I'm not familiar with the licensing restrictions for the EU and the UK, but I remember doing localization for Europe and it was a pain. Particularly France. There are all kinds of unique things that each country wants in regards to legal requirements, disclaimers, etc. There's even a board in the French government that is supposed to come up with French names for American technical terms. (So when we had a new system extension or control panel, we'd have to give them an opportunity to rename it to something French.) And we always had the SECAM nightmare to deal with for anything relating to video.
I can't imagine what the differences are for local censorship/decency standards in each region, but I'll bet it's a bear.
Even if true, I'd bet you a dollar it's learned preference and will be completely different in the coming years. I'd wager that the preference has to do with how we're taught the 'weight' of the printed word either in libraries from when we were children, or contextual learning, like ignoring the fine print in a drug ad. I'd also bet that a similar study would show that we forget things read in magazines more quickly than things read in books. And I bet we remember hardcover books more than softcover, etc.
In other words, the people studied put digital readers in a mental category of 'novelty item' today, and their brain de-prioritizes what they are reading accordingly.
The tragedy here is that no private citizen can ever hope to be protected with this vigor. They've crucified someone because of who the crime was committed against, not based on the crime. It's a tragedy of our legal system, which is no longer even remotely about justice, the good of the people, or reforming criminals. It's about money and power. (Making money for those in power.)
I would whole-heartedly agree with "if you can't do the time, don't do the time" if there were a snowball's chance in hell that when my private accounts were hacked, there would be similar penalties. What do you think would happen if any one of us were to call the police and say "my email account was hacked"? I bet we'd be lucky if they didn't try to press charges against us for wasting their time.
When a foreign national uncovers secrets and we catch them, what are they accused of? What's the equivalent of treason when done by someone from another country?
Unfortunately, management doesn't always have its company's best interests in mind when it's dealing with perceived (or possibly real) insubordination brought on by a lack of earned respect or at least a willingness to listen to its underlings.
---
No one has the company's best interest at heart. Everyone is always looking out for their own best interest, all day, every day.
It would be nice if there was a magic switch where we could flush all incompetent people out of an organization and have done with it, but it's never that simple. It costs time and money to train someone new, it's a risk to change things from status quo (what if things get worse?), it always comes down to cost benefit analysis. And most of the time, people don't do the math well.
I hear your pain. I've been the idealist engineer and thought I could solve everything. And since then I've been at all levels of management and done my best. It's never as simple as you think. At the end of the day though, do you want to make a difference, or carp at the system?
It's the same thing we were talking about with communication. What's the intent?
Not seeing the difference between honesty and bluntness is the gap. Here's an easy one. The wife asks "Do I look fat in these pants?" You can say "Yes, honey, and if you spent some time on the treadmill we'd all be happier."
That would be blunt, and you won't be getting laid anytime soon.
Let me put it to you another way. Do you believe that there is only one way to express the 'truth' in any given situation? Are you saing the tech types have only one option in the way they state their point?
I have a different perspective on the unfortunate reality idea. I've worked in a lot of different environments (a certain fruit based computer company, financial sector, DoD, other...) and I've always been an optimist about how people fit in and how to play to people's strengths in the workplace. I've always had that filter that when someone says "so and so is a moron" I hear what they mean and why. Sometimes I nod in agreement, sometimes I'll take a moment and explain things from the other person's perspective (like the marketing VP who's trying to get the product on the shelves before people are done christmas shopping).
In that very scenario, the marketing guy may be a complete idiot when he says "we have to have this out the door in a week", at which point you have the option of saying "you're a moron" or you can say "that'll cost us thousands in support calls". The marketing guy doesn't understand the engineer's perspective any better than the engineer understands the marketing guy's. And conversely, the marketing guy might be sitting there thinking it doesn't matter that it costs us thousands of dollars in support calls if we lose millions because there's a whole in the product line during the Christmas period. (A case where the engineer is an idiot.)
This is true of most cross-functional interactions within groups, the people on the lines don't fully understand the functions of people on different tasks, nor should they. But the point is that being bluntly and abusively frank without any filter isn't the same thing as being honest. It's not a PC cop-out to say something in nicer terms, but not everyone is wired to think before they speak.
From my experience, all things being equal (as in your dealing with moderately competent people and some exceptional people) it's generally just lack of understanding of the motivations and goals of the parties involved. I will admit that I have been very fortunate to work with many good teams of people.
Now, when things aren't equal, when you're dealing with exceptionals and incompetents, it's hard to judge. The trick is being able to determine if the exceptional are truly that, and where is the incompetence. You have to fix the problems.
I've worked in one sector where the customers paying for delivery did not have the knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions. They were in a situation where they relied solely on external contractors and consultants for all of their technical expertise and advice. The problem in this scenario was that it was almost impossible for the customer to differentiate good solid and reliable information from gibberish. I've seen a lot of incompetent engineers masking themselves as savants by throwing big technical terms at a customer who is too intimidated by their own ignorance to question the person they are paying to guide them.
And incompetence can surface anywhere, it's not solely the domain of marketing, management, engineering, or end users. The only way to defeat that is to find ways to quantify the impact of anything and everything. Then it's no longer a personal battle or an emotional one. And it's no longer your opinion that this or that person is incompetent. It doesn't matter what anyone's feelings are about something if you can produce numbers and say option A x dollars, option B y dollars.
Companies that require real innovation and brilliance in their employees know the value of your socially dysfunctional techno-geniuses. There's one really easy and successful method to deal with this, you pull them out of mainstream interface with customers and other teams, and insert a handler type person to manage the relationships between this person and the rest of the world.
Generally, the malcontent, venom or other abrasive behavior is just a gap in understanding between the savant's perspective and the demands/motivations of the people he's dealing with. That coupled with the fact that these purist types think in terms that results are what matters/people's feelings and perspectives are irrelevant when compared to the logic of what "the right answer" dictates. People who can drive for success, brilliance, and innovation are not good at grey areas and compromises, it's part of the mentality necessary to burn through all the distractions and succeed where others are daunted. They also tend to be impatient and act/respond impulsively when in those social situations where they should use a politically correct answer like "there may be another way to do things that would be more efficient" (a response that is considerate of another's viewpoint) versus "that is a complete waste of time" (which may well be true, but no one appreciates hearing it put so bluntly). The fact is, when you are that person in that room, the people asking the stupid questions are the ones who are mucking up the works and getting in the way of achieving what is so clearly achievable. It is frustrating for folks like this to have to pander to people and waste their time to explain things that (to them) should be self evident. (And if it's not self evident to them, the person their dealing with should just sit back and acknowledge that they're not qualified to be involved.)
Folks like this succeed with someone who is good at translating for them. Communicating what the customer wants, why they want it, and why it should matter to that engineer in terms and context that they can understand. Likewise, the other groups/customers benefit from having someone temper what the brilliant person is saying into softer, more easily digestible 'this is what he means' terms.
Funny, cause a friend of mine used to do graphic design work for them and some of the other trash rags. Of course, this was years ago, so maybe things have changed, but he explained that his job was to take a photo and tweak it to make something outrageous. The difference being that the enquirer would take a pot bellied Madonna and have the headline "Madonna Preggers?" whereas the other rags would be "Madonna to have 3 headed alien baby"...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not familiar with the licensing restrictions for the EU and the UK, but I remember doing localization for Europe and it was a pain. Particularly France. There are all kinds of unique things that each country wants in regards to legal requirements, disclaimers, etc. There's even a board in the French government that is supposed to come up with French names for American technical terms. (So when we had a new system extension or control panel, we'd have to give them an opportunity to rename it to something French.) And we always had the SECAM nightmare to deal with for anything relating to video.
I can't imagine what the differences are for local censorship/decency standards in each region, but I'll bet it's a bear.
You've heard of Hulu.com, right?
He's going to Chico State...
for art.
Even if true, I'd bet you a dollar it's learned preference and will be completely different in the coming years. I'd wager that the preference has to do with how we're taught the 'weight' of the printed word either in libraries from when we were children, or contextual learning, like ignoring the fine print in a drug ad. I'd also bet that a similar study would show that we forget things read in magazines more quickly than things read in books. And I bet we remember hardcover books more than softcover, etc.
In other words, the people studied put digital readers in a mental category of 'novelty item' today, and their brain de-prioritizes what they are reading accordingly.
They need a better study.
Sorry, typo, I meant "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
The tragedy here is that no private citizen can ever hope to be protected with this vigor. They've crucified someone because of who the crime was committed against, not based on the crime. It's a tragedy of our legal system, which is no longer even remotely about justice, the good of the people, or reforming criminals. It's about money and power. (Making money for those in power.)
I would whole-heartedly agree with "if you can't do the time, don't do the time" if there were a snowball's chance in hell that when my private accounts were hacked, there would be similar penalties. What do you think would happen if any one of us were to call the police and say "my email account was hacked"? I bet we'd be lucky if they didn't try to press charges against us for wasting their time.
When a foreign national uncovers secrets and we catch them, what are they accused of? What's the equivalent of treason when done by someone from another country?
Thank-you.
Unfortunately, management doesn't always have its company's best interests in mind when it's dealing with perceived (or possibly real) insubordination brought on by a lack of earned respect or at least a willingness to listen to its underlings.
---
No one has the company's best interest at heart. Everyone is always looking out for their own best interest, all day, every day.
It would be nice if there was a magic switch where we could flush all incompetent people out of an organization and have done with it, but it's never that simple. It costs time and money to train someone new, it's a risk to change things from status quo (what if things get worse?), it always comes down to cost benefit analysis. And most of the time, people don't do the math well.
I hear your pain. I've been the idealist engineer and thought I could solve everything. And since then I've been at all levels of management and done my best. It's never as simple as you think. At the end of the day though, do you want to make a difference, or carp at the system?
It's the same thing we were talking about with communication. What's the intent?
Not seeing the difference between honesty and bluntness is the gap. Here's an easy one. The wife asks "Do I look fat in these pants?" You can say "Yes, honey, and if you spent some time on the treadmill we'd all be happier." That would be blunt, and you won't be getting laid anytime soon. Let me put it to you another way. Do you believe that there is only one way to express the 'truth' in any given situation? Are you saing the tech types have only one option in the way they state their point?
I have a different perspective on the unfortunate reality idea. I've worked in a lot of different environments (a certain fruit based computer company, financial sector, DoD, other...) and I've always been an optimist about how people fit in and how to play to people's strengths in the workplace. I've always had that filter that when someone says "so and so is a moron" I hear what they mean and why. Sometimes I nod in agreement, sometimes I'll take a moment and explain things from the other person's perspective (like the marketing VP who's trying to get the product on the shelves before people are done christmas shopping).
In that very scenario, the marketing guy may be a complete idiot when he says "we have to have this out the door in a week", at which point you have the option of saying "you're a moron" or you can say "that'll cost us thousands in support calls". The marketing guy doesn't understand the engineer's perspective any better than the engineer understands the marketing guy's. And conversely, the marketing guy might be sitting there thinking it doesn't matter that it costs us thousands of dollars in support calls if we lose millions because there's a whole in the product line during the Christmas period. (A case where the engineer is an idiot.)
This is true of most cross-functional interactions within groups, the people on the lines don't fully understand the functions of people on different tasks, nor should they. But the point is that being bluntly and abusively frank without any filter isn't the same thing as being honest. It's not a PC cop-out to say something in nicer terms, but not everyone is wired to think before they speak.
From my experience, all things being equal (as in your dealing with moderately competent people and some exceptional people) it's generally just lack of understanding of the motivations and goals of the parties involved. I will admit that I have been very fortunate to work with many good teams of people.
Now, when things aren't equal, when you're dealing with exceptionals and incompetents, it's hard to judge. The trick is being able to determine if the exceptional are truly that, and where is the incompetence. You have to fix the problems.
I've worked in one sector where the customers paying for delivery did not have the knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions. They were in a situation where they relied solely on external contractors and consultants for all of their technical expertise and advice. The problem in this scenario was that it was almost impossible for the customer to differentiate good solid and reliable information from gibberish. I've seen a lot of incompetent engineers masking themselves as savants by throwing big technical terms at a customer who is too intimidated by their own ignorance to question the person they are paying to guide them.
And incompetence can surface anywhere, it's not solely the domain of marketing, management, engineering, or end users. The only way to defeat that is to find ways to quantify the impact of anything and everything. Then it's no longer a personal battle or an emotional one. And it's no longer your opinion that this or that person is incompetent. It doesn't matter what anyone's feelings are about something if you can produce numbers and say option A x dollars, option B y dollars.
Companies that require real innovation and brilliance in their employees know the value of your socially dysfunctional techno-geniuses. There's one really easy and successful method to deal with this, you pull them out of mainstream interface with customers and other teams, and insert a handler type person to manage the relationships between this person and the rest of the world.
Generally, the malcontent, venom or other abrasive behavior is just a gap in understanding between the savant's perspective and the demands/motivations of the people he's dealing with. That coupled with the fact that these purist types think in terms that results are what matters/people's feelings and perspectives are irrelevant when compared to the logic of what "the right answer" dictates. People who can drive for success, brilliance, and innovation are not good at grey areas and compromises, it's part of the mentality necessary to burn through all the distractions and succeed where others are daunted. They also tend to be impatient and act/respond impulsively when in those social situations where they should use a politically correct answer like "there may be another way to do things that would be more efficient" (a response that is considerate of another's viewpoint) versus "that is a complete waste of time" (which may well be true, but no one appreciates hearing it put so bluntly). The fact is, when you are that person in that room, the people asking the stupid questions are the ones who are mucking up the works and getting in the way of achieving what is so clearly achievable. It is frustrating for folks like this to have to pander to people and waste their time to explain things that (to them) should be self evident. (And if it's not self evident to them, the person their dealing with should just sit back and acknowledge that they're not qualified to be involved.)
Folks like this succeed with someone who is good at translating for them. Communicating what the customer wants, why they want it, and why it should matter to that engineer in terms and context that they can understand. Likewise, the other groups/customers benefit from having someone temper what the brilliant person is saying into softer, more easily digestible 'this is what he means' terms.
Funny, cause a friend of mine used to do graphic design work for them and some of the other trash rags. Of course, this was years ago, so maybe things have changed, but he explained that his job was to take a photo and tweak it to make something outrageous. The difference being that the enquirer would take a pot bellied Madonna and have the headline "Madonna Preggers?" whereas the other rags would be "Madonna to have 3 headed alien baby"...