I vote for option 3: Converse with the employee and explain your reasoning for doing A, ask him his reasoning for doing B (if he didn't explain it when he approached you), discuss both options, and end with the fact that the decision has already been made and keep an open mind in the future.
Whether you're managing a few people or many, a manager ought to be open to discussion with employees, to accept constructive criticism, and be able to explain reasoning behind decisions that they make. This is good management. Sadly, not all managers are good managers.
Exaggerate much? I never said that they have -no- focus on their education, only that maybe resources that are usually spent on non-academic programs could go to fund the actual academic programs. An example is the University of Florida where the computer science department is being reduced, but the football program's funding is increased.
Having sports programs competing with academic programs in academic institutions for funding screws up a university's priorities. Compare the funding of the sports programs versus department funding. Or how many research programs or slots they're able to fund. Sports programs may be profitable, but is that really how we want to run our academic institutions? Like a business?
I liked the way that schools in Germany had separated their academic programs from their athletic programs. That way the schools never confused their priorities in giving people top quality education.
Just something to think about instead of trying to be sarcastic and narrowly-focused.
They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.
What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money than it does now, if that is the case)?
Maybe if their basketball and other sports programs are no longer a source of revenue, the university will go back to focusing on education.
I don't think you can really say they are true counter-examples because different forms of government are best for different cultures/people. Germany makes a multi-party system work.
I believe the same scientist there who made the magnetic tape also invented a rudimentary optical network as well, which was also buried because they saw it as a threat.
I'm trying to find the exact article, but Wired magazine published an article about that research being stifled.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote for option 3: Converse with the employee and explain your reasoning for doing A, ask him his reasoning for doing B (if he didn't explain it when he approached you), discuss both options, and end with the fact that the decision has already been made and keep an open mind in the future. Whether you're managing a few people or many, a manager ought to be open to discussion with employees, to accept constructive criticism, and be able to explain reasoning behind decisions that they make. This is good management. Sadly, not all managers are good managers.
Which explains why we hate Cylons so much....
Exaggerate much? I never said that they have -no- focus on their education, only that maybe resources that are usually spent on non-academic programs could go to fund the actual academic programs. An example is the University of Florida where the computer science department is being reduced, but the football program's funding is increased. Having sports programs competing with academic programs in academic institutions for funding screws up a university's priorities. Compare the funding of the sports programs versus department funding. Or how many research programs or slots they're able to fund. Sports programs may be profitable, but is that really how we want to run our academic institutions? Like a business? I liked the way that schools in Germany had separated their academic programs from their athletic programs. That way the schools never confused their priorities in giving people top quality education. Just something to think about instead of trying to be sarcastic and narrowly-focused.
They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.
What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money than it does now, if that is the case)?
Maybe if their basketball and other sports programs are no longer a source of revenue, the university will go back to focusing on education.
The question must be asked: How do I shot web?
I don't think you can really say they are true counter-examples because different forms of government are best for different cultures/people. Germany makes a multi-party system work.
Germany does. It forces their political parties to listen to ideologies other than their own and work together in order to get elected.
I believe the same scientist there who made the magnetic tape also invented a rudimentary optical network as well, which was also buried because they saw it as a threat. I'm trying to find the exact article, but Wired magazine published an article about that research being stifled.
You're right... They're not hackers. They're HACKERS ON STEROIDS!