So how is it "bad taste" to have a graphic of crosshairs and the name of a person AFTER that person is shot... but not BEFORE that person is shot?
It's not like this is the first time that graphic has been brought up. It was in the news when she posted it. And people were worried that it would lead to violence against the people named on it.
But it was okay then and not after one of the people named on it is shot? That's some pretty flexible "logic" you have there.
It isn't just "crosshairs". People like Palin are continually exhorting their followers to "reload". Her facebook page even has crosshair symbols on a map and the names of politicians who didn't vote the way Palin wanted them to.
If they're allowed "advantages" or whatever, the profits they make have to come from somewhere. I'd rather a system to prevents such and allows more of the profits to go to the smaller investor.
Setting a fixed time moves the goal to whomever can shave their systems closest to that fixed time.
Set a fixed time... plus a random fragment of a second. That way no one knows exactly WHEN the trade will go through. But it's still close enough for humans choosing to trade.
The key here is to reduce the ability of software to "cheat" but still allow humans to trade.
But how many "IT managers" understand that part of their job involves pruning? Killing old systems. Deprecating other systems. Weeding out the "one-offs" that pop up when no one is looking.
The last place I worked has 7 different database servers. Because they were running 7 different database platforms.
Virtualization means that you can reduce the floor space needed. But management also needs to look at reducing the systems needed.
IMO they are, anyone that would run a company into the ground to get a bonus is a moron and any C-level that accepts that behaviour from a subornate is a moron.
Yep. And their opinion is that anyone who works for the wage you do and depends upon THEM not to look out for themselves is a moron.
It's a simple matter of conflicting agendas.
Though I know what you mean, one company I worked for got a new VP who started by cutting the budget by 50% and laying off half the staff.
Yep. And I bet that said VP was making a LOT more than you were. And that was the VP's priority.
Management is often the problem.
The question is whether management's agenda aligns with their actions and conflicts with your agenda or whether they really ARE morons and are hurting themselves as well.
Management can be a problem WITHOUT being morons by being deceptive. See "Enron".
In the most extreme cases, perhaps, but generally what I've run across is the opposite: management doesn't know what they want, they only know that they dont' want what their employees generated.
In many cases, yes. And do not forget that multiple cases can apply to any single situation.
Management also cannot state what they DO want because they're looking beyond that to the new house with a pool that they want with the raise from the promotion they're going to get from the software that they want you to write.
People should not have to resort to 'politically correct' answers because such 'answers' usually aren't answers at all.. they're just shims to get around the critical problem of a boss/coworker who lacks the testicular fortitude to accept reality, whatever that may be.
I prefer the term "magic".
They believe that if they say the right words, the situation will change to become their new house dream.
Techs (the good ones) know that this doesn't happen. Physical laws remain physical laws. System limits remain system limits.
If you perform enough miracles for management, eventually they will believe that they are the ones performing the miracles.
There are a lot of companies that cut IT to the bone with out understanding what exactly was going on or how it would effect the company down the road.
If it's working AND they don't plan to be around for the collapse then they aren't morons.
They are implementing an agenda that you don't agree with. And they have different priorities.
The problem is that their agenda depends upon you attempting to follow your agenda (keep the company running) while they undermine you with their agenda (take as much money out as possible and bail out when it collapses). This is usually maintained via deception and articles about "heretics" and "team players".
I've been that jerk in the past -- the guy that everyone listened to because I was right and came up with really good software, but people hated dealing with me and basically shut up when I was in the room.
Where was your boss during that time? Why wasn't he (she) MANAGING your time and projects and resources?
Hmm, on the other hand, I was asked to do more stuff because people were less afraid of me.
And you're okay with that, right?
Again, where's your boss?
SOMEONE has to be the dick and say "NO" to some requests. Or to demand business justification. And so forth.
There's no reason for you to be the jerk if your boss is correctly fulfilling that role.
From TFA: #1. Smarter than management - how many times do you see this on/. ? Clueless management seems to be the #1 complaint.
#2. Addicted to coke - Seriously, why is this even in the article? Where's the editor?
#3. Undefined "jerk" - Again, where's the editor? Of course every manager would LOVE an employee who's a genius and never questions your decisions and works 120 hours a week fixing your systems because of decisions you made.
The problem is that most managers SUCK at communication.
But they don't know it because they confuse TALKING with COMMUNICATING. In the VP example, why isn't the president of the company (or the other VP's) doing anything about it WHILE IT IS HAPPENING?
The problems that you save them from are the result of decisions made where your advice was not followed, right?
The problem I have with TFA is that if the employees really ARE that smart... how can the average person know that? As opposed to someone who happens to know a bit of trivia?
David Foster, the chief executive of Caveon, said the company had not published its methods because it was too busy serving clients. But the company's chief statistician is available to explain Caveon's algorithms to any client who is curious.
Interesting. So their people have time to explain the methods to non-peers... but not enough time to write them up for peer review.
I'm wondering why no one is asking about using dogs for bomb sniffing.
I'm guessing that the reason the TSA isn't trying that is because dogs can be supplied by many "vendors". It's more difficult to patent a dog than a scanner.
What is there to stop him from giving that weapon to someone else on a different flight? Particularly a bomb or bombs. So the pilot crashes one plane and another plane (or multiple planes) explode.
I guess the only stance worth fighting for anymore is legalizing marijuana, at least that way I won't care what happens.
It works for me. Where are the "get the government out of my choices" voices for this?
If nothing else, it would cut part of the prison population and increase the tax base. All you need to do is make it a multiplier for other crimes. Murder? And high? Looks like you get an additional 5 years.
And how about fixing the tax system a bit? Why does Bill Gates need a tax cut? Why does he need a tax cut MORE than a guy who makes $30K a year? Why does Paris Hilton need to protect more of her inheritance?
I'm technically "on call" 1 week out of 4. In reality, management expects me to be available to fix any emergency at any of our sites (they're world-wide) at any time.
Many times I have worked from a kitchen table at 1am.
How many people do you think would help you if they knew that you'd repay them by making them immortal?
Also, are there other immortals? Or are you the only one (and will remain the only one)?
Finally, how much wealth are we really talking about here? Would a "job" that pays really well be sufficient? So you're really "working" for an alter-ego. But the cover would be easier to maintain. Particularly in the past. Prior to corporations.
In fact, wouldn't the creation of the corporation (and easier access to hiding identities) kind of coincide with modern records? Once it became difficult to hide yourself by moving 1,000 miles it became easier to hide yourself in a legal fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
So how is it "bad taste" to have a graphic of crosshairs and the name of a person AFTER that person is shot ... but not BEFORE that person is shot?
It's not like this is the first time that graphic has been brought up. It was in the news when she posted it. And people were worried that it would lead to violence against the people named on it.
But it was okay then and not after one of the people named on it is shot? That's some pretty flexible "logic" you have there.
Um, that movie that you're linking to is written and directed by a BRITISH guy.
England != The USofA
Did you mean the "Left" in the USofA ... or in England?
The guy who made that movie is British.
You left off the part where other people tell groups of potential crazies WHO TO KILL.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434
Scroll to the bottom.
The read up on her rhetoric about reloading.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-10/-don-t-retreat-reload-palin-tells-republicans-in-new-orleans.html
It isn't just "crosshairs". People like Palin are continually exhorting their followers to "reload". Her facebook page even has crosshair symbols on a map and the names of politicians who didn't vote the way Palin wanted them to.
http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sarahpac_0.jpg
And Gabrielle Giffords name is on that.
If they're allowed "advantages" or whatever, the profits they make have to come from somewhere. I'd rather a system to prevents such and allows more of the profits to go to the smaller investor.
Setting a fixed time moves the goal to whomever can shave their systems closest to that fixed time.
Set a fixed time ... plus a random fragment of a second. That way no one knows exactly WHEN the trade will go through. But it's still close enough for humans choosing to trade.
The key here is to reduce the ability of software to "cheat" but still allow humans to trade.
Yes, it is "common sense" to you.
But how many "IT managers" understand that part of their job involves pruning? Killing old systems. Deprecating other systems. Weeding out the "one-offs" that pop up when no one is looking.
The last place I worked has 7 different database servers. Because they were running 7 different database platforms.
Virtualization means that you can reduce the floor space needed. But management also needs to look at reducing the systems needed.
Yep. And their opinion is that anyone who works for the wage you do and depends upon THEM not to look out for themselves is a moron.
It's a simple matter of conflicting agendas.
Yep. And I bet that said VP was making a LOT more than you were. And that was the VP's priority.
Management is often the problem.
The question is whether management's agenda aligns with their actions and conflicts with your agenda or whether they really ARE morons and are hurting themselves as well.
Management can be a problem WITHOUT being morons by being deceptive. See "Enron".
In many cases, yes. And do not forget that multiple cases can apply to any single situation.
Management also cannot state what they DO want because they're looking beyond that to the new house with a pool that they want with the raise from the promotion they're going to get from the software that they want you to write.
I prefer the term "magic".
They believe that if they say the right words, the situation will change to become their new house dream.
Techs (the good ones) know that this doesn't happen. Physical laws remain physical laws. System limits remain system limits.
If you perform enough miracles for management, eventually they will believe that they are the ones performing the miracles.
If it's working AND they don't plan to be around for the collapse then they aren't morons.
They are implementing an agenda that you don't agree with. And they have different priorities.
The problem is that their agenda depends upon you attempting to follow your agenda (keep the company running) while they undermine you with their agenda (take as much money out as possible and bail out when it collapses). This is usually maintained via deception and articles about "heretics" and "team players".
Where was your boss during that time? Why wasn't he (she) MANAGING your time and projects and resources?
And you're okay with that, right?
Again, where's your boss?
SOMEONE has to be the dick and say "NO" to some requests. Or to demand business justification. And so forth.
There's no reason for you to be the jerk if your boss is correctly fulfilling that role.
If your boss isn't, then you have to.
From TFA: /. ? Clueless management seems to be the #1 complaint.
#1. Smarter than management - how many times do you see this on
#2. Addicted to coke - Seriously, why is this even in the article? Where's the editor?
#3. Undefined "jerk" - Again, where's the editor? Of course every manager would LOVE an employee who's a genius and never questions your decisions and works 120 hours a week fixing your systems because of decisions you made.
The problem is that most managers SUCK at communication.
But they don't know it because they confuse TALKING with COMMUNICATING. In the VP example, why isn't the president of the company (or the other VP's) doing anything about it WHILE IT IS HAPPENING?
The problems that you save them from are the result of decisions made where your advice was not followed, right?
The problem I have with TFA is that if the employees really ARE that smart ... how can the average person know that? As opposed to someone who happens to know a bit of trivia?
Gotta love this line:
Interesting. So their people have time to explain the methods to non-peers ... but not enough time to write them up for peer review.
It is different because The Pentagon Papers did not reveal all of their material immediately. Parts about ongoing diplomatic concerns were held back.
But Wikileaks would have released ALL of the The Pentagon Papers at once. If they had them. Back then. Because that's the kind of person Julian is.
*sigh*
Not much worth reading there. And not factually correct, either.
If the pilot is behind a locked door (that the knife cannot cut through), are we really concerned about knives?
And dogs should be able to detect firearms.
I'm wondering why no one is asking about using dogs for bomb sniffing.
I'm guessing that the reason the TSA isn't trying that is because dogs can be supplied by many "vendors". It's more difficult to patent a dog than a scanner.
Bomb sniffing dogs are effective, efficient and can be trained by many different companies/organizations.
Scanners are expensive, inefficient but can only be supplied by a few companies.
Follow the money.
What is there to stop him from giving that weapon to someone else on a different flight? Particularly a bomb or bombs. So the pilot crashes one plane and another plane (or multiple planes) explode.
Bullshit. Instead of the Internet, companies were more focused on isolated, for-pay environments. Such as CompuServe and AOL.
It works for me. Where are the "get the government out of my choices" voices for this?
If nothing else, it would cut part of the prison population and increase the tax base.
All you need to do is make it a multiplier for other crimes. Murder? And high? Looks like you get an additional 5 years.
And how about fixing the tax system a bit? Why does Bill Gates need a tax cut? Why does he need a tax cut MORE than a guy who makes $30K a year? Why does Paris Hilton need to protect more of her inheritance?
I'm technically "on call" 1 week out of 4. In reality, management expects me to be available to fix any emergency at any of our sites (they're world-wide) at any time.
Many times I have worked from a kitchen table at 1am.
31 vs 32.6 falls within the unspecified margin of error for that "survey".
How many people do you think would help you if they knew that you'd repay them by making them immortal?
Also, are there other immortals? Or are you the only one (and will remain the only one)?
Finally, how much wealth are we really talking about here? Would a "job" that pays really well be sufficient? So you're really "working" for an alter-ego. But the cover would be easier to maintain. Particularly in the past. Prior to corporations.
In fact, wouldn't the creation of the corporation (and easier access to hiding identities) kind of coincide with modern records? Once it became difficult to hide yourself by moving 1,000 miles it became easier to hide yourself in a legal fiction.