I don't think anyone can say they don't depend on oil for something in their life. Sure, there might be someone living in the mountains of Utah or something, but be realistic, we all need oil for something. I'll put my dependencies up against most anyone and bet I win. To say that our hands are just as dirty as BP though is a bit retarded.
I'll take my share of the blame for demand, but as far as taking blame for the means, that's another story. It's not my fault if they opted to use the lowest bidder to increase profit margins. It's not my fault they decided to go way off-shore, into an unsafe location, rather than somewhere in the sand. It's not my fault that they had inefficient safety controls and it's not my fault that there are inadequate response measures in place.
By your logic, we're also at fault for every vehicle recall that happens because the robot used by some manufacturer didn't tighten a bolt properly, all because we want a car. Just because I want something, doesn't mean I'm the cause for a breakdown in the process.
BP messed up, and they need to own up to it, plain and simple.
But...we find a message and....what? What do we do then? Compare that with some of the other things you just put; things which have a tangible payoff, perhaps in our lifetimes.
Don't just think about monetary or tangible payoffs. Think about the effect that confirmation of ET life would have on world culture. Think about the effect it would have on religion. If "man" was created in "God's" image, what where they created in? How long have they been around? More than 6,000 years? This could cause some serious issues for a lot of people out there.
That aside, maybe this could be the impetus for us to stop looking at things from a country to country perspective and actually cooperate and accomplish some goals as a species rather than individual societies. I think you've trivialized the impact this could have.
I don't see how the unemployment rate is a big factor in this.
If I can do Job A in Mexico for $.50/hr and Job B in the US for $5/hr, it's a matter of income, not employment. The rate of exchange and pay is so drastic that it's worth doing menial jobs in the US for what we consider low payment and sending the money back.
Not quite.
The auto industry was bailed out because of the massive amounts of people it employed that would have lost their jobs. The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe didn't have alternatives to go to for credit.
With Google, businesses could easily redirect their advertising revenue somewhere else. People could search with someone else. Email is everywhere. Google is massively convenient, but it's not a cornerstone of our economy.
While I agree with the statements made for the most part so far, one does have to be very careful during the selection process.
While a youth may not be entitled to a job (have a right) that doesn't mean they don't deserve fair consideration and it certainly doesn't mean they can't be discriminated against based on their age.
It is best practice to hire the better qualified person, and if that person happens to be the one with more experience, you're good. Hiring someone with "more experience" over someone equally qualified to do the job could cause some issues.
Here's my theory, and I base it on many, many trial runs using myself as the test subject.
While smoking week can reduce mental capacity of a person, ti also allows increased focus on something. Usually, during our normal day to day lives, even when we're 'focusing' on something, we're much more aware of what is going on around us and our attention is split. When someone tokes up, the awareness of everything else around may decrease, but the ability to focus on one thing greatly increases, kinda like a total immersion into that thing.
So when I've gamed high, I've been completely involved in the game, more so that I would have been sober.
"they" are thieves who are out to con you out of your hard earned money, no better than someone who "seals" your driveway with black paint, or a "drug dealer" who sells oregano....
If they were truly buisinesspeople they would make the best product possible and sell it on their merits, like businesspeople used to do.
And what merits would these be? The cast? The producer? Critic reviews? Name me 5 critics whose opinion you trust.
I can remember a revolutionary movie a few years back that I would have laughed at and never seen... "Starring Lawrence Fishburn, Keanu Reeves and one of the old Power Rangers..." That movie turned out to be the Matrix, and it's because of the advertising that I saw it.
Bottom line, as a consumer, it's your job to research the product you want to purchase. If your research is their advertising, then suck it up and deal with the crappy movie. You've just behaved exactly how they wanted you too. There are more than enough places around to get a good idea of what the movie will be like before going to see it.
If you don't ask/look at what they're putting on your driveway or can't tell the difference between a bag of KB and oregano... I've got some great swampland in Florida you've got to see...
Don't twist things here. If you read my post properly, I said, "If you don't have GOOD sales reps and marketing people to push your product..." I never inferred anything about the size of the department correlating to its effectiveness.
While they may not have a marketing department, they certainly have a marketing strategy, it just happens to rely on free participation from non-employees via word of mouth.
Also, don't confuse marketing with sales. Marketing, among many other things, creates a brand awareness while sales, sells. They may rely on word of mouth for brand awareness, but they still sell. It makes sense that they don't have a large sales staff given that they don't have a large list of customers either.
No. They're scum for selling the products I make to the wrong people to solve the wrong problems.
I would add a third possibility as to why the company failed. The product didn't provide the functionality the company intended to deliver to their targeted market.
Regarding the issue of the company not having a policy to deduct returns, that's something that is relatively easy to fix. Delivering an end product that poses no value to the end consumer is quite another. If the product added value to a market, the sales reps would have figured out that niche and increased sales to that niche.
If the product has no value to offer, who are they supposed to sell too? If there is no place for the product, everyone they sell to is going to be the wrong people with the wrong problem.
I love how people feel that because I created a well constructed (and I use that loosely) product, it will sell itself. You may have coded the best code in the world for the worlds worst product and it's not going to sell jack. There is a possibility, a very real possibility, that the product you created sucks and that's why your company went out of business.
It doesn't matter how good, useful or unique your product is, if you don't have good sales reps and marketing people to push your product, it's no more than a glorified paperweight.
"Making a good product that people want and enjoy is what keeps my job around." This is only true as long as your product is selling. Who do you think it is creating that sense of "want"? It's not you.
I'm not trying to defend whether the tactics used when selling are morally ethical or not, but the fact of the matter is they generate your company's income.
I would also argue that if a sales rep can break your product, that's a crappy design and poor quality. The only thing a sales rep should be able to break, by pushing your product into a place it doesn't belong, is the process at the purchasing company.
So they're scum for selling the products you created? That's what keeps your job around. You can call them scum all you want, but they're the ones earning the money to write your paycheck.
I fail to see why advancement has to be in a technical related field for these kinds of positions and there should therefore be a glass ceiling. There are many different, non-technical, positions a marketer or salesman can advance too within a technical company without needed to be technical. If you think a good marketer is only good at "schmoozing" you're sorely mistaken or have never meet a good marketer. There is a lot of needed knowledge and skill for those kinds of positions.
The quote about, "It's not a skill that makes one an effective manager" is irrelevant in your argument. Does being a good developer or system administrator make you a good manager? No. That could be said of anything.
While I agree that by-in-large sales reps are not properly knowledgeable about the products they sell, that shouldn't prevent those who are and are good at what they do from advancing through the company rather than just getting a raise.
If you can get 50 million Americans to rally behind a single cause with $100-$500, you sir could either A) Take the $5-25 billion and start your own company or buy several countries; B) Rig the next election (only 62 million people voted) or C) All of the above.
The fact of the matter is that it would be easier to get a job and work your way up corporate ladder than to for the average Joe to buy shares and change the system. Aside from the cost it would take just in logistics for that individual, or coordinating group, once there, they're still going to be faced with other million/billionaires with controlling stake in the company. Aside from that, if the company has any brains at all, they'll own a majority share of the stock so even if you do convince all the other stockholders to see your point of view, they can still follow their own interests.
I would propose rather, that if you want to change a company, either start a competitor, become employed at the company, file a valid lawsuit or take your business elsewhere.
I don't think it's at all like the street corner with the counterfeit goods. In your analogy, you would be holding whomever is the owner of said street corner, presumably the local government, responsible for the sale of the counterfeit goods. They provided the corner for the crooks to sell on.
If this holds, I would predict that ebay will start implementing some kind of authenticity verification process at a charge to the consumer, driving up the cost of doing business on ebay. That or they will seek some kind of compensation from sellers to compensate for these kinds of lawsuits.
Unfortunately the idea of paying the same rate for goods and services doesn't work in a world with varying economies. What you run into with that is the increase of money paid to those companies or individuals creates inflation or even hyperinflation that will cause more harm to the economy than good.
While I agree it would be great to be able to impose similar work ethics and standards on other economies, it's something they need to work out for themselves in a manner that works to fit their economy. We can certainly try to help them along though.
The first goal of American government is to protect the profitability of domestic and foreign businesses, and all these laws are standing in the way of this.
I would argue that the first goal would not include the profitability of foreign businesses.
As a side note, while it's true that child labor laws, worker safety laws etc. drive up the cost of labor, those are a derivative previous costs in the form or lawsuits. You could remove them and drive down the cost of labor, but as soon as you do, some schmuck is going to sue someone for an unfit work environment and just drive the cost of doing business up again.
It's not just about the vacation or the inability to use modern technology to achieve the same end result, but also the culture of the other parties. There are many places where you have to establish a personal relationship and a feeling of trust before you can even begin business negotiations. That you can't do over email.
That aside, while you can communicate outside of a physical presence, being there and working with the actual people still tends to prove more efficient. This statement comes from personal experience managing projects for a national company with multiple offices. If I have 4 people on my team, one in each timezone, the team is much more efficient if we all get together in one spot and just do what needs to be done.
While I'm not going to debate what constitutes a good CEO or a crappy one, I will add this thought to the discussion. A person is not born a natural CEO. There is a lot of hard work, successes and failures that go into becoming a good leader and someone who has the ability to lead or turn around a company. It's a completely different ball game when you decisions impact the entire future of a company than whether or not a button is working. Buttons can be fixed, a downward spiral is a hard thing to come out of.
You're not just paying for their guidance now, but all of what it took them to get there and become the seasoned leader they are.
That's not to say that there aren't the exceptions where people are given their positions, but for a good percentage, I would imagine this would apply.
So I've read through many of the comments and have a few thoughts regarding them. My background comes from being a BA transitioning into a PM. I also have the PMI certification.
1) While delegating out tasks and keeping track of time and budget are part of what a PM does, it's been my experience that the above is the minimum for a good PM. I've found that companies value not only someone who is going to manage the tasks, but also work with the business to help finalize the definition of the project and realize all the various business scenarios they will face before the project ever starts. This helps prevent scope creep and gives the architect a clearer picture of what is wanted. From my experience, I've never managed a project solely on tasks alone. If I don't understand the entire business aspect, I don't do the project.
2) There is certainly a need for a PM and a Technical Architect. The distinction I've experienced is as a PM, it is my job to define how the system should work from an operational perspective and outline all business rules. It is the architect's responsibility to design the systems in a manner that will be reliable to meet the above directives.
3) Waterfall vs. Iterative Development. My personal thoughts on this, and this is up for interpretation by anyone, is that the best method is a hybrid of the two. There's no reason I can't go through an intensive definition and design exercise prior to starting the project and outline all the business rules/operations. However, a good PM knows how to manage the business' (read executives) expectations on when the project will be completed. Always build in a buffer. Once the Project Plan is complete, iterative development can begin, working on chunks of functionality broken down into short term goals.
4) Good PMs should be honest and stick up for the technical team as much as the business. They should know when to push back on which side.
Also keep in mind that the launch pads are all right next to the ocean, and are constantly hit with changing winds, high humidity and the salty air. There is also the love bug issue in FL whereby little bugs easily get trapped inside concrete mixtures. Once dried and they die, the insides release an acid that eats at cement as well as leaves an open area. Combine all that with the temperature changes, pressure changes and vibrations and it's amazing the launch pads have lasted this long.
This is an entirely different discussion, but I would fully support the idea of applying to have children. Ever see the movie Idiocracy?
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and your theory that our main purpose in life is to procreate could be argued on many levels.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a mighty tall horse you're riding there...
I don't think anyone can say they don't depend on oil for something in their life. Sure, there might be someone living in the mountains of Utah or something, but be realistic, we all need oil for something. I'll put my dependencies up against most anyone and bet I win. To say that our hands are just as dirty as BP though is a bit retarded.
I'll take my share of the blame for demand, but as far as taking blame for the means, that's another story. It's not my fault if they opted to use the lowest bidder to increase profit margins. It's not my fault they decided to go way off-shore, into an unsafe location, rather than somewhere in the sand. It's not my fault that they had inefficient safety controls and it's not my fault that there are inadequate response measures in place.
By your logic, we're also at fault for every vehicle recall that happens because the robot used by some manufacturer didn't tighten a bolt properly, all because we want a car. Just because I want something, doesn't mean I'm the cause for a breakdown in the process.
BP messed up, and they need to own up to it, plain and simple.
But...we find a message and....what? What do we do then? Compare that with some of the other things you just put; things which have a tangible payoff, perhaps in our lifetimes.
Don't just think about monetary or tangible payoffs. Think about the effect that confirmation of ET life would have on world culture. Think about the effect it would have on religion. If "man" was created in "God's" image, what where they created in? How long have they been around? More than 6,000 years? This could cause some serious issues for a lot of people out there.
That aside, maybe this could be the impetus for us to stop looking at things from a country to country perspective and actually cooperate and accomplish some goals as a species rather than individual societies. I think you've trivialized the impact this could have.
+5 Truth
By in large, I doubt they live alone, rather they share the burden. Also, $5/hr isn't unreasonable...
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersdfe9
I don't see how the unemployment rate is a big factor in this.
If I can do Job A in Mexico for $.50/hr and Job B in the US for $5/hr, it's a matter of income, not employment. The rate of exchange and pay is so drastic that it's worth doing menial jobs in the US for what we consider low payment and sending the money back.
Not quite. The auto industry was bailed out because of the massive amounts of people it employed that would have lost their jobs. The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe didn't have alternatives to go to for credit. With Google, businesses could easily redirect their advertising revenue somewhere else. People could search with someone else. Email is everywhere. Google is massively convenient, but it's not a cornerstone of our economy.
dreaming up "news" on their own? somebody get a Predator warmed up, we got a target...
Fox News?
While I agree with the statements made for the most part so far, one does have to be very careful during the selection process.
While a youth may not be entitled to a job (have a right) that doesn't mean they don't deserve fair consideration and it certainly doesn't mean they can't be discriminated against based on their age.
It is best practice to hire the better qualified person, and if that person happens to be the one with more experience, you're good. Hiring someone with "more experience" over someone equally qualified to do the job could cause some issues.
Here's my theory, and I base it on many, many trial runs using myself as the test subject.
While smoking week can reduce mental capacity of a person, ti also allows increased focus on something. Usually, during our normal day to day lives, even when we're 'focusing' on something, we're much more aware of what is going on around us and our attention is split. When someone tokes up, the awareness of everything else around may decrease, but the ability to focus on one thing greatly increases, kinda like a total immersion into that thing.
So when I've gamed high, I've been completely involved in the game, more so that I would have been sober.
My $.02
"they" are thieves who are out to con you out of your hard earned money, no better than someone who "seals" your driveway with black paint, or a "drug dealer" who sells oregano....
If they were truly buisinesspeople they would make the best product possible and sell it on their merits, like businesspeople used to do.
And what merits would these be? The cast? The producer? Critic reviews? Name me 5 critics whose opinion you trust.
I can remember a revolutionary movie a few years back that I would have laughed at and never seen... "Starring Lawrence Fishburn, Keanu Reeves and one of the old Power Rangers..." That movie turned out to be the Matrix, and it's because of the advertising that I saw it.
Bottom line, as a consumer, it's your job to research the product you want to purchase. If your research is their advertising, then suck it up and deal with the crappy movie. You've just behaved exactly how they wanted you too. There are more than enough places around to get a good idea of what the movie will be like before going to see it.
If you don't ask/look at what they're putting on your driveway or can't tell the difference between a bag of KB and oregano... I've got some great swampland in Florida you've got to see...
Don't twist things here. If you read my post properly, I said, "If you don't have GOOD sales reps and marketing people to push your product..." I never inferred anything about the size of the department correlating to its effectiveness.
While they may not have a marketing department, they certainly have a marketing strategy, it just happens to rely on free participation from non-employees via word of mouth.
Also, don't confuse marketing with sales. Marketing, among many other things, creates a brand awareness while sales, sells. They may rely on word of mouth for brand awareness, but they still sell. It makes sense that they don't have a large sales staff given that they don't have a large list of customers either.
No. They're scum for selling the products I make to the wrong people to solve the wrong problems.
I would add a third possibility as to why the company failed. The product didn't provide the functionality the company intended to deliver to their targeted market.
Regarding the issue of the company not having a policy to deduct returns, that's something that is relatively easy to fix. Delivering an end product that poses no value to the end consumer is quite another. If the product added value to a market, the sales reps would have figured out that niche and increased sales to that niche.
If the product has no value to offer, who are they supposed to sell too? If there is no place for the product, everyone they sell to is going to be the wrong people with the wrong problem.
I love how people feel that because I created a well constructed (and I use that loosely) product, it will sell itself. You may have coded the best code in the world for the worlds worst product and it's not going to sell jack. There is a possibility, a very real possibility, that the product you created sucks and that's why your company went out of business.
Fail...
It doesn't matter how good, useful or unique your product is, if you don't have good sales reps and marketing people to push your product, it's no more than a glorified paperweight.
"Making a good product that people want and enjoy is what keeps my job around." This is only true as long as your product is selling. Who do you think it is creating that sense of "want"? It's not you.
I'm not trying to defend whether the tactics used when selling are morally ethical or not, but the fact of the matter is they generate your company's income.
I would also argue that if a sales rep can break your product, that's a crappy design and poor quality. The only thing a sales rep should be able to break, by pushing your product into a place it doesn't belong, is the process at the purchasing company.
So they're scum for selling the products you created? That's what keeps your job around. You can call them scum all you want, but they're the ones earning the money to write your paycheck.
I fail to see why advancement has to be in a technical related field for these kinds of positions and there should therefore be a glass ceiling. There are many different, non-technical, positions a marketer or salesman can advance too within a technical company without needed to be technical. If you think a good marketer is only good at "schmoozing" you're sorely mistaken or have never meet a good marketer. There is a lot of needed knowledge and skill for those kinds of positions.
The quote about, "It's not a skill that makes one an effective manager" is irrelevant in your argument. Does being a good developer or system administrator make you a good manager? No. That could be said of anything.
While I agree that by-in-large sales reps are not properly knowledgeable about the products they sell, that shouldn't prevent those who are and are good at what they do from advancing through the company rather than just getting a raise.
If you can get 50 million Americans to rally behind a single cause with $100-$500, you sir could either A) Take the $5-25 billion and start your own company or buy several countries; B) Rig the next election (only 62 million people voted) or C) All of the above.
The fact of the matter is that it would be easier to get a job and work your way up corporate ladder than to for the average Joe to buy shares and change the system. Aside from the cost it would take just in logistics for that individual, or coordinating group, once there, they're still going to be faced with other million/billionaires with controlling stake in the company. Aside from that, if the company has any brains at all, they'll own a majority share of the stock so even if you do convince all the other stockholders to see your point of view, they can still follow their own interests.
I would propose rather, that if you want to change a company, either start a competitor, become employed at the company, file a valid lawsuit or take your business elsewhere.
I don't think it's at all like the street corner with the counterfeit goods. In your analogy, you would be holding whomever is the owner of said street corner, presumably the local government, responsible for the sale of the counterfeit goods. They provided the corner for the crooks to sell on .
If this holds, I would predict that ebay will start implementing some kind of authenticity verification process at a charge to the consumer, driving up the cost of doing business on ebay. That or they will seek some kind of compensation from sellers to compensate for these kinds of lawsuits.
Unfortunately the idea of paying the same rate for goods and services doesn't work in a world with varying economies. What you run into with that is the increase of money paid to those companies or individuals creates inflation or even hyperinflation that will cause more harm to the economy than good.
While I agree it would be great to be able to impose similar work ethics and standards on other economies, it's something they need to work out for themselves in a manner that works to fit their economy. We can certainly try to help them along though.
The first goal of American government is to protect the profitability of domestic and foreign businesses, and all these laws are standing in the way of this.
I would argue that the first goal would not include the profitability of foreign businesses.
As a side note, while it's true that child labor laws, worker safety laws etc. drive up the cost of labor, those are a derivative previous costs in the form or lawsuits. You could remove them and drive down the cost of labor, but as soon as you do, some schmuck is going to sue someone for an unfit work environment and just drive the cost of doing business up again.
It's not just about the vacation or the inability to use modern technology to achieve the same end result, but also the culture of the other parties. There are many places where you have to establish a personal relationship and a feeling of trust before you can even begin business negotiations. That you can't do over email.
That aside, while you can communicate outside of a physical presence, being there and working with the actual people still tends to prove more efficient. This statement comes from personal experience managing projects for a national company with multiple offices. If I have 4 people on my team, one in each timezone, the team is much more efficient if we all get together in one spot and just do what needs to be done.
While I'm not going to debate what constitutes a good CEO or a crappy one, I will add this thought to the discussion. A person is not born a natural CEO. There is a lot of hard work, successes and failures that go into becoming a good leader and someone who has the ability to lead or turn around a company. It's a completely different ball game when you decisions impact the entire future of a company than whether or not a button is working. Buttons can be fixed, a downward spiral is a hard thing to come out of.
You're not just paying for their guidance now, but all of what it took them to get there and become the seasoned leader they are.
That's not to say that there aren't the exceptions where people are given their positions, but for a good percentage, I would imagine this would apply.
So I've read through many of the comments and have a few thoughts regarding them. My background comes from being a BA transitioning into a PM. I also have the PMI certification.
1) While delegating out tasks and keeping track of time and budget are part of what a PM does, it's been my experience that the above is the minimum for a good PM. I've found that companies value not only someone who is going to manage the tasks, but also work with the business to help finalize the definition of the project and realize all the various business scenarios they will face before the project ever starts. This helps prevent scope creep and gives the architect a clearer picture of what is wanted. From my experience, I've never managed a project solely on tasks alone. If I don't understand the entire business aspect, I don't do the project.
2) There is certainly a need for a PM and a Technical Architect. The distinction I've experienced is as a PM, it is my job to define how the system should work from an operational perspective and outline all business rules. It is the architect's responsibility to design the systems in a manner that will be reliable to meet the above directives.
3) Waterfall vs. Iterative Development. My personal thoughts on this, and this is up for interpretation by anyone, is that the best method is a hybrid of the two. There's no reason I can't go through an intensive definition and design exercise prior to starting the project and outline all the business rules/operations. However, a good PM knows how to manage the business' (read executives) expectations on when the project will be completed. Always build in a buffer. Once the Project Plan is complete, iterative development can begin, working on chunks of functionality broken down into short term goals.
4) Good PMs should be honest and stick up for the technical team as much as the business. They should know when to push back on which side.
Now open for complaints...
Also keep in mind that the launch pads are all right next to the ocean, and are constantly hit with changing winds, high humidity and the salty air. There is also the love bug issue in FL whereby little bugs easily get trapped inside concrete mixtures. Once dried and they die, the insides release an acid that eats at cement as well as leaves an open area. Combine all that with the temperature changes, pressure changes and vibrations and it's amazing the launch pads have lasted this long.
This is an entirely different discussion, but I would fully support the idea of applying to have children. Ever see the movie Idiocracy?
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and your theory that our main purpose in life is to procreate could be argued on many levels.