Have you never avoided an accident on the highway by speeding up?
Short answer? No. Long answer? Certainly not by going faster than 80mph which is what this key restricts the car to. I've sped up to avoid getting hit by traffic in an intersection and while merging but have never in 20 years of driving needed to speed up past 80mph on the highway to avoid an accident.
The decision to lock out the traction control toggle also seems a bit bizarre. I don't know of anybody (teenagers or adults) who have ever actually turned it off.
I do. Adults/kids who are into sport compacts sometimes do it because it makes it easier to "toss" the car around and do various unnecessary and dangerous stunts. Stuff right at the limits of traction. There are rare cases where it is actually useful to turn traction control off but teenagers generally are not experienced enough drivers that they ever should turn it off.
Personally I think this sort of thing is a good idea so long as it is optional and the restrictions are reasonable. Gives the parents the choice rather than the State playing nanny.
Apparently, you think engineers are magicians who can magically make the law of conservation of mass disappear. Well, I am an engineer, and let me tell you, we're subject to the same physics that everyone else is.
I'm an engineer too. Congratulations. Would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on? Apparently you think that the engineers at Ford are incapable of removing material from the vehicle or are too stupid for it to occur to them. Interesting how you seem to understand this concept and yet can't seem to grasp that weight removal might occur to someone else as well.
No. If they want to make their car faster and go this route, they're dumb. Period
So someone is stupid because he uses some new, still developing technology to improve the performance of a vehicle instead of an already developed proven technology? Remind me not to hire you for my R&D department. I would have called that creative or experimental, possibly wasteful, silly, or maybe even innovative, but apparently there is some special definition of stupid only known to you.
I'm pretty sure someone who even considers hybridizing a vehicle is well aware that supercharging, turbocharging, or even engine swaps are an option. So that leads to the inevitable conclusion that there were other factors involved in their decision. Just because you or I wouldn't do it is irrelevant and it doesn't make them stupid. Wasteful maybe but not stupid.
It may increase power, but in my opinion unless you're just looking for top end speed...
Nobody ever said hybridizing a car is the most practical or sensible means of increasing horsepower right now. The technology is still quite immature. But when hybrids become a substantial portion of the vehicles out there, time invested to learn about the technology could be time well spent.
I used to dream about the mods I'd make to my car when I had the money...
Sounds like you came to the same realization I did. The best way to make a small fortune in automobiles is to start with a large fortune.:-)
Yeah, right. Something with an 8L V8 engine needs more horsepower.
Who said anything about need? This is 100% about want, not need.
Also, adding all that stuff also adds _weight_ to the vehicle.
Yes it does if you or I do it. Not necessarily if it is done by the engineers at Ford.
Why put a second motor into the the car and add a whole additional bunch of points of failure when you can simply put in a bigger engine? It makes no sense.
Who said anything about being sensible? Almost nobody who does serious horsepower modifications is doing it to be sensible. Hell buying a huge honking V8 powered pickup as a daily driver isn't sensible to begin with. The Ford F150 has been the best selling vehicle in the US for over 20 years and only a small fraction of the buyers actually need a vehicle that big and powerful.
There is nothing wrong with experimenting with car modifications in the same way there is nothing wrong with experimenting with computer modifications. Not always practical but occasionally useful and usually educational.
Someone might do it to make their car faster rather than more efficient.
Someone who's very dumb and has zero clue about engineering.
Or someone who is very smart and has way too much clue about engineering. Nobody is claiming it is practical or sensible. But it is interesting and would be a pretty fun project for an engineer with time and money on his hands.
Or, someone who thinks it's pointless to start with a friggin truck if you're trying to be fuel efficient..?
Your statement is logically correct and I agree with your sentiments but you are assuming fuel efficiency is the only goal here. A hybrid engine can increase fuel economy but it ALSO can increase horsepower. Think of it as putting a second motor into a car. Someone might do it to make their car faster rather than more efficient. Sure it's irresponsible and silly but pick up any issue of a magazine for sport compact car enthusiasts and you'll see equally useless car mods.
It's not necessarily an either/or proposition either. The Honda Accord Hybrid was for a time both the most powerful and most fuel efficient Accord Honda made from 2005-2007. Engineers can choose the trade off of performance versus economy they wish to make.
Why is this news and NOT standard practice already?
Actually it is reasonably widely used as a diagnostic aid and becoming more so all the time, at least in the US. I've personally done consulting work in radiology clinics where they use computers to assist diagnosis. That said, it is still a developing technology and every scan is read by a radiologist too (which is just common sense) but these system do occasionally catch something the radiologist missed and vice-versa. It provides another set of eyes which don't get tired and that is a useful thing.
Why isn't it more widely used? Several reasons. First while impressive, these systems are still being tested for clinical utility. So far are not demonstrably better (meaning they don't catch more tumors under double blind testing) than a radiologist. But achieving statistical parity is an impressive feat and worthy of mention. Second, these systems are not cheap and unfortunately yes that matters. There is not an infinite amount of money available for healthcare and in many settings the computer system cannot be justified unless it is demonstrably and significantly improves diagnostic capability. I have no doubt this will be standard equipment in time but it will not happen overnight.
No, there's only a law against tying if the party doing it has a dominant market share.
What you are talking about is tying. The requirements for tying to be illegal per se necessitates the entity tying the products have "economic power" sufficient for other antitrust violations to hold. Recently the supreme court has held that holding patent or copyright does not by itself grant such economic power.
Whether Apple/AT&T are violating any laws is an exercise I leave to you gentle reader.
Now I appeaciate that the US only recently moved away from Checks...
Moved away from checks? Hardly. Go to any grocery store in the US the day all the old folks get their social security checks and you'll see what I mean. Most bills still are paid by check despite the cost, inconvenience and inefficiency. Checks remain very heavily used in the US anywhere you go. Hell, Visa even has an entire ad campaign for their debit cards to try to get people to use the cards instead of writing checks. Visa wouldn't be bothering if checks weren't an incredibly common method of payment.
Otherwise you are right. The security sucks and there seems little motivation to improve matters.
For you and me, you are correct - it really isn't all that hard if you devote even a little time. However, professionally (and personally) I am regularly called on to fix other people's computers and for many people it clearly is hard. There are many reasons why of course but it is unquestionably beyond the capabilities of many people.
Sometimes it's because they can't be bothered, sometimes they don't have the time, other times they are afraid of screwing something up, and frequently they simply don't know how. I often joke that knowing how to maintain a computer is a great way to seem smarter than I actually am. Fix a broken PC and people think you are some kind of tech wizard - whether you actually are or not.
Plus a lot of folks simply don't have the time even if they know how. As an analogy I'm quite capable of doing my own plumbing but I do it so seldom it is more efficient for me to hire someone else to fix problems when they arise. Likewise a lot of my clients can solve their own problems but they simply don't have the time so they hire me.
So yes there are problems with cloud applications but there are problems with locally hosted applications too. There is no free lunch, it's simply a question of what works best for your needs.
I'm not even that tall at 6'4 and it's near intolerable to ride in one for more than 5 minutes.
So you are taller than 99.5% of the male population and you think you are some kind of representative sample? 6'3" is around 2 standard deviations above the mean.
Yes tall people have a problem. A former business partner of mine was 6'7" (that's 2 meters for you metric types) and so he drove a large vehicle. It was comical watching him get into the Saturn I had at the time. But he was a weird case. Average male height in the US is around 5'9".
I mean, what kind of power do we grant these professional associations that a suit can summarily take away their livelihood?
These are basically peer organizations and getting kicked out requires some pretty egregious violations of ethical guidelines and/or laws. And these organizations exist for some very good reasons. Doctors, lawyers, financial consultants, accountants, certain engineers (among others) all are licensed to practice by these organizations in order to ensure a base level of proficiency and to keep the good name of the profession intact. Without the ability to remove bad apples from the practicing in the field, every member of the profession can be negatively affected by the actions of a few. Furthermore it keeps a base level of confidence in the general public about the expected level of professionalism. Yes bad things can still happen but at least there is recourse against those who bring the profession into disrepute even if they fall short of conduct that would have them thrown in jail.
There is always there is always the flip side course for 99.99% of other non-software businesses, which is far more justified as a MBA course.
Exactly. While it isn't actually all that hard, most non-slashdot reading folks I've ever discussed open source licensing with (admittedly a small sample) grossly misunderstand the terms of open source licenses - especially the GPL. They usually think they give away their copyrights when in fact just the opposite occurs. As a community, we advocates of open source have done a poor job communicating why open source is an advantage to those willing to take the plunge. There are unfortunately a lot of misconceptions about the finer details of open source licensing and the software in general.
One of the touted advantages of open source is the availability of the source code. But if a business isn't a software developer that is not perceived as especially valuable. No auto parts supplier is likely to go and contribute patches to Open Office. It just won't ever happen and they know it. What needs to be emphasized are the follow-on advantages - no forced upgrades, no data lock in, reduced licensing fees, reduced platform lock in, etc.
Many folks also tend to underestimate the advantages of open source software in favor of whatever commercial software they are already familiar with. The fact that Open Office is free (speech and beer) gets overwhelmed by the perceived need to use Excel (or Word or...) because that is what they user is familiar with and often what everyone around him/her uses. Never mind that they are giving significant control over their upgrade schedule and data accessibility to another company and not being compensated for the "privilege".
Re:Engineers can rise to the top if...
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
Again, I recommend anyone interested read Demming on management to see what a real, solidly proven expert thinks about that gap.
Actually I'm an industrial engineer so I'm VERY familiar with Deming. He's pretty much required reading. I would second your recommendation without hesitation.
Accounting is the language of business
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
You state without reasoning that a CEO MUST know accounting and so forth but not engineering. Why?
Because accounting is the language of business in the exact same way math is the language of engineering. Financial statements are what tells managers how a business is performing, where it is strong and where it is weak. If a manager cannot speak the "language" of finance he cannot possibly successfully manage a company. This includes managing the engineers in a company. The skill set of a CEO MUST include finance but only SHOULD include engineering. His job isn't to design the product, his job is to raise capital and to manage the company. Financial statements are the tool that permits this.
Bear in mind I AM an engineer and proudly so. Be learning about accounting was one of the most useful things I ever did. Made it much easier for me to justify what I want to do and get the resources to do it.
Why does he need to know what the CFO knows but doesn't need to know what the CTO knows?
Point out to me where I ever said that. The CEO needs to be able to communicate with and understand all his employees. But that has nothing to do with what I have been saying.
Because accounting is all you're taught in an MBA?
Hardly. Examine the curriculum of an MBA program before saying something so stupid. Operations, marketing, sales, data analytics, strategy, leadership, and of course accounting and finance are all taught. But like I said, accounting is the language of business. If you can't "speak" it you will be an ineffective manager because you won't have a clue as to what is going on. You might as well try to manage General Electric while speaking only Swahili.
Re:Financial literacy among engineers
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
I mean someone who actually cares about the product.
Having personally met some of the leadership of large automotive companies I can assure you that a surprising number of them really are "car guys" by your definition above. Even the ones from sales and finance. Not all but quite a few.
Look at how many snide "MBAs are idiots" comments you see here on slashdot.
Many of them are. I've met a few who weren't, but they were people who had already accomplished something in their careers before they went to get their ticket punched in an MBA program.
You could say the same about any group including engineers. (and I am an engineer for the record) I know numerous engineers who I think are over-educated idiots. Yes there are some fools who get MBAs - there also are some really talented people. I've met plenty in both camps. Almost all MBAs from any of the top 25 programs will have at least 3-7 years of experience before attending, and often more. But my point is there is a lot of tribalism by some engineers in those "MBAs are idiots" comments that really isn't justified.
Engineers can rise to the top if...
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
Just because someone handles the cash, at the level of individual sales, is no reason to think they can keep a company in the black. The two skillsets have almost no overlap.
Absolutely true but a bit of a strawman argument I think. Sales is a people and money oriented job. Being a good salesman can result in becoming a sales manager which involves a tremendous amount of finance, accounting and people management by the numbers. In other words excellent training grounds for higher management. You're right that just making a sale doesn't make one management material but neither does designing a nifty widget.
For companies that make a real product rather than service industries, coming from manufacturing or distribution ought to have just as good a chance of making good management as coming from sales or finance.
They can do make good management with the caveats that A) they have to seek out training in accounting/finance and B) they have to have or develop "people skills" since managing is mostly about people. Engineers and production people who do this rise to the top as easily as anyone else.
Financial literacy among engineers
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For quite a long time now, the CEOs of American auto makers have typically come from the sales or finance organizations. I'd like to see them go back to being run by a "car guy."
I assume by "car guy" you mean someone with an engineering background. There are reasons that relatively few engineers end up in management. Managing a business, particularly a large one, requires a STRONG understanding of accounting and finance. A manager who doesn't understand accounting is like an engineer who doesn't understand math. Additionally managing is about people and, let's be frank, engineers tend to be rather bad with people on the whole. There are notable exceptions but we're not a demographic noted for being overly social - at least not in ways that aid in rising to the top of Fortune 500 companies.
It's NOT that engineers can't handle it (they definitely have the brainpower) but they tend not to seek it out accounting and finance training. One hypothesis is that management requires making decisions under uncertainty which doesn't appeal to the mindset of many engineers. Perhaps some of that is cultural as well. Look at how many snide "MBAs are idiots" comments you see here on slashdot. As someone who is both an engineer and an accountant I tend to laugh at those comments because most of them are absurd rants against The Man.
Carburator knowledge != Management skill
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Carburetors are something that gets taught to a 15 year old student and is as such certainly within the grasp.
Perhaps you attended a high school with an auto shop class. I didn't and neither did any of my close relatives or friends in my generation. The last carburated car in the US was produced in 1991 which coincidentally was the year I graduated from high school. Every car I have ever owned has been fuel injected. Yes you can find carburators even now but mostly on the smallest and cheapest engines and they are slowly going away. Even motorcycles are headed toward fuel injection these days. The only reason I know anything about carburators is because I'm just kind of a curious geek that way and find them interesting.
Point is, knowing how a carburator works has little to do with the skill set of being a decent manager - automotive industry or otherwise. I've worked as an automotive engineer and I know this from first hand experience. ,
Exactly - but being "well executed" didn't happen by accident. Where each company spent its engineering dollars is immediately apparent once you realize that flashy displays and electronics aren't the only technology in a car. BMWs have a very refined driving experience because they invested a lot of engineering talent and advanced technology in creating a car for customers who value performance & comfort. The engineers at Toyota focused their efforts on the Prius towards the hybrid powertrain and fuel economy rather than comfort and performance. Nothing wrong with either approach and they were designed for very different customers. Make no mistake however; the feel of a BMW suspension and chassis is every bit as hard to replicate as the powertrain of a Prius.
I'd appreciate it very much if someone could please explain to me, how is it possible that one company sells something at a loss and it's called "dumping" (which you can get in trouble for, IIUC), and another company sells something at a loss and it's called a "loss leader?"
Dumping is a form of predatory pricing under international trade law whereby a product is sold below cost or below market value in the country of origin. Economists sometimes take a more general definition of dumping to mean any kind of predatory pricing but in my experience this is a less common usage. Dumping often occurs when a producer has excess capacity beyond what their home market can absorb so they sell the excess in a different market either to damage current/potential competitors or to gain market share.
A loss leader is basically a sales promotion. One product is sold cheaply (possibly below cost) with the expectation, but normally not the requirement, that customers will be enticed into buying additional more profitable product(s). The most famous version is the razors and blade model pioneered by Gillette.
The important difference is that a loss leader isn't necessarily destructive. With dumping there is no attempt at profitability, at least not in the short term. However predatory pricing in general, including dumping, can be very hard to prove. It's quite rare to have clear evidence that dumping is occurring. Furthermore in some countries (notably China) it's not unusual for the government to hold stakes in manufacturing firms. Naturally it is rather difficult subpoenaing records from a state owned Chinese manufacturer so you can sue them for dumping.
Except for the whole part where trucks are supposed to be big and powerful--something hybrid engines definitely aren't.
Hybrids can be very powerful. They also can be designed for fuel economy. It's a design choice. For a while the Honda Accord Hybrid was BOTH the most powerful Accord and the most fuel efficient.
The engineering in my Prius is far more advanced than anything BMW or Mercedes throws into their cars.
I've worked as an automotive engineer and I call bullshit. Either you have some odd definition of "advanced" or you have no idea what you are talking about. A bunch of nifty electronics and gauges for you to read does not make it the most advanced car on the planet. As an example the suspension in any BMW is FAR more capable and sophisticated than the one in the Prius. I'm not saying a BMW is necessarily more "advanced" but it certainly isn't less. There is a LOT more to the technology in non-hybrid cars than you are giving credit for.
I have no issue with the rest of your reasons. The Prius and other hybrids are cool and there are reasons for buying one other than pure economics. The fuel economy and lack of noise pollution alone are sufficient reason in my book.
I can't see making a hybrid truck. First, most hybrids have SMALLer motors, which lowers overall hauling power.
Hybrids also have electric motors which *can* be designed to have HUGE torque - much higher than petrol/diesel engines. There is a reason locomotives are powered by electric motors. A hybrid does not HAVE to be lower powered.
Second, the drive train is spec'ed to increase mileage, again making hauling power an afterthought.
Again a design trade-off that can go the other way.
The whole idea of a hybrid is a small, light, vehicle with tweaked CVT transmission to get the highest mpg's.
No the small light hybrid is just what has been popular. Look, you can design a hybrid for performance just as much as you can for fuel economy. The only questions are whether people will buy it and what the cost will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you never avoided an accident on the highway by speeding up?
Short answer? No.
Long answer? Certainly not by going faster than 80mph which is what this key restricts the car to. I've sped up to avoid getting hit by traffic in an intersection and while merging but have never in 20 years of driving needed to speed up past 80mph on the highway to avoid an accident.
The decision to lock out the traction control toggle also seems a bit bizarre. I don't know of anybody (teenagers or adults) who have ever actually turned it off.
I do. Adults/kids who are into sport compacts sometimes do it because it makes it easier to "toss" the car around and do various unnecessary and dangerous stunts. Stuff right at the limits of traction. There are rare cases where it is actually useful to turn traction control off but teenagers generally are not experienced enough drivers that they ever should turn it off.
Personally I think this sort of thing is a good idea so long as it is optional and the restrictions are reasonable. Gives the parents the choice rather than the State playing nanny.
Apparently, you think engineers are magicians who can magically make the law of conservation of mass disappear. Well, I am an engineer, and let me tell you, we're subject to the same physics that everyone else is.
I'm an engineer too. Congratulations. Would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on? Apparently you think that the engineers at Ford are incapable of removing material from the vehicle or are too stupid for it to occur to them. Interesting how you seem to understand this concept and yet can't seem to grasp that weight removal might occur to someone else as well.
No. If they want to make their car faster and go this route, they're dumb. Period
So someone is stupid because he uses some new, still developing technology to improve the performance of a vehicle instead of an already developed proven technology? Remind me not to hire you for my R&D department. I would have called that creative or experimental, possibly wasteful, silly, or maybe even innovative, but apparently there is some special definition of stupid only known to you.
I'm pretty sure someone who even considers hybridizing a vehicle is well aware that supercharging, turbocharging, or even engine swaps are an option. So that leads to the inevitable conclusion that there were other factors involved in their decision. Just because you or I wouldn't do it is irrelevant and it doesn't make them stupid. Wasteful maybe but not stupid.
It may increase power, but in my opinion unless you're just looking for top end speed...
Nobody ever said hybridizing a car is the most practical or sensible means of increasing horsepower right now. The technology is still quite immature. But when hybrids become a substantial portion of the vehicles out there, time invested to learn about the technology could be time well spent.
I used to dream about the mods I'd make to my car when I had the money...
Sounds like you came to the same realization I did. The best way to make a small fortune in automobiles is to start with a large fortune. :-)
Yeah, right. Something with an 8L V8 engine needs more horsepower.
Who said anything about need? This is 100% about want, not need.
Also, adding all that stuff also adds _weight_ to the vehicle.
Yes it does if you or I do it. Not necessarily if it is done by the engineers at Ford.
Why put a second motor into the the car and add a whole additional bunch of points of failure when you can simply put in a bigger engine? It makes no sense.
Who said anything about being sensible? Almost nobody who does serious horsepower modifications is doing it to be sensible. Hell buying a huge honking V8 powered pickup as a daily driver isn't sensible to begin with. The Ford F150 has been the best selling vehicle in the US for over 20 years and only a small fraction of the buyers actually need a vehicle that big and powerful.
There is nothing wrong with experimenting with car modifications in the same way there is nothing wrong with experimenting with computer modifications. Not always practical but occasionally useful and usually educational.
Someone might do it to make their car faster rather than more efficient.
Someone who's very dumb and has zero clue about engineering.
Or someone who is very smart and has way too much clue about engineering. Nobody is claiming it is practical or sensible. But it is interesting and would be a pretty fun project for an engineer with time and money on his hands.
Or, someone who thinks it's pointless to start with a friggin truck if you're trying to be fuel efficient..?
Your statement is logically correct and I agree with your sentiments but you are assuming fuel efficiency is the only goal here. A hybrid engine can increase fuel economy but it ALSO can increase horsepower. Think of it as putting a second motor into a car. Someone might do it to make their car faster rather than more efficient. Sure it's irresponsible and silly but pick up any issue of a magazine for sport compact car enthusiasts and you'll see equally useless car mods.
It's not necessarily an either/or proposition either. The Honda Accord Hybrid was for a time both the most powerful and most fuel efficient Accord Honda made from 2005-2007. Engineers can choose the trade off of performance versus economy they wish to make.
Why is this news and NOT standard practice already?
Actually it is reasonably widely used as a diagnostic aid and becoming more so all the time, at least in the US. I've personally done consulting work in radiology clinics where they use computers to assist diagnosis. That said, it is still a developing technology and every scan is read by a radiologist too (which is just common sense) but these system do occasionally catch something the radiologist missed and vice-versa. It provides another set of eyes which don't get tired and that is a useful thing.
Why isn't it more widely used? Several reasons. First while impressive, these systems are still being tested for clinical utility. So far are not demonstrably better (meaning they don't catch more tumors under double blind testing) than a radiologist. But achieving statistical parity is an impressive feat and worthy of mention. Second, these systems are not cheap and unfortunately yes that matters. There is not an infinite amount of money available for healthcare and in many settings the computer system cannot be justified unless it is demonstrably and significantly improves diagnostic capability. I have no doubt this will be standard equipment in time but it will not happen overnight.
No, there's only a law against tying if the party doing it has a dominant market share.
What you are talking about is tying. The requirements for tying to be illegal per se necessitates the entity tying the products have "economic power" sufficient for other antitrust violations to hold. Recently the supreme court has held that holding patent or copyright does not by itself grant such economic power.
Whether Apple/AT&T are violating any laws is an exercise I leave to you gentle reader.
Now I appeaciate that the US only recently moved away from Checks...
Moved away from checks? Hardly. Go to any grocery store in the US the day all the old folks get their social security checks and you'll see what I mean. Most bills still are paid by check despite the cost, inconvenience and inefficiency. Checks remain very heavily used in the US anywhere you go. Hell, Visa even has an entire ad campaign for their debit cards to try to get people to use the cards instead of writing checks. Visa wouldn't be bothering if checks weren't an incredibly common method of payment.
Otherwise you are right. The security sucks and there seems little motivation to improve matters.
Maintaining a PC is not as hard as you imply...
For you and me, you are correct - it really isn't all that hard if you devote even a little time. However, professionally (and personally) I am regularly called on to fix other people's computers and for many people it clearly is hard. There are many reasons why of course but it is unquestionably beyond the capabilities of many people.
Sometimes it's because they can't be bothered, sometimes they don't have the time, other times they are afraid of screwing something up, and frequently they simply don't know how. I often joke that knowing how to maintain a computer is a great way to seem smarter than I actually am. Fix a broken PC and people think you are some kind of tech wizard - whether you actually are or not.
Plus a lot of folks simply don't have the time even if they know how. As an analogy I'm quite capable of doing my own plumbing but I do it so seldom it is more efficient for me to hire someone else to fix problems when they arise. Likewise a lot of my clients can solve their own problems but they simply don't have the time so they hire me.
So yes there are problems with cloud applications but there are problems with locally hosted applications too. There is no free lunch, it's simply a question of what works best for your needs.
Mythbusters tested magnets, this is an electric field. It's a completely different thing
The force in question is electromagnatism. Two sides of the same coin.
I'm not even that tall at 6'4 and it's near intolerable to ride in one for more than 5 minutes.
So you are taller than 99.5% of the male population and you think you are some kind of representative sample? 6'3" is around 2 standard deviations above the mean.
Yes tall people have a problem. A former business partner of mine was 6'7" (that's 2 meters for you metric types) and so he drove a large vehicle. It was comical watching him get into the Saturn I had at the time. But he was a weird case. Average male height in the US is around 5'9".
I mean, what kind of power do we grant these professional associations that a suit can summarily take away their livelihood?
These are basically peer organizations and getting kicked out requires some pretty egregious violations of ethical guidelines and/or laws. And these organizations exist for some very good reasons. Doctors, lawyers, financial consultants, accountants, certain engineers (among others) all are licensed to practice by these organizations in order to ensure a base level of proficiency and to keep the good name of the profession intact. Without the ability to remove bad apples from the practicing in the field, every member of the profession can be negatively affected by the actions of a few. Furthermore it keeps a base level of confidence in the general public about the expected level of professionalism. Yes bad things can still happen but at least there is recourse against those who bring the profession into disrepute even if they fall short of conduct that would have them thrown in jail.
There is always there is always the flip side course for 99.99% of other non-software businesses, which is far more justified as a MBA course.
Exactly. While it isn't actually all that hard, most non-slashdot reading folks I've ever discussed open source licensing with (admittedly a small sample) grossly misunderstand the terms of open source licenses - especially the GPL. They usually think they give away their copyrights when in fact just the opposite occurs. As a community, we advocates of open source have done a poor job communicating why open source is an advantage to those willing to take the plunge. There are unfortunately a lot of misconceptions about the finer details of open source licensing and the software in general.
One of the touted advantages of open source is the availability of the source code. But if a business isn't a software developer that is not perceived as especially valuable. No auto parts supplier is likely to go and contribute patches to Open Office. It just won't ever happen and they know it. What needs to be emphasized are the follow-on advantages - no forced upgrades, no data lock in, reduced licensing fees, reduced platform lock in, etc.
Many folks also tend to underestimate the advantages of open source software in favor of whatever commercial software they are already familiar with. The fact that Open Office is free (speech and beer) gets overwhelmed by the perceived need to use Excel (or Word or...) because that is what they user is familiar with and often what everyone around him/her uses. Never mind that they are giving significant control over their upgrade schedule and data accessibility to another company and not being compensated for the "privilege".
Again, I recommend anyone interested read Demming on management to see what a real, solidly proven expert thinks about that gap.
Actually I'm an industrial engineer so I'm VERY familiar with Deming. He's pretty much required reading. I would second your recommendation without hesitation.
You state without reasoning that a CEO MUST know accounting and so forth but not engineering. Why?
Because accounting is the language of business in the exact same way math is the language of engineering. Financial statements are what tells managers how a business is performing, where it is strong and where it is weak. If a manager cannot speak the "language" of finance he cannot possibly successfully manage a company. This includes managing the engineers in a company. The skill set of a CEO MUST include finance but only SHOULD include engineering. His job isn't to design the product, his job is to raise capital and to manage the company. Financial statements are the tool that permits this.
Bear in mind I AM an engineer and proudly so. Be learning about accounting was one of the most useful things I ever did. Made it much easier for me to justify what I want to do and get the resources to do it.
Why does he need to know what the CFO knows but doesn't need to know what the CTO knows?
Point out to me where I ever said that. The CEO needs to be able to communicate with and understand all his employees. But that has nothing to do with what I have been saying.
Because accounting is all you're taught in an MBA?
Hardly. Examine the curriculum of an MBA program before saying something so stupid. Operations, marketing, sales, data analytics, strategy, leadership, and of course accounting and finance are all taught. But like I said, accounting is the language of business. If you can't "speak" it you will be an ineffective manager because you won't have a clue as to what is going on. You might as well try to manage General Electric while speaking only Swahili.
I mean someone who actually cares about the product.
Having personally met some of the leadership of large automotive companies I can assure you that a surprising number of them really are "car guys" by your definition above. Even the ones from sales and finance. Not all but quite a few.
Look at how many snide "MBAs are idiots" comments you see here on slashdot.
Many of them are. I've met a few who weren't, but they were people who had already accomplished something in their careers before they went to get their ticket punched in an MBA program.
You could say the same about any group including engineers. (and I am an engineer for the record) I know numerous engineers who I think are over-educated idiots. Yes there are some fools who get MBAs - there also are some really talented people. I've met plenty in both camps. Almost all MBAs from any of the top 25 programs will have at least 3-7 years of experience before attending, and often more. But my point is there is a lot of tribalism by some engineers in those "MBAs are idiots" comments that really isn't justified.
Just because someone handles the cash, at the level of individual sales, is no reason to think they can keep a company in the black. The two skillsets have almost no overlap.
Absolutely true but a bit of a strawman argument I think. Sales is a people and money oriented job. Being a good salesman can result in becoming a sales manager which involves a tremendous amount of finance, accounting and people management by the numbers. In other words excellent training grounds for higher management. You're right that just making a sale doesn't make one management material but neither does designing a nifty widget.
For companies that make a real product rather than service industries, coming from manufacturing or distribution ought to have just as good a chance of making good management as coming from sales or finance.
They can do make good management with the caveats that A) they have to seek out training in accounting/finance and B) they have to have or develop "people skills" since managing is mostly about people. Engineers and production people who do this rise to the top as easily as anyone else.
For quite a long time now, the CEOs of American auto makers have typically come from the sales or finance organizations. I'd like to see them go back to being run by a "car guy."
I assume by "car guy" you mean someone with an engineering background. There are reasons that relatively few engineers end up in management. Managing a business, particularly a large one, requires a STRONG understanding of accounting and finance. A manager who doesn't understand accounting is like an engineer who doesn't understand math. Additionally managing is about people and, let's be frank, engineers tend to be rather bad with people on the whole. There are notable exceptions but we're not a demographic noted for being overly social - at least not in ways that aid in rising to the top of Fortune 500 companies.
It's NOT that engineers can't handle it (they definitely have the brainpower) but they tend not to seek it out accounting and finance training. One hypothesis is that management requires making decisions under uncertainty which doesn't appeal to the mindset of many engineers. Perhaps some of that is cultural as well. Look at how many snide "MBAs are idiots" comments you see here on slashdot. As someone who is both an engineer and an accountant I tend to laugh at those comments because most of them are absurd rants against The Man.
Carburetors are something that gets taught to a 15 year old student and is as such certainly within the grasp.
Perhaps you attended a high school with an auto shop class. I didn't and neither did any of my close relatives or friends in my generation. The last carburated car in the US was produced in 1991 which coincidentally was the year I graduated from high school. Every car I have ever owned has been fuel injected. Yes you can find carburators even now but mostly on the smallest and cheapest engines and they are slowly going away. Even motorcycles are headed toward fuel injection these days. The only reason I know anything about carburators is because I'm just kind of a curious geek that way and find them interesting.
Point is, knowing how a carburator works has little to do with the skill set of being a decent manager - automotive industry or otherwise. I've worked as an automotive engineer and I know this from first hand experience. ,
It's all well executed stuff that works...
Exactly - but being "well executed" didn't happen by accident. Where each company spent its engineering dollars is immediately apparent once you realize that flashy displays and electronics aren't the only technology in a car. BMWs have a very refined driving experience because they invested a lot of engineering talent and advanced technology in creating a car for customers who value performance & comfort. The engineers at Toyota focused their efforts on the Prius towards the hybrid powertrain and fuel economy rather than comfort and performance. Nothing wrong with either approach and they were designed for very different customers. Make no mistake however; the feel of a BMW suspension and chassis is every bit as hard to replicate as the powertrain of a Prius.
I'd appreciate it very much if someone could please explain to me, how is it possible that one company sells something at a loss and it's called "dumping" (which you can get in trouble for, IIUC), and another company sells something at a loss and it's called a "loss leader?"
Dumping is a form of predatory pricing under international trade law whereby a product is sold below cost or below market value in the country of origin. Economists sometimes take a more general definition of dumping to mean any kind of predatory pricing but in my experience this is a less common usage. Dumping often occurs when a producer has excess capacity beyond what their home market can absorb so they sell the excess in a different market either to damage current/potential competitors or to gain market share.
A loss leader is basically a sales promotion. One product is sold cheaply (possibly below cost) with the expectation, but normally not the requirement, that customers will be enticed into buying additional more profitable product(s). The most famous version is the razors and blade model pioneered by Gillette.
The important difference is that a loss leader isn't necessarily destructive. With dumping there is no attempt at profitability, at least not in the short term. However predatory pricing in general, including dumping, can be very hard to prove. It's quite rare to have clear evidence that dumping is occurring. Furthermore in some countries (notably China) it's not unusual for the government to hold stakes in manufacturing firms. Naturally it is rather difficult subpoenaing records from a state owned Chinese manufacturer so you can sue them for dumping.
Except for the whole part where trucks are supposed to be big and powerful--something hybrid engines definitely aren't.
Hybrids can be very powerful. They also can be designed for fuel economy. It's a design choice. For a while the Honda Accord Hybrid was BOTH the most powerful Accord and the most fuel efficient.
The engineering in my Prius is far more advanced than anything BMW or Mercedes throws into their cars.
I've worked as an automotive engineer and I call bullshit. Either you have some odd definition of "advanced" or you have no idea what you are talking about. A bunch of nifty electronics and gauges for you to read does not make it the most advanced car on the planet. As an example the suspension in any BMW is FAR more capable and sophisticated than the one in the Prius. I'm not saying a BMW is necessarily more "advanced" but it certainly isn't less. There is a LOT more to the technology in non-hybrid cars than you are giving credit for.
I have no issue with the rest of your reasons. The Prius and other hybrids are cool and there are reasons for buying one other than pure economics. The fuel economy and lack of noise pollution alone are sufficient reason in my book.
Does the Ford Escape Hybrid not count as a light truck?
I'd put it more in the category with station-wagons-for-people-with-self-image-issues. :-) But yes I would say it counts.
Seriously though I'd LOVE to see a Honda Ridgeline or Toyota Tacoma with either a diesel or hybrid powerplant. Diesel-electric would be even better.
I can't see making a hybrid truck. First, most hybrids have SMALLer motors, which lowers overall hauling power.
Hybrids also have electric motors which *can* be designed to have HUGE torque - much higher than petrol/diesel engines. There is a reason locomotives are powered by electric motors. A hybrid does not HAVE to be lower powered.
Second, the drive train is spec'ed to increase mileage, again making hauling power an afterthought.
Again a design trade-off that can go the other way.
The whole idea of a hybrid is a small, light, vehicle with tweaked CVT transmission to get the highest mpg's.
No the small light hybrid is just what has been popular. Look, you can design a hybrid for performance just as much as you can for fuel economy. The only questions are whether people will buy it and what the cost will be.