what you probably MEANT was that "hey, the increase in media violence has not caused a corresponding increase in actual violence." I just wish you'd SAID that.
Actually, because of the large number of confounding factors involved, even concluding that there hasn't been an increase in actual violence due to the increase in media violence would be premature. There might have been an increase that was overshadowed by some other effect.
However, I still think that the correllation he has pointed out here is useful. While correllation doesn't equal causation, it can provide a very useful starting point for future research. Second, it shows that Bush etc have no statistical reason to even posit that the media is to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read a lot of people going on about the positive aspects of flex-time, but I think many would agree, there are a few negative aspects as well.
I work in a job that allows flex-time, and I'll admit I generally like the flexibility. But, quite frankly, I'm one of those people that needs either the stress of a deadline or to be forced to sit in front of my terminal to feel very motivated. Usually then I feel very motivated, so I get a lot done, however.
One thing that working a job with regular hours (which were still semi-flexible, but much more rigid than I have now) was that I got a tremendous amount done. I still make all my deadlines (or at least most of them), but before I'd hit my deadlines early and with flying colours... That's one thing I miss about my old job, the attention one tends to recieve when one does an excellent, as opposed to just a good, job.
Now I find myslef trying to make appointments with co-workers, etc. just to ensure that I go into the office regularly. I swear I'm ready to block Slashdot from my web browser so that I stay on task when I'm there.
In short, flex-time only works if you're not a brutal procrastinator, which I am. I think that a system that expects fairly regular hours, but is willing to give a little (or a lot sometimes) is a much better alternative for some of us.
I agree. One place that computers still haven't surpassed humans is dealing with complex scenarios with insufficient information. Putting IFF on everything in sight may seem reasonable at first, but then someone might jam them. Put in swanky image recognition software, and the enemy repaints their planes to look like your allies... and so on.
Basically, any method you use to try and ensure no screw-ups occur can be broken by the enemy.. Find me a computer that can deal with situations as complex as identifying friend vs. foe in a heated battle situation - with very little time, and when the enemy is actively trying to decieve it, and I'll show you a human brain.
Perhaps a computer like this lies somewhere in the future.. I hope so, quite frankly. But I firmly believe that until then, humans are the best thing we have - by a long shot.
One other thing, regarding the ethical situation. Sure, there are losses to friendly fire in every war - these are likely inevitable. But risking large amounts of human life based on some new program or machine is potentially very stupid, given just how well tested the human being is in combat.. a very safe bet over the latest technological development.
Actually, because of the large number of confounding factors involved, even concluding that there hasn't been an increase in actual violence due to the increase in media violence would be premature. There might have been an increase that was overshadowed by some other effect.
However, I still think that the correllation he has pointed out here is useful. While correllation doesn't equal causation, it can provide a very useful starting point for future research. Second, it shows that Bush etc have no statistical reason to even posit that the media is to blame.
So what you're saying here is that the US has too many "bad people"?
I don't know about you, but I figure that "bad people" are a hell of a lot more dangerous when they're packing heat...
Damn - that really is paranoid. Is it really a concern that water services are likely to go? Badly enough that the toilets won't work anymore?
What an unbelievable waste of time and money. But what can you do...