Just as the GGP is wrong in saying management/leadership involves doing the right things, you are wrong in applying too many attributes to each.
A leader is a person in advance of others.
A manager is someone who directs others.
As there is something not quite right with your confusion between means and ends.
I don't consider leadership/management only the application of specific means... I can't call a manager a person that just fills the forms, tracks project plans, etc. irrespective of the actual project towards goals (and the positioning relative to goals does define a "right"/"wrong" axis, even if not in the moral/ethical sense of it).
I reckon this is the very crux of why we are seeing so many so-called managers and leaders nowadays, called as such even when they mostly fail. They can justify the failure by arguing "well, everything I've done is correct, I can demonstrate with the paper trail. The failure is clearly no my fault as a manager/leader" (and in doing so, they do shift the focus on the means they used).
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) onto a flexible, non-toxic organic polymer designed for implantation in the human body. [...] That flexibility not only makes the units easier to fit into the oddly shaped parts of a human body,
(No, the above link is not sexist. It just happens that big (bang) theorists assure us that "Men love bluetooth" and "Everything with bluetooth is better". And a lot of them use Linux).
No, I'm just a former "team leader" and/or "development manager" in commercial software which retired into a senior dev position in a research joint (interesting and pays enough, also lets me enough time to do my stuff as well).
Otherwise, it even doesn't sounds militarish to me:
* Leadership - social influence by which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task (translation: from utterly lying to using a crowbar, I'll use anything to convince you to go where I'm telling you)
* management - coordinating the efforts of people to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively (translation: it's all in the synergy, baby. Of course, heaps of money might solve the problem... if it doesn't, you didn't spend enough; don't say I haven't told you this, my ass is covered)
According to Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires, the 1,426 billionaires in 2013 have a combined net worth of $5.4 trillion. So those people could afford to build 6 of these structures and an additional one about half its size (assuming the cost to size ratio is linear).
Now, now... they would have gotten rich if they took what they saw in a movie as a reality to based their decision on them, would they?
Also, last time I looked, I haven't seen any of them posting on/.... I wonder why?
Maybe my memory isn't so great, but isn't that less than a couple bailouts the US had a few years ago?
The ultrarich wouldn't have to put up with poor and homeless wandering onto their estates all the time. They'd know their neighbors are 'quality people' who think, act, and believe just like they do.
That's a quite expensive way to get rid of banksters (i.e. isolate them on orbit and then cease the maintenance of the station). It's much cheaper to pool a bunch of money and hire some mercs to do the job the low-tech way.
Wait... I might got confused... who were the investors again? (the bailout money were/still-are-to-be-collected from the population. Who's to pay for the would-be orbital station?)
Not being unsympathetic, but if after 14 years experience in industry you've never held a position of responsibility, then there is probably a reason for it.
Great. Not only that we have the confusion between leadership and management on the table, let's add the "responsibility/governance" one on top of it and the things will be as clear as mud (hint: any member of a team has the responsibility for the part of their work).
Lord Farquaad of course. He sent Shrek on the quest, married the woman he wanted, and did it will all the evil pointy-haired management techniques required by modern business.
His big mistake was failing to invest in appropriate levels of dragon defense.
Wrong. Everything is correct in what you said, except identifying Farquuad as a leader; it shows your confusion between leadership and management. In a very terse statement, the difference is illustrated by:
* management - about doing things the right way (take care about the logistics of the process: time, resource, quality at the least)
* leadership - about doing the right things (if the course/actions are not perceived as right, the team will refuse to enlist their entire support).
If we've reached the limits with what ultraviolet lithography can do already at 28nm, then how can Intel and other companies produce chips fabricated on smaller scales, given that they are alreaday at 22nm with 14nm coming within the next year or so?
Aren't those chips made of silicone? Maybe they stretch the chip before etching and let it shrink after.
I already have all that covered. I have a very well stocked survival bag (the list of contents is very long, but it's a surprisingly reasonable weight). I am quite pragmatic:)
Then, instead of a laptop, you'd already considered a reliable ebook reader, haven't you? Not like you'd be using the CPU power of a laptop to compute the strenght of the structure to support the sod you'll be using on the roof of your first built cabin (somewhere hidden, probably in the mountains somewhere).
'scuse me for asking: why would you need a laptop in a post-apocalyptic world?
Knowledge will be the most valuable asset after the collapse of the civilization. [etc]
But where would you store all those Libraries of Congress with all that valuable data, in such a way that you can carry it, and in such a way that you can access it easily? A laptop with a terabyte drive would do it nicely.
An ebook reader is likely to be lighter and offer better battery life (assuming that such equipment survives an EMP... but now, it all depends on your taste in apocalypses).
A bicycle, outside of a direct survival situation, does not even compare. But in a survival situation nothing matters except what helps you to survive. It doesn't mean that canned food is useless if you are, at this very moment, shooting at your pursuers.
Survival comes first, no argue here. Except it takes quite a lot to survive: if you are going to die because of bacteria in the water you need to drink - 3-4 days of disabling diahorea will weaken you fast enough - your knowledge to make primers is useless. Or if you can't travel long, fast, reliable and perhaps stealthy enough to a "niche" not desired by the competitors (the ones you are shooting at... do you think you have time to make black powder or primers while on the run?) and survive in there until the opportunists cooled enough - hopefuly returning to the soil the nitrogen stored by their DNA. It will take years of survival before you'd be stable to make use of the knowledge stored by a laptop (did I mention the ebook reader? Yes I did) - even a hammer may be more useful until then.
Except that, being highly likely a geek will be "forcefully recruited as a worker" on such sites, the lap top term will suddenly gain a totally different meaning... one in which "solar power" is an irrelevant attribute.
Well, it has built-in GPS, so I could load it up with maps, survival guides, etc... but who am I kidding?
Sincerity appreciated
It's more because I'm an engineer and I think it would give me +5 sanity.
Mhhh... a bit more pragmatism wouldn't hurt even an engineer (wait... what? aren't they supposed to be pragmatic to start with?). Like health first, sanity later: a solution to filter/disinfect drinking water would rank higher than even a map (can go on living if you don't know where you are, won't stay alive for long with dysintery. Even an infected scratch on your foot may disable you for days). A post-apocalypse situation is likely to keep you so busy it's almost a guarantee it'll keep you sane.
That seems a bit more exciting then the whole solar power thing,
Err...
but I suppose that's cool too.
Nope. If/when exposed to the sun than it will get warm. Submerging it is likely to keep it cool (that is: unless you use a hot liquids or liquified gases at atmosferic pressure)
The definition of homicide means when both the killer and the person being killed are humans.
<pedantic_mode> Not exactly right.
Latin hominus: "of a man" + Latin caedere: hacking or hewing (the verb is caedo)
A woman hewing a man would still be called hominus caedere A woman being killed with an axe would still be called mulieris caedere not matter if the wielder of that ax is an Orca, a man or another woman.
Ita est, you may be right, but for the wrong reasons: "homi" doesn't imply "the same", but only that whoever "homicided" the human was able to wield an axe. To describe a situation in which an Orca hacks another member of the same species with an axe, one should use "homocide", not "homicide"
</pedantic_mode>
Since "hew" has the meaning of: "to make or shape with or as if with an ax", an Orca commiting a homice is actually a correct expression (hew a human as if with an axe but using its teeth instead)
Business opportunities:
* security suite for crapware
* cyber insurance * ultimately, government intervention for "Too big to FALL" cases. Bonus points for TSA "pat down" and FBI infiltration. Careful with whistle-blowers though, the fan is on.
Strange that you continue to think that the NSA is beholden to the defense industry.
Strange how you don't see how an altruistic gesture (wire 20% of africa) would lead to less tension thus less business opportunity (aka conflict and fear) for the so called "defense" industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as the GGP is wrong in saying management/leadership involves doing the right things, you are wrong in applying too many attributes to each.
A leader is a person in advance of others.
A manager is someone who directs others.
As there is something not quite right with your confusion between means and ends.
I don't consider leadership/management only the application of specific means... I can't call a manager a person that just fills the forms, tracks project plans, etc. irrespective of the actual project towards goals (and the positioning relative to goals does define a "right"/"wrong" axis, even if not in the moral/ethical sense of it).
I reckon this is the very crux of why we are seeing so many so-called managers and leaders nowadays, called as such even when they mostly fail.
They can justify the failure by arguing "well, everything I've done is correct, I can demonstrate with the paper trail. The failure is clearly no my fault as a manager/leader" (and in doing so, they do shift the focus on the means they used).
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) onto a flexible, non-toxic organic polymer designed for implantation in the human body.
[...]
That flexibility not only makes the units easier to fit into the oddly shaped parts of a human body,
Everybody knows that bigger is better.
(No, the above link is not sexist. It just happens that big (bang) theorists assure us that "Men love bluetooth" and "Everything with bluetooth is better". And a lot of them use Linux).
Leadership: strategy Senior Management: tactics Junior Management: logistics Profits: territory Costs: munitions Labor: cannon fodder
(groan)
No, I'm just a former "team leader" and/or "development manager" in commercial software which retired into a senior dev position in a research joint (interesting and pays enough, also lets me enough time to do my stuff as well).
Otherwise, it even doesn't sounds militarish to me:
* Leadership - social influence by which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task (translation: from utterly lying to using a crowbar, I'll use anything to convince you to go where I'm telling you)
* management - coordinating the efforts of people to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively (translation: it's all in the synergy, baby. Of course, heaps of money might solve the problem... if it doesn't, you didn't spend enough; don't say I haven't told you this, my ass is covered)
According to Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires, the 1,426 billionaires in 2013 have a combined net worth of $5.4 trillion. So those people could afford to build 6 of these structures and an additional one about half its size (assuming the cost to size ratio is linear).
Now, now... they would have gotten rich if they took what they saw in a movie as a reality to based their decision on them, would they? /. ... I wonder why?
Also, last time I looked, I haven't seen any of them posting on
Quite a lot of our techniques for refining metals require vast quantities of water and oxygen, and gravity.
This gets to show that the greater barrier for space colonisation is energy: if you have and can control enough of it, everything else is solvable.
As for available land. Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
Yes, but nobody can hear your scream there.
Maybe my memory isn't so great, but isn't that less than a couple bailouts the US had a few years ago?
The ultrarich wouldn't have to put up with poor and homeless wandering onto their estates all the time. They'd know their neighbors are 'quality people' who think, act, and believe just like they do.
That's a quite expensive way to get rid of banksters (i.e. isolate them on orbit and then cease the maintenance of the station). It's much cheaper to pool a bunch of money and hire some mercs to do the job the low-tech way.
Wait... I might got confused... who were the investors again? (the bailout money were/still-are-to-be-collected from the population. Who's to pay for the would-be orbital station?)
This is BS.
(Ummm... let's try)
"BS is a currency and can be regulated under American Law"...
Hey, wad'da ya know? Great insight, buddy, it fits!
You may think you're joking, but there is actually a microfab technique based on shrinky-dinks.
I knew that - a branch of soft lithography.
Just confused on why this would be a reason not to consider I'm joking.
Not being unsympathetic, but if after 14 years experience in industry you've never held a position of responsibility, then there is probably a reason for it.
Great. Not only that we have the confusion between leadership and management on the table, let's add the "responsibility/governance" one on top of it and the things will be as clear as mud
(hint: any member of a team has the responsibility for the part of their work).
Lord Farquaad of course. He sent Shrek on the quest, married the woman he wanted, and did it will all the evil pointy-haired management techniques required by modern business.
His big mistake was failing to invest in appropriate levels of dragon defense.
Wrong. Everything is correct in what you said, except identifying Farquuad as a leader; it shows your confusion between leadership and management. In a very terse statement, the difference is illustrated by:
* management - about doing things the right way (take care about the logistics of the process: time, resource, quality at the least)
* leadership - about doing the right things (if the course/actions are not perceived as right, the team will refuse to enlist their entire support).
If we've reached the limits with what ultraviolet lithography can do already at 28nm, then how can Intel and other companies produce chips fabricated on smaller scales, given that they are alreaday at 22nm with 14nm coming within the next year or so?
Aren't those chips made of silicone? Maybe they stretch the chip before etching and let it shrink after.
(ducks)
I already have all that covered. I have a very well stocked survival bag (the list of contents is very long, but it's a surprisingly reasonable weight). I am quite pragmatic :)
Then, instead of a laptop, you'd already considered a reliable ebook reader, haven't you? Not like you'd be using the CPU power of a laptop to compute the strenght of the structure to support the sod you'll be using on the roof of your first built cabin (somewhere hidden, probably in the mountains somewhere).
'scuse me for asking: why would you need a laptop in a post-apocalyptic world?
Knowledge will be the most valuable asset after the collapse of the civilization. [etc] But where would you store all those Libraries of Congress with all that valuable data, in such a way that you can carry it, and in such a way that you can access it easily? A laptop with a terabyte drive would do it nicely.
An ebook reader is likely to be lighter and offer better battery life (assuming that such equipment survives an EMP... but now, it all depends on your taste in apocalypses).
A bicycle, outside of a direct survival situation, does not even compare. But in a survival situation nothing matters except what helps you to survive. It doesn't mean that canned food is useless if you are, at this very moment, shooting at your pursuers.
Survival comes first, no argue here.
Except it takes quite a lot to survive: if you are going to die because of bacteria in the water you need to drink - 3-4 days of disabling diahorea will weaken you fast enough - your knowledge to make primers is useless.
Or if you can't travel long, fast, reliable and perhaps stealthy enough to a "niche" not desired by the competitors (the ones you are shooting at... do you think you have time to make black powder or primers while on the run?) and survive in there until the opportunists cooled enough - hopefuly returning to the soil the nitrogen stored by their DNA.
It will take years of survival before you'd be stable to make use of the knowledge stored by a laptop (did I mention the ebook reader? Yes I did) - even a hammer may be more useful until then.
Pornsites will probably still be available :)
Except that, being highly likely a geek will be "forcefully recruited as a worker" on such sites, the lap top term will suddenly gain a totally different meaning... one in which "solar power" is an irrelevant attribute.
Well, it has built-in GPS, so I could load it up with maps, survival guides, etc... but who am I kidding?
Sincerity appreciated
It's more because I'm an engineer and I think it would give me +5 sanity.
Mhhh... a bit more pragmatism wouldn't hurt even an engineer (wait... what? aren't they supposed to be pragmatic to start with?).
Like health first, sanity later: a solution to filter/disinfect drinking water would rank higher than even a map (can go on living if you don't know where you are, won't stay alive for long with dysintery. Even an infected scratch on your foot may disable you for days). A post-apocalypse situation is likely to keep you so busy it's almost a guarantee it'll keep you sane.
That seems a bit more exciting then the whole solar power thing,
Err...
but I suppose that's cool too.
Nope. If/when exposed to the sun than it will get warm. Submerging it is likely to keep it cool (that is: unless you use a hot liquids or liquified gases at atmosferic pressure)
(...ducks... just kinding guys...)
'scuse me for asking: why would you need a laptop in a post-apocalyptic world? Even an electric powered bycicle will be more useful than the laptop.
The definition of homicide means when both the killer and the person being killed are humans.
<pedantic_mode>
Not exactly right.
Latin hominus: "of a man" + Latin caedere: hacking or hewing (the verb is caedo)
A woman hewing a man would still be called hominus caedere
A woman being killed with an axe would still be called mulieris caedere not matter if the wielder of that ax is an Orca, a man or another woman.
Ita est, you may be right, but for the wrong reasons: "homi" doesn't imply "the same", but only that whoever "homicided" the human was able to wield an axe.
To describe a situation in which an Orca hacks another member of the same species with an axe, one should use "homocide", not "homicide"
</pedantic_mode>
Since "hew" has the meaning of: "to make or shape with or as if with an ax", an Orca commiting a homice is actually a correct expression (hew a human as if with an axe but using its teeth instead)
oh shit!
Business opportunities:
* security suite for crapware
* cyber insurance
* ultimately, government intervention for "Too big to FALL" cases. Bonus points for TSA "pat down" and FBI infiltration. Careful with whistle-blowers though, the fan is on.
Original article on EFF blog.
Strange that you continue to think that the NSA is beholden to the defense industry.
Strange how you don't see how an altruistic gesture (wire 20% of africa) would lead to less tension thus less business opportunity (aka conflict and fear) for the so called "defense" industry.
Music.
Yes
dunno.. you could wire up 20% of africa for gratis with the NSA budget.
Not going to happen, it wouldn't help a bit the US defence industry.