All that remains are the employees who either lack the confidence in their skills to feel that they are employable elsewhere... or those employees who lack the skills.
While I can certainly see how the first one would happen, if one actually lacks the skills to do their job, then shouldn't they have been fired already? Not being productive enough *is* a reason to let someone go.
And this is what Logic 101 would call a non sequitur.
the more that company cares about having a professional appearance,
Yes.
and less about professional performance.
No.
They are not mutually exclusive.
The institution I've been with the strictest dress code was the private school I went to - it also had near top national academic performance. The principle was not that people were required to waste time worrying about what they wore, but that people didn't worry about what they wore, as everyone was wearing the same thing: a well-fitting, comfortable, smart uniform.
well of course they are mutually exclusive. "Your rating here will depend 100% on your performance" "Also 100% on your professional clothing". If A + B =100%, yes they are mutually exclusive.
The company should fork over some money if the workers have to invest in an entirely new wardrobe.
that's kind of the point. consider: everybody owns a few pairs of jeans. they are affordable, durable, comfortable, and go in the washing machine without problem. they are widely accepted in public places today, and, finally, they are cut so that most people look reasonably good in them.
therefore, obviously, you are not allowed to wear them in the workplace.
Psychology -- the theory being that putting on work clothes puts you into a different frame of mind which is conducive towards work.
Frankly, I think it's BS, but that's the real answer. The HR droids believe (and lots of psychological experiments show) that when people put on certain clothes - especially uniforms - they tend to change their behaviors and thought processes. People who wear their pajamas all day tend to be calmer and lazier. Those who wear suits and ties tend to be more active. Women especially change their emotional states and attitudes in response to what they're wearing.
The reason I call BS is because regardless of whatever lab experiments show, no one knows how specific individuals will respond to such changes - especially in a place where the work is a CREATIVE work. I would think creative minds should be allowed to wear whatever clothing makes them most comfortable so that their minds are free to relax and imagine creative solutions.
Having worked at a business casual call center with casual day Fridays (and even casual weeks at times), I can say that the jeans actually improved the workplace. We were on phones all day talking to irate customers. Anything that helped us relax was helpful to everyone.
I hate business attire. I'd wear t-shirts, jean shorts, and sandals every day of my life if I could... heck, maybe gym shorts if they didn't look horrendous.
Companies that don't have customer-facing personal contact should drop the BS. Clothing rules should reflect workplace safety and avoid offensive content -- and maybe also reduce distractions for other workers.... but, I say some distractions at work are healthy.
office workers need to wear suits, because they are impotent and should dress important.
Well - if you start to push dress code at a work place it's a sure sign of that work place going down. There are more important issues to take care of for HP. And IBM also have serious problems.
At least as long as you dress reasonably well I don't see a problem.
dress code:
1) if you're working with something hot that spatters like a welder or a frying pan, you need to wear clothes.
2) that's all i got
Seriously, Political Correctness is fine and cute, but when it gets to getting shit done, it's time to stop the silly games and concentrate on what really matters.
PC always had a "you're screwed if you don't toe the line" attitude.
It was never fine and cute. It has always been about social control.
You guys are aware we're talking about business dress codes, right? "T-shirts, baseball caps, short skirts, low cut dresses and sportswear all being banned."
"Because infotainment systems processed DAB data to display text and pictures on car dashboard screens, he said, an attacker could send code that would let them take over the system.
Once an infotainment system had been compromised, he said, an attacker could potentially use it as a way to control more critical systems, including steering and braking."
Well, yeah.
Normally it's not that easy. Sure, the car stereo sits on a can bus with nice information (ACC, backing signals to turn on the back camera, speed information so the volume can be automatically adjusted, etc). But it's not on the vital CAN bus (at least not on most cars).
But yes, it's an entrance point. So is the 3g/wifi receiver in the stereo, or the bluetooth connection to the handsfree that it can do.
But you would have to:
1. crack an entrance point to the stereo (any of the above)
2. control the stereo CAN transmitter (if it has one)
3. using that CAN to crack an entrance point to another system that talks to a vital CAN bus
4. control that system enough to transmit CAN on the vital bus
5. and then use this system to send bad messages to brakes or steering
and all cars use different firmware with different security holes and different CPUs.
But with enough research you could probably crack a specific vulnerable car model.
Cracking modern airplanes seems easier, actually.
That settles it then, I am not going to root my Range Rover.
So we have the Globe and Mail along with the UN and Stats Canada up against the NYT and the "Bee Informed Partnership". Meaning the old "consider the source" adage isn't really up to the challenge....
Well, geez; if you want them to stop dying stop sticking them with a sharp spike!!! idiots!
Prophets use the same technique. Say something sufficiently vague, find a sufficiently credible audience, and all of a sudden you can't help but be right.
The Chinese concept of chi doesn't really match mitochondria very well. Except in very specific cases, mitochondria don't flow anywhere, and they aren't energy. The energy that does flow is in the form of glucose in the blood, and you can't change it much, nor the functioning of the mitochondria, by traditional methods of affecting chi.
Sure you can do such a study. You have a bunch of people using chemo, and you select half randomly to be prayed for. It's been done, and the results seem to be that prayer doesn't help (however, telling a patient people are praying for him or her can have an adverse result). If the prayed-for people did significantly better on their chemo, it would be evidence that praying for someone helps them get better.
FWIW, I don't regard this as evidence against any helpful effects of prayer, since the protocols that I glanced at seemed to be pretty cold-hearted in effect. I don't think the experiments should affect one's estimation of whether prayer works in any way.
To be complete you should also have a group where somebody is diligently praying for them to get sicker.
The research showed that applying electroacupuncture
The Chinese did not have electricity nor does anyone claiming to be an acupuncturist use electricity.
Back then they had to use Steamacupuncture.
Try again.
What is it with the idiots who say "SJW" like it's some massive conspiracy or even an insult. Social justice is a good thing, anyone who disagrees has some seriously messed up world views; so fighting for social justice should also be good. The fight over SJW is like that with Gamergate, part of a confusing set of code words that makes sure the outside world will have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Nihilistic contrarianism is always an easy pose for the know nothing do nothing don't bother me folks.
I think the article stands on its own as an attempt to show how (insert favorite "oppressed" group) was relevant in major events in history. You can hardly sit through a history course anymore without a somewhat distracting aside explaining that soandso was gay, and/or possibly a woman, or had some mixed heritage etc. While simultaneously trying to explain that history is about critical thinking, and distracting that critical thinking with irrelevant asides, a mixed message is sent.
There's no reason a woman could not have been a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but as it happens, a woman wasn't. Irrelevant housewives in a failed company don't really figure in. The article even points out that there were quite a few attempts at a PC back then, most of which failed when the IBM PC manifested. Even Apple almost did not survive it. I would argue, additionally, that even Apple had next to 0 influence on the PC market, except perhaps in encouraging Windows to exist before it was ready (but ultimately sealing Apple's fate as an also-ran in the PC market). Even very significant companies were destroyed that really did define direction at the time: Sun? SGI? Ironically even IBM is not in the business anymore, and it's big iron division is facing a lot of challenges from what IBM itself created. These were all the significant bits of computer history.
Talking about two housewives in a company that failed before it started is a feel-good story at best, a lame attempt at social justice at worst.
Apple was IBM's R&D department. Just as today they are Android's R&D.
Then again it seems to be a lot older. From the era of the Altair 8800 so its little wonder I never heard about it.
Now I understand why most Americans can't come to grips with their slavery heritage. All they know is what they read on the internet.
Oh please. That's so untrue. In fact, most of us are completely oblivious to what's on the Internet (which is actually pretty comprehensive on a lot of subjects) except for what we see on Twitter, or maybe Facebook.
"Bob Harp's memory board worked well, and he recognized that it could serve as a lucrative commercial product. Lacking the time and resources to commercialize it, he put it on the back burner for almost a year. But in 1976, when his wife and Ely were trying to hatch a business, he offered his Altair memory board as a potential product.
As exciting as the opportunity sounded to Lore, computers represented completely foreign territory for both her and Ely (and, for that matter, nearly everyone else on the planet in 1976). Lore recalls: "I called my friend and I said, 'Carole, what do you think about starting a computer company? I have this little 8K RAM board.' She said, 'What’s a RAM board?'""
It get's much, much worse:
"With a good technical underpinning and a focus on style and aesthetics, they knew their boards could stand ahead of the pack. The pair even went so far as to seek out specifically-hued capacitors that would not clash with the other components on their circuit boards. "I don’t know what people thought of us: two females looking for colored capacitors," Ely told InfoWorld in 1982. "But we were interested in what colors went into our boards." "
All in all, it's more of a confirmation of traditional gender roles than it is of breaking through them. Bonus classic permeating theme: gloryless underappreciated innovative techies versus fairly run-of-the-mill wildly successful sales people (yes, I'm biased).
"Those red red orange stripes on those resistors are really garish Let's replace them with resistors with blue white gray stripes."
I know a few people with the technical know-how to pull this kind of thing off, and then completely fuck it up when it came to common sense stuff.
I'm thinking of one person in particular who wanted to steal a companies data and try to sell it to another company for a few thousand dollars. He seemed pretty sure that the "I didn't steal the data, I generated the same data independently" defense would be unimpeachable. He seemed to confuse the notion of "proving something with certainty" with "proving something beyond a *reasonable* doubt to 12 jurors or "proving something by preponderance of the evidence to a judge".
Slashdot Mirror
While I can certainly see how the first one would happen, if one actually lacks the skills to do their job, then shouldn't they have been fired already? Not being productive enough *is* a reason to let someone go.
But they are sharp dressers.
Well, first they've got to get the ants dressing a bit smarter, then they might perform...
we've got pants on our ants.
What purpose does dressing uncomfortably serve?
The MBA morons that judge based on clothes and not substance of ideas are what needs to go.
business casual was the major and attitude of the guys snoozing at the back of the class freshman year.
And this is what Logic 101 would call a non sequitur.
the more that company cares about having a professional appearance,
Yes.
and less about professional performance.
No.
They are not mutually exclusive.
The institution I've been with the strictest dress code was the private school I went to - it also had near top national academic performance. The principle was not that people were required to waste time worrying about what they wore, but that people didn't worry about what they wore, as everyone was wearing the same thing: a well-fitting, comfortable, smart uniform.
well of course they are mutually exclusive. "Your rating here will depend 100% on your performance" "Also 100% on your professional clothing". If A + B =100%, yes they are mutually exclusive.
The company should fork over some money if the workers have to invest in an entirely new wardrobe.
that's kind of the point. consider: everybody owns a few pairs of jeans. they are affordable, durable, comfortable, and go in the washing machine without problem. they are widely accepted in public places today, and, finally, they are cut so that most people look reasonably good in them.
therefore, obviously, you are not allowed to wear them in the workplace.
Business casual doesn't even require suits. A shirt or even a polo shirt is fine. All it requires is basically that you don't look like a hobo.
It's a good idea, because it clues the employees in that whatever the hell they are being paid for and rated on, their actual work is not it.
Psychology -- the theory being that putting on work clothes puts you into a different frame of mind which is conducive towards work.
Frankly, I think it's BS, but that's the real answer. The HR droids believe (and lots of psychological experiments show) that when people put on certain clothes - especially uniforms - they tend to change their behaviors and thought processes. People who wear their pajamas all day tend to be calmer and lazier. Those who wear suits and ties tend to be more active. Women especially change their emotional states and attitudes in response to what they're wearing.
The reason I call BS is because regardless of whatever lab experiments show, no one knows how specific individuals will respond to such changes - especially in a place where the work is a CREATIVE work. I would think creative minds should be allowed to wear whatever clothing makes them most comfortable so that their minds are free to relax and imagine creative solutions.
Having worked at a business casual call center with casual day Fridays (and even casual weeks at times), I can say that the jeans actually improved the workplace. We were on phones all day talking to irate customers. Anything that helped us relax was helpful to everyone.
I hate business attire. I'd wear t-shirts, jean shorts, and sandals every day of my life if I could... heck, maybe gym shorts if they didn't look horrendous.
Companies that don't have customer-facing personal contact should drop the BS. Clothing rules should reflect workplace safety and avoid offensive content -- and maybe also reduce distractions for other workers.... but, I say some distractions at work are healthy.
office workers need to wear suits, because they are impotent and should dress important.
Well - if you start to push dress code at a work place it's a sure sign of that work place going down. There are more important issues to take care of for HP. And IBM also have serious problems.
At least as long as you dress reasonably well I don't see a problem.
dress code:
1) if you're working with something hot that spatters like a welder or a frying pan, you need to wear clothes.
2) that's all i got
Seriously, Political Correctness is fine and cute, but when it gets to getting shit done, it's time to stop the silly games and concentrate on what really matters.
PC always had a "you're screwed if you don't toe the line" attitude. It was never fine and cute. It has always been about social control.
You guys are aware we're talking about business dress codes, right? "T-shirts, baseball caps, short skirts, low cut dresses and sportswear all being banned."
"Because infotainment systems processed DAB data to display text and pictures on car dashboard screens, he said, an attacker could send code that would let them take over the system.
Once an infotainment system had been compromised, he said, an attacker could potentially use it as a way to control more critical systems, including steering and braking."
Well, yeah.
Normally it's not that easy. Sure, the car stereo sits on a can bus with nice information (ACC, backing signals to turn on the back camera, speed information so the volume can be automatically adjusted, etc). But it's not on the vital CAN bus (at least not on most cars).
But yes, it's an entrance point. So is the 3g/wifi receiver in the stereo, or the bluetooth connection to the handsfree that it can do.
But you would have to:
1. crack an entrance point to the stereo (any of the above) 2. control the stereo CAN transmitter (if it has one) 3. using that CAN to crack an entrance point to another system that talks to a vital CAN bus 4. control that system enough to transmit CAN on the vital bus 5. and then use this system to send bad messages to brakes or steering
and all cars use different firmware with different security holes and different CPUs. But with enough research you could probably crack a specific vulnerable car model.
Cracking modern airplanes seems easier, actually.
That settles it then, I am not going to root my Range Rover.
when the radio station plays thrash metal, the cars all speed up; when it plays a ballad they all slow down. everybody knows that.
The New York Times told me that a A Sharp Spike in Honeybee Deaths Deepens a Worrisome Trend only two months ago.
So we have the Globe and Mail along with the UN and Stats Canada up against the NYT and the "Bee Informed Partnership". Meaning the old "consider the source" adage isn't really up to the challenge....
Well, geez; if you want them to stop dying stop sticking them with a sharp spike!!! idiots!
I keep trying to forget this whole midichlorian thing, so I can go back to enjoying Star Wars, but people keep reminding me.
How many mitochondria could a midichlorian chlorinate if a midichlorian could chlorinate mitochondria?
Prophets use the same technique. Say something sufficiently vague, find a sufficiently credible audience, and all of a sudden you can't help but be right.
The Chinese concept of chi doesn't really match mitochondria very well. Except in very specific cases, mitochondria don't flow anywhere, and they aren't energy. The energy that does flow is in the form of glucose in the blood, and you can't change it much, nor the functioning of the mitochondria, by traditional methods of affecting chi.
Or Midi-chlorians
Sure you can do such a study. You have a bunch of people using chemo, and you select half randomly to be prayed for. It's been done, and the results seem to be that prayer doesn't help (however, telling a patient people are praying for him or her can have an adverse result). If the prayed-for people did significantly better on their chemo, it would be evidence that praying for someone helps them get better.
FWIW, I don't regard this as evidence against any helpful effects of prayer, since the protocols that I glanced at seemed to be pretty cold-hearted in effect. I don't think the experiments should affect one's estimation of whether prayer works in any way.
To be complete you should also have a group where somebody is diligently praying for them to get sicker.
Lighting some dried up weed on fire doesn't make electricity. Perhaps you should be a little more cautious with your last sentence?
Insert medical marijuana humorous reference here.
nerve connections use electricity. Acupuncture is the application of a needle into the nerve/bundle to interrupt or divert that impulse.
It's The Matrix!!!
The research showed that applying electroacupuncture The Chinese did not have electricity nor does anyone claiming to be an acupuncturist use electricity. Back then they had to use Steamacupuncture. Try again.
What is it with the idiots who say "SJW" like it's some massive conspiracy or even an insult. Social justice is a good thing, anyone who disagrees has some seriously messed up world views; so fighting for social justice should also be good. The fight over SJW is like that with Gamergate, part of a confusing set of code words that makes sure the outside world will have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Nihilistic contrarianism is always an easy pose for the know nothing do nothing don't bother me folks.
I think the article stands on its own as an attempt to show how (insert favorite "oppressed" group) was relevant in major events in history. You can hardly sit through a history course anymore without a somewhat distracting aside explaining that soandso was gay, and/or possibly a woman, or had some mixed heritage etc. While simultaneously trying to explain that history is about critical thinking, and distracting that critical thinking with irrelevant asides, a mixed message is sent.
There's no reason a woman could not have been a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but as it happens, a woman wasn't. Irrelevant housewives in a failed company don't really figure in. The article even points out that there were quite a few attempts at a PC back then, most of which failed when the IBM PC manifested. Even Apple almost did not survive it. I would argue, additionally, that even Apple had next to 0 influence on the PC market, except perhaps in encouraging Windows to exist before it was ready (but ultimately sealing Apple's fate as an also-ran in the PC market). Even very significant companies were destroyed that really did define direction at the time: Sun? SGI? Ironically even IBM is not in the business anymore, and it's big iron division is facing a lot of challenges from what IBM itself created. These were all the significant bits of computer history.
Talking about two housewives in a company that failed before it started is a feel-good story at best, a lame attempt at social justice at worst.
Apple was IBM's R&D department. Just as today they are Android's R&D.
Then again it seems to be a lot older. From the era of the Altair 8800 so its little wonder I never heard about it.
Now I understand why most Americans can't come to grips with their slavery heritage. All they know is what they read on the internet.
Oh please. That's so untrue. In fact, most of us are completely oblivious to what's on the Internet (which is actually pretty comprehensive on a lot of subjects) except for what we see on Twitter, or maybe Facebook.
Ouch.
"Bob Harp's memory board worked well, and he recognized that it could serve as a lucrative commercial product. Lacking the time and resources to commercialize it, he put it on the back burner for almost a year. But in 1976, when his wife and Ely were trying to hatch a business, he offered his Altair memory board as a potential product.
As exciting as the opportunity sounded to Lore, computers represented completely foreign territory for both her and Ely (and, for that matter, nearly everyone else on the planet in 1976). Lore recalls: "I called my friend and I said, 'Carole, what do you think about starting a computer company? I have this little 8K RAM board.' She said, 'What’s a RAM board?'""
It get's much, much worse:
"With a good technical underpinning and a focus on style and aesthetics, they knew their boards could stand ahead of the pack. The pair even went so far as to seek out specifically-hued capacitors that would not clash with the other components on their circuit boards. "I don’t know what people thought of us: two females looking for colored capacitors," Ely told InfoWorld in 1982. "But we were interested in what colors went into our boards." "
All in all, it's more of a confirmation of traditional gender roles than it is of breaking through them. Bonus classic permeating theme: gloryless underappreciated innovative techies versus fairly run-of-the-mill wildly successful sales people (yes, I'm biased).
"Those red red orange stripes on those resistors are really garish Let's replace them with resistors with blue white gray stripes."
I have had enough of this shit. Time to leave.
Suburban Jewish Wives? "Why Mrs. Moskovitz, I do believe you're trying to seduce me".
Isn't this the story arc for season two of Halt and Catch Fire?
I know a few people with the technical know-how to pull this kind of thing off, and then completely fuck it up when it came to common sense stuff.
I'm thinking of one person in particular who wanted to steal a companies data and try to sell it to another company for a few thousand dollars. He seemed pretty sure that the "I didn't steal the data, I generated the same data independently" defense would be unimpeachable. He seemed to confuse the notion of "proving something with certainty" with "proving something beyond a *reasonable* doubt to 12 jurors or "proving something by preponderance of the evidence to a judge".
And without further ado, from the Doofus State, I bring you... http://www.nhregister.com/gene...