Agree. It's like cornering a smaller animal. It knows you have the power to stomp it, but that doesn't stop it from trying. Fear becomes fuel for the fight.
To put it another way, they attacked us because it is easy for a person to grab and hold power if they create or leverage an enemy that their potential followers can be made to hate. For example, suppose the Saudi government wants to keep all the money for itself and keep a tight grip on power in their country. So, they quash anyone who points that out to the public. And at the same time, they do not stomp down on anyone who suggests that the reason the conditions are bad for "the people" are because the US is meddling. Keep doing that for a generation or two, and you have a significant population who believes that the US is the reason the regular folks in Saudi Arabia are downtrodden.
Or, you insinuate yourself into a fledgling cable news operation and start spinning all the news to hint that all the problems are caused by a certain political party. You do it subtly, so that each story, taken on its own, can be judged as mostly fair, and then you maybe balance that out by having some news stories that call out members of your favored political party. But you don't criticize them based on their stupid ideas or behavior, but on their lack of allegiance to your values. That subtle bias is hard enough to pierce through, but then you let that stew for a couple-10 years, when your end-game really starts to happen. You've trained significant portions of the population to view "the other" as "the enemy", and even better, from them comes a class of new sources, experts and analysts who share your view without ever being told anything.
The slower you work the plan, the less likely it is to backfire.
I believe it doesn't matter. If you are on a LAN that connects to multiple providers, each client will have multiple addresses. [isp1]:[mac address], [isp2]:[mac address] and [internal lan]:[mac address] (roughly) The hosts don't have to decide, they just use whatever they want. And I don't think you have to readdress, as dhcp and the automagic self-addressing scheme will figure it out.
Some guy on the usenet agreeing with you is not evidence. My evidence is: it's a stupid metaphor. "Carrot" is not metaphorically a reward to anyone but mules and Bugs Bunny. "on a stick" paints a clear picture. "and/or a stick" is muddy. The stick isn't a particularly vivid punishment metaphor, nor is a carrot a memorable reward. Real metaphors tend to be more descriptive than the reality they try to describe. This one is not. Since it uses the same imagery as the "on a stick" metaphor, it follows that someone screwed up the metaphor and it stuck. This whole argument is a great metaphor for management, by the way. Screwing up concepts and treating employees like children or mules. Either way, anyone who uses either one is a moron.
The key is also in insisting on good performance on day one, and then being consistent. Being a good manager is hard, because it requires them to constantly "babysit" their subordinates. Managers who do not accept this will not be successful.
The point of the metrics is to view them at a far enough distance that the individual differences don't matter. If one guy is stuck on a day-long Difficult Problem, the rest of the team can crank through the easy problems even quicker, and at the end of the day, week or month, it all evens out. If you look at the team numbers and everything is equal (all techs catch calls randomly), and you have one tech who has lower numbers, that warrants investigation. Maybe he is just unlucky, or maybe he is a slacker. Same thing with NCLB, sort of. If a cohort of students progresses fine, and then they get with a certain teacher and suddenly their progress slows, it's pretty obvious there is some problem in that classroom. Usually it is the teacher. A classroom full of students is generally going to average out on the bell curve of human potential. If you have a group of students with an unusually high percentage of dumb kids, that blip in the statistics will have shown up in their previous years.
If I was in charge of NCLB, I'd mandate yearly (or even more often) tests that not only test what a group of kids has learned, but that also tests what they should be learning the next year. The data from the tests can be used to measure teacher performance, but also help to build curricula for the next year. If the kids somehow didn't quite get long division in 4th grade, then the 5th grade teacher needs to pick up there and re-teach what has been missed. Getting the kids from a 4.5 grade level to a 5.6 grade level in one year ought to be a bigger win than getting them from a 5.1 to a 6.0, even though the top number is lower.
Ugh. I absolutely hate the "carrot and a stick" metaphor. Who wants a fucking carrot as a reward? The metaphor is "carrot on a stick" and it originally referred to a manager changing the finish line when an employee got near it, from an old cartoon of a farmer on a mule, who got the mule to work because he hung a carrot on a stick and dangled it in front of the mule to entice it to walk. The mule was so stupid that it never figured out that the carrot kept moving forward along with him.
Man, I loved PS/2 computers. At their time, they were just so cool. Tool-less cases, that wacky MCA architecture, SCSI hard drives in some cases I think, 2.44mb floppies. And the non-cheap ones were fast as shit, for their time.
It's kind of like avant-guarde architecture. The guy who came up with the wacky design might be a genius, but the guy who figured out how to build it might be an even bigger genius in a slightly different arena.
Hey, if nobody else did it before them, it must not have been all that obvious. Your logic is like walking up to a $100 bill laying on the ground and not picking it up because somebody must have picked it up already.
I have to agree. If only because it seems impossible. How much of a gap can it bridge? Won't a coating break the buttons' electrical contacts? How does it protect the battery?
Slashdot Mirror
If someone is trying to kill you, you have the right to fight back. Once they are dead, they are no longer a threat.
A, there is always plenty of outrage. B, America is supposed to be better than that. You are why we aren't.
Agree. It's like cornering a smaller animal. It knows you have the power to stomp it, but that doesn't stop it from trying. Fear becomes fuel for the fight.
To put it another way, they attacked us because it is easy for a person to grab and hold power if they create or leverage an enemy that their potential followers can be made to hate. For example, suppose the Saudi government wants to keep all the money for itself and keep a tight grip on power in their country. So, they quash anyone who points that out to the public. And at the same time, they do not stomp down on anyone who suggests that the reason the conditions are bad for "the people" are because the US is meddling. Keep doing that for a generation or two, and you have a significant population who believes that the US is the reason the regular folks in Saudi Arabia are downtrodden.
Or, you insinuate yourself into a fledgling cable news operation and start spinning all the news to hint that all the problems are caused by a certain political party. You do it subtly, so that each story, taken on its own, can be judged as mostly fair, and then you maybe balance that out by having some news stories that call out members of your favored political party. But you don't criticize them based on their stupid ideas or behavior, but on their lack of allegiance to your values. That subtle bias is hard enough to pierce through, but then you let that stew for a couple-10 years, when your end-game really starts to happen. You've trained significant portions of the population to view "the other" as "the enemy", and even better, from them comes a class of new sources, experts and analysts who share your view without ever being told anything.
The slower you work the plan, the less likely it is to backfire.
I believe it doesn't matter. If you are on a LAN that connects to multiple providers, each client will have multiple addresses. [isp1]:[mac address], [isp2]:[mac address] and [internal lan]:[mac address] (roughly) The hosts don't have to decide, they just use whatever they want. And I don't think you have to readdress, as dhcp and the automagic self-addressing scheme will figure it out.
Some guy on the usenet agreeing with you is not evidence. My evidence is: it's a stupid metaphor. "Carrot" is not metaphorically a reward to anyone but mules and Bugs Bunny. "on a stick" paints a clear picture. "and/or a stick" is muddy. The stick isn't a particularly vivid punishment metaphor, nor is a carrot a memorable reward. Real metaphors tend to be more descriptive than the reality they try to describe. This one is not. Since it uses the same imagery as the "on a stick" metaphor, it follows that someone screwed up the metaphor and it stuck. This whole argument is a great metaphor for management, by the way. Screwing up concepts and treating employees like children or mules. Either way, anyone who uses either one is a moron.
Worked for Novell. Oh, wait.
Agreed. The ECU might be the same with just a different config code burned into it, but the motor is different in every car I know of.
The full tank of gas is a payoff to the owner to keep his mouth shut.
The key is also in insisting on good performance on day one, and then being consistent. Being a good manager is hard, because it requires them to constantly "babysit" their subordinates. Managers who do not accept this will not be successful.
The point of the metrics is to view them at a far enough distance that the individual differences don't matter. If one guy is stuck on a day-long Difficult Problem, the rest of the team can crank through the easy problems even quicker, and at the end of the day, week or month, it all evens out. If you look at the team numbers and everything is equal (all techs catch calls randomly), and you have one tech who has lower numbers, that warrants investigation. Maybe he is just unlucky, or maybe he is a slacker. Same thing with NCLB, sort of. If a cohort of students progresses fine, and then they get with a certain teacher and suddenly their progress slows, it's pretty obvious there is some problem in that classroom. Usually it is the teacher. A classroom full of students is generally going to average out on the bell curve of human potential. If you have a group of students with an unusually high percentage of dumb kids, that blip in the statistics will have shown up in their previous years.
If I was in charge of NCLB, I'd mandate yearly (or even more often) tests that not only test what a group of kids has learned, but that also tests what they should be learning the next year. The data from the tests can be used to measure teacher performance, but also help to build curricula for the next year. If the kids somehow didn't quite get long division in 4th grade, then the 5th grade teacher needs to pick up there and re-teach what has been missed. Getting the kids from a 4.5 grade level to a 5.6 grade level in one year ought to be a bigger win than getting them from a 5.1 to a 6.0, even though the top number is lower.
Ugh. I absolutely hate the "carrot and a stick" metaphor. Who wants a fucking carrot as a reward? The metaphor is "carrot on a stick" and it originally referred to a manager changing the finish line when an employee got near it, from an old cartoon of a farmer on a mule, who got the mule to work because he hung a carrot on a stick and dangled it in front of the mule to entice it to walk. The mule was so stupid that it never figured out that the carrot kept moving forward along with him.
Man, I loved PS/2 computers. At their time, they were just so cool. Tool-less cases, that wacky MCA architecture, SCSI hard drives in some cases I think, 2.44mb floppies. And the non-cheap ones were fast as shit, for their time.
It's kind of like avant-guarde architecture. The guy who came up with the wacky design might be a genius, but the guy who figured out how to build it might be an even bigger genius in a slightly different arena.
Hey, if nobody else did it before them, it must not have been all that obvious. Your logic is like walking up to a $100 bill laying on the ground and not picking it up because somebody must have picked it up already.
I have to agree. If only because it seems impossible. How much of a gap can it bridge? Won't a coating break the buttons' electrical contacts? How does it protect the battery?
A work of art. Well done, madam.
Clearly, you've never looked at a company's budget. CxO pay is miniscule compared to the whole payroll.
This basic programming language didn't teach me advanced topics! Waaaah!
That's hundreds. 2 ^ 7 is tens.
Huh?
It might work good, but it is unintuitive as hell.
Where did these 400 million people come from? That would basically be the entire population of the rest of Asia, besides India.
Was he the guy at HP that turned their printers into garbage?
Huh? They have been doing it that way for at least 5 years. Probably more, but that's the limit of my experience.