It is probably a combination of the two. Because MGMT always assumes IT can do something with very little, and often the Impossible with Nothing.
We are skilled (most of us anyway) problem solvers, and they rely upon that to function. I hate to say it, but to the original question should be answered this way: HIRE outside consultants to evaluate your system(s), and give you a hard copy report on their findings that you can present to MGMT.
If the situation is as I believe, it is worse than he even suspects. He needs more help than he can do by himself, to get ahead of the curve.
Sounds like a scam to me. If you have a product, you deliver it. They didn't have a product, or at least didn't have the product they said they had., They were selling hype.
If Capitalist can find all workers he needs, willing to work for given wage (concept, not legal version) then is that not the Most efficient use of Capital and Efficiency? Isn't that exactly what the work is worth, regardless of profit?
Profit is the goal, and having a profit margin too high, will invite competition, until profits stop being an incentive.
As for deciding how much work was "worth", who gets to decide? Is it the one that is paying the wage, the one working, or the agreement between the two that defines what the work is worth? The answer lies in my original paragraph.
No, a Libertarian would have fines for trash that is uncollected and affecting neighbors. Then, when the municipal sanitation workers strike, would force businesses and residents to hire alternative collection agents or risk being fined, instead of letting rubbish pile up on the streets.
However a person that has ZERO footprint for Sanitation would not have to worry about paying anyone for trash service.
The issue is sanitation, not who picks up the garbage.
Opportunity and Results are philosophical only to those that want equal results, which is impossible. A Down's Syndrome person has NO chance of becoming a rocket scientist. Equal results would demand it be possible. However, Equality of Opportunity gives them the chance to succeed at something, even if it was trivial for a normal person.
I have a huge problem when people want equal results, which are impossible, because they punish those that are able to prop up those that are not able. What we are able to do is realize that life is not fair, and treat people with respect regardless of ability or social/economic status. That is where Liberty is greatest.
I have a similar story, the difference was, they were replacing the server and couldn't remember the password and asked me if I knew what it was... of course I did.
Then the guy replacing the server started asking me all these questions about the setup and what not because he couldn't figure it out (ARCNET was alien space technology). I told him that I would be happy to help at my normal rates.
It was that job that made me realize that it wasn't what you know, it is who you know. Being better at the job doesn't mean you get the job, as people have favors they have to cash in. I now collect favors as part of my jobs.
See the sign "Human Resources" where you go to do your paperwork?
Capitalism is about making the most efficient use of capital, humans are just a resource. Which is why big machines do the work of many men, it is more efficient. Unskilled labor is cheaper than skilled labor. If you can be replaced quickly by someone else, then your job is dependent upon you being more efficient than the next guy.
Marxism doesn't care about efficiency, which is why it and its variants have failed every time it has been tried. It doesn't place proper value upon the resources available, nor strives for efficiency increases, for there is no reward for being more efficient nor punishment for not being efficient enough.
Reality is harsh, but we've done a marvelous job of hiding that fact, by burying our heads in the sand.
Scott Brown is a RINO, by almost all measures. No, this is by-partisan measure. Both (R) and (D) suck, and those of you who keep defending one over the other are just ignorant.
Car Analogy: "I hear, if you put a cup of sugar in your gas tank, you can get double the miles per gallon you get now"
I expect that enough people don't know enough about cars that some idiot might WANT to believe such a statement long enough to put sugar in their gas tank, HOPING to get better mileage because they do care about money.
YES, I do expect people to know about how a ICE works, enough to know that putting sugar in the gas tank is a BAD idea. That is why Social Engineering is the greatest threat to computers, because the whole point of it is proven by how successful it is. And that arises because people are ignorant, trusting, hopeful, greedy...
Think about it this way, then it will make perfect sense. Think about how ignorant the average person is, and realize that about 1/2 of the people are even more ignorant than average (for acceptable levels of average).
So yes, people still are doing stupid stuff on computers.
Any affront to liberty should be resisted. Otherwise, the frog boils.
Mandatory Composting is a NICE idea, until people get tossed in jail for composting at home, because Obama's (or Newts) friends decide to make that illegal. After all, Composting is Mandatory and if you're not sending your compost to the government sanctioned compost pile, you're breaking the law!!!!
And don't say it can't happen that way, it already has (just not with composting)
As I stated before, Sanitation issues affect everyone, therefore rules for dealing with it could be universally applied, as long as it was equal across the board. Libertarians aren't against rules as many people believe. However the rules should be universally and equally applied (no group preferences).
Libertarians are not against rules. They are against rules that don't apply equally to all people equally. In this case, Libertarian policy would be offering discount/option for doing Green/Compostable for those that wish it. Additionally, since this is a health issue (Sanitation) there are rules that apply so that no harm comes to others.
Making it mandatory that all people to use Compost Services using municipal service is wrong. What if I want to make my compost, you think charging me for that service should be mandatory?
OR, we'll go to Walmart and get the generic for $12 (or whatever it is) for three months supply... and not give a rip about profits or Large Multinationals or China or Obama or Newt or...
If you remove profit, then nobody will look for new and better drugs. That, and today's profits off of drugs like this are funding research into next generation drugs and treatments, testing and trials and lawsuits and.... What you're really asking for is for no more research. That's pretty despicable.
You're talking Windows 7 x64, which is just x86 extended a bit. What I'm talking about is 64 bit Chip, not x86 with 64bit extensions, and all the baggage that comes with it.
Slashdot Mirror
It is probably a combination of the two. Because MGMT always assumes IT can do something with very little, and often the Impossible with Nothing.
We are skilled (most of us anyway) problem solvers, and they rely upon that to function. I hate to say it, but to the original question should be answered this way: HIRE outside consultants to evaluate your system(s), and give you a hard copy report on their findings that you can present to MGMT.
If the situation is as I believe, it is worse than he even suspects. He needs more help than he can do by himself, to get ahead of the curve.
You mean like MSI and ADMx (Group Policy) extensions for AD?
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/chromebrowser.html
and
http://dev.chromium.org/administrators/policy-templates
Sounds like a scam to me. If you have a product, you deliver it. They didn't have a product, or at least didn't have the product they said they had., They were selling hype.
If Capitalist can find all workers he needs, willing to work for given wage (concept, not legal version) then is that not the Most efficient use of Capital and Efficiency? Isn't that exactly what the work is worth, regardless of profit?
Profit is the goal, and having a profit margin too high, will invite competition, until profits stop being an incentive.
As for deciding how much work was "worth", who gets to decide? Is it the one that is paying the wage, the one working, or the agreement between the two that defines what the work is worth? The answer lies in my original paragraph.
What do large flightless NZ birds have to do with this discussion?
Slashdot needs a neutral Mod (+0) or Disagree Mod(-0) or something other than -1 (Troll) mod meaning "I disagree".
Either that or we need more MetaModerators that spot the -1(Troll) mods as meaning "I disagree" so that those trolls stop getting Mod Points.
No, a Libertarian would have fines for trash that is uncollected and affecting neighbors. Then, when the municipal sanitation workers strike, would force businesses and residents to hire alternative collection agents or risk being fined, instead of letting rubbish pile up on the streets.
However a person that has ZERO footprint for Sanitation would not have to worry about paying anyone for trash service.
The issue is sanitation, not who picks up the garbage.
Opportunity and Results are philosophical only to those that want equal results, which is impossible. A Down's Syndrome person has NO chance of becoming a rocket scientist. Equal results would demand it be possible. However, Equality of Opportunity gives them the chance to succeed at something, even if it was trivial for a normal person.
I have a huge problem when people want equal results, which are impossible, because they punish those that are able to prop up those that are not able. What we are able to do is realize that life is not fair, and treat people with respect regardless of ability or social/economic status. That is where Liberty is greatest.
Mod Funny +1
I have a similar story, the difference was, they were replacing the server and couldn't remember the password and asked me if I knew what it was. .. of course I did.
Then the guy replacing the server started asking me all these questions about the setup and what not because he couldn't figure it out (ARCNET was alien space technology). I told him that I would be happy to help at my normal rates.
It was that job that made me realize that it wasn't what you know, it is who you know. Being better at the job doesn't mean you get the job, as people have favors they have to cash in. I now collect favors as part of my jobs.
See the sign "Human Resources" where you go to do your paperwork?
Capitalism is about making the most efficient use of capital, humans are just a resource. Which is why big machines do the work of many men, it is more efficient. Unskilled labor is cheaper than skilled labor. If you can be replaced quickly by someone else, then your job is dependent upon you being more efficient than the next guy.
Marxism doesn't care about efficiency, which is why it and its variants have failed every time it has been tried. It doesn't place proper value upon the resources available, nor strives for efficiency increases, for there is no reward for being more efficient nor punishment for not being efficient enough.
Reality is harsh, but we've done a marvelous job of hiding that fact, by burying our heads in the sand.
Scott Brown is a RINO, by almost all measures. No, this is by-partisan measure. Both (R) and (D) suck, and those of you who keep defending one over the other are just ignorant.
Car Analogy: "I hear, if you put a cup of sugar in your gas tank, you can get double the miles per gallon you get now"
I expect that enough people don't know enough about cars that some idiot might WANT to believe such a statement long enough to put sugar in their gas tank, HOPING to get better mileage because they do care about money.
YES, I do expect people to know about how a ICE works, enough to know that putting sugar in the gas tank is a BAD idea. That is why Social Engineering is the greatest threat to computers, because the whole point of it is proven by how successful it is. And that arises because people are ignorant, trusting, hopeful, greedy ...
Humans are flawed. Most of us tragically so.
Think about it this way, then it will make perfect sense. Think about how ignorant the average person is, and realize that about 1/2 of the people are even more ignorant than average (for acceptable levels of average).
So yes, people still are doing stupid stuff on computers.
You have mistakenly equated "equally" with "equality", they are not the same. One is measure of opportunity, the other is of results.
Any affront to liberty should be resisted. Otherwise, the frog boils.
Mandatory Composting is a NICE idea, until people get tossed in jail for composting at home, because Obama's (or Newts) friends decide to make that illegal. After all, Composting is Mandatory and if you're not sending your compost to the government sanctioned compost pile, you're breaking the law!!!!
And don't say it can't happen that way, it already has (just not with composting)
Me, I miss the Flechette
Actually, Libertarians expect people to behave, and have consequences for when they don't.
As I stated before, Sanitation issues affect everyone, therefore rules for dealing with it could be universally applied, as long as it was equal across the board. Libertarians aren't against rules as many people believe. However the rules should be universally and equally applied (no group preferences).
In the "mandatory" part. Or do you think that this kind of stuff is "free"?
You don't understand LIBERTARIAN principles.
Libertarians are not against rules. They are against rules that don't apply equally to all people equally. In this case, Libertarian policy would be offering discount/option for doing Green/Compostable for those that wish it. Additionally, since this is a health issue (Sanitation) there are rules that apply so that no harm comes to others.
Making it mandatory that all people to use Compost Services using municipal service is wrong. What if I want to make my compost, you think charging me for that service should be mandatory?
Limited Transistor counts and physical limitations of die size to start. Much of the current x64 chip is just to keep legacy x86 shit running.
OR, we'll go to Walmart and get the generic for $12 (or whatever it is) for three months supply ... and not give a rip about profits or Large Multinationals or China or Obama or Newt or ...
If you remove profit, then nobody will look for new and better drugs. That, and today's profits off of drugs like this are funding research into next generation drugs and treatments, testing and trials and lawsuits and .... What you're really asking for is for no more research. That's pretty despicable.
You're talking Windows 7 x64, which is just x86 extended a bit. What I'm talking about is 64 bit Chip, not x86 with 64bit extensions, and all the baggage that comes with it.