I spent a few years as a public servant before doing what I do now. It was, to say the least, an eye opening experience. If you want to learn exactly how NOT to run a business go work for the government for a while.
The procurement system is completely whacked. Everyone seems to know it but nobody wants to do anything to fix it. Democrats and Republicans alike have both had ample opportunity to fix it and both have shied away from it.
It is nearly impossible to fire an incompetent federal employee. The best management can do is put the person in a crummy job and hope they quit. Likewise, management is forbidden from giving bonuses to top performing employees. It doesn't take long before people realize that they get paid the same whether they put in an honest days work or sit there with their feet up on the desk.
Efficiency in government is punished, not rewarded. If you find a way to save money your reward is a reduced budget for next year. No raise, no promotion, no bonus, no thanks. So you end up with year end spending sprees to ensure that you spend every penny allocated to your department.
It's very difficult to measure success in government. If you are selling a product you can say we sold X last year and this year we sold X+2. Therefore, this year was better than last. In public service how do you measure it? We had fewer complaints this year than last?
It seemed to me that if you worked in government you had one of two choices. You could either suck it up and wait for your pension or leave and do something else. I chose to leave. I did find a lot of good, hard working people in government. I also found a lot of lazy, good for nothing doorstops. Such is life.
First of all, this would end up costing at least twice what they say it would. Let's say the first coal plant sells for $1B. The second one says...hmmm...they got $1B...I can get $1.2B....and so on.
Secondly, the US is far from the largest coal user and polluter. Even if you could shut down every coal plant in the US you would have to repeat the process in every country in the world that uses coal (starting with China). Yeah, good luck with that.
Thirdly, they suggest having it publicly funded or letting the rich guys pay for it. Obamacare is the latest huge publicly funded project in the US. Before that, it was TARP funds for infrastructure projects. Both of them have failed to meet stated goals. Both of them went vastly over budget. Both of them were rife with abuse and cronyism. Am I the only one that sees a pattern here?
So let's get the rich guys to pay for it. Ahh...the battle cry of the Socialist. And how is that going to happen exactly? Are we, the public, going to ask them to voluntarily give up large swaths of their fortunes to fund this project? Uh huh....not gonna happen. So then what? We take the money whether they like it or not through taxation or penalties or some other such method. This has been tried time and time again. They will simply hire accountants and lawyers to find a way around it and the middle class guy - who can't afford to hire the fancy accountants and lawyers - gets stuck with the bill.
So what to do? Why not try investing some of that $50B into finding ways of making coal safer to use and less harmful to the environment?
Absolutely right. I'm not passing judgement on people that are gaming it. Who am I to tell someone with a family to feed how to make that choice? People do what they have to do. I blame more the system that has evolved that practically forces you to cheat to stay in the game.
And others...with even more insight...might actually try to answer "why". Oh, I see that's missing from your response.
What do you think the reason is?
I don't pretend to know what it is - but I know what it isn't and that's discrimination. This two-wrongs-make-a-right type of approach when we tilt things one way and then re-tilt them back to address some supposed injustice just doesn't work.
How about we let the market decide? When IT jobs pay enough and have the right balance of home/work and provide whatever it is that would make it attractive to women as a career option they will join the ranks.
Do you really think that Google offering $100 to some schoolgirl is going to magically re-balance the workforce? It's nothing more than feel good, PR bullshit.
Right. So what you end up getting in interviews are people that "inflate" their resume (i.e. lie about their skills). And you get people that know how to "game" the system by using the right buzz words to fool the software and/or HR. Doesn't sound like much of a talent pool to me. Personally, I'd rather hire someone that just told me "you know, I don't have every single skill listed on there but I have a lot of them and I've proven that I can learn quickly".
If you're really lucky you might get a rockstar that actually has all the requirements you are looking for.
another solution looking for a problem. The reason there are fewer women in IT is not because they are being discriminated somehow. It's because they don't see it as a viable occupation for them. They are choosing not to enter the field - for whatever reason - but it is a choice that women have made.
This is not something that needs "fixing" but yet another diversity fuck-wit.
So Google is handing out $100 to girls that complete the JavaScript course? That's great but how about giving it to boys too?
-- Sarcasm begin: Oh but make sure you don't give it to any white boys. They have enough advantages in life already, don't ya know. What about those asian boys? Nah - we have enough of them in IT already. They don't need the $100. Yup, better just stick with giving it to the black and hispanic boys. They are, no doubt, under represented as well so they need a helping hand. And all girls - even white girls - will get the money. That should even things up. -- Sarcasm end
"Meanwhile, employers say managers are struggling to find qualified workers in STEM fields" - at the wages they are willing to pay and with the qualifications they require. This notion that we don't have enough STEM workers is ridiculous. The reason that Employers want more H1-B workers is that H1-B workers don't have the same employment protections that US Citizens have and will work for less money. Period.
As I see it, here are the problems:
1) Unrealistic expectations on the part of Employers - Have you seen some of these job postings? They want the applicant to know everything under the Sun and the starting salary is 50K. Good luck with that. 2) Resume screening programs/HR people - Often, good candidates are excluded from even applying for a job unless they meet each and every requirement. Sometimes the rejection is done via software and sometimes it's someone in HR that simply doesn't understand what the requirements mean and their relative importance to the position. The whole system encourages lying and gaming in order to get the interview. 3) The insistence that candidates have a 4 year degree - I'm not against higher education but I've been in the business long enough to know that lots of jobs in IT can be done by someone that does not have a 4 year degree, as long as they get the proper training and mentoring. Heck, even people with 4 year degrees need training and mentoring. This notion that people without 4 year degrees are incapable of learning IT skills is elitist and absurd.
Start addressing some of these issues and the STEM "shortage" will disappear.
Higher Ed, by the way, loves this idea of giving out more H1-B visas. Why? Because it will attract more foreign students to their schools if the Student can get a Green Card the day they graduate. And foreign students just happen to pay about double the tuition that an in-state, US Citizen would pay for exactly the same courses.
One thing I have learned working with big Universities over the years - they love money as much as the greedy private sector capitalists that they love to deride.
So Big Business and Big Education promote the idea of STEM shortage as a means to an end. The US STEM worker gets left out in the cold.
is similar to yours. I had a relatively cushy job working for the local government. It was a great training ground and I had advanced as far as I could go. The pay was OK but not great and raises were hard to come by. I got an opportunity to take a job with a very small company (less than 10 employees) doing what looked like really interesting work.
The pay was less than what I was making and I had to move to a more expensive city. But the opportunity excited me and I was young so I took it. Best move I ever made. The small company never went public or anything like that but I learned a great deal and it positioned me to take on increasingly responsible (and lucrative) roles in the future.
I'm convinced that if I had stayed in my cushy government job I would still be making peanuts and wishing I'd done something else with my life.
It taught me that the worst move you'll ever make is the move you never make. Sometimes you have to take a step sideways, or even backwards, in order to get ahead.
If FB shut it down it was only because they could not find a way to make money off it. Let's face it - everyone has caught on to these creeps and how they operate. Does anyone actually use their real name on there anymore? Does anyone actually sign up using their primary email address (with all your contacts and every important email message you have ever sent)?
FB reminds me a lot of Microsoft. You can only piss off your users so much before they 1) stop trusting you with their data and 2) start looking for alternative services. Microsoft has seen this happen over the past several years, particularly in the Consumer market. Witness the rise in Mac vs. PC sales. Witness Microsoft's almost complete lack of presence in either the tablet or mobile OS market. I think a lot of people just got pissed off with MS and started looking for other (better?) ways of getting things done.
Now lets take a look at FB. What do they offer? A place to post your photos, exchange news with your friends and a way to chat with them. So along comes Instagram and a lot of people switch to that for posting photos. Similarly, a lot of people have switched to Twitter for exchanging news information with their groups of friends. WhatsApp offers a way to chat with your friends around the world with no SMS charges, just like FB chat does.
So what is FB's response to this? They buy up Instagram and WhatsApp. Rumors continue to swirl that they are trying to buy Twitter. If you can't beat em, swallow them up.
What should be very disturbing to FB is that users are continuing to flee their service. Why? Because we don't trust them to be good custodians of our data. FB has a well documented history of terms of service head fakes and slights of hand.
If I were a FB user (and I'm not) I would be filling my profile with completely fake information, rendering their supposed advertising powerhouse completely useless. And if you have to go to that extent what's the point of even using it?
Well, there are different models of Tesla but I would argue that they are all high performance cars. Even the "low end" model (with the 60kWh battery) is capable of 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. This is posted on their website if you want to have a look (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design). While there are quicker cars, 5.9 is pretty darn quick in my books. And the torque comes on instantly so I'm sure it's a heck of a ride.
You make a fair point on diesel fuel. It does cost more but you get far better mileage than the average gas powered car. And if you're looking to make an environmental statement then diesel is hard to beat. Modern diesels are extremely clean. There is very little of the "clatter" associated with the older diesels. They typically have TONS of torque. The engines require less maintenance and have proven reliability.
In Europe and Asia diesel fuel is cheaper than regular gas so diesels tend to be very popular there. In the USA, as you noted, diesel sells at a premium. So if you look strictly at pump prices then, yes, gas powered cars are cheaper. But if you look at the whole picture I think that diesels make a compelling choice for many people.
Very interesting post. It seems that the Tesla Superchargers are the real deal. Coupled with the much longer battery life on the Tesla vs. Leaf and Volt it really does seem like a viable alternative. But again, you are in the Bay Area with lots of chargers. Yes, I know there are Superchargers all over the country but not in the same density as they are in California. I expect that to change in the coming years but as of now, it's not optimal.
The vast majority of Teslas have been sold in California. I know that because I happen to be doing some work in Silicon valley at the moment and I see a Tesla (or 5) every single day. I don't think I've seen one Tesla where I live.
The difference is that in California there are lots of charging stations set up so you can "plug in" when you need to. I'd be willing to bet there are not many charging stations in Montana.
The Leaf is a commuter car, the Tesla is a high end sports car that just happens to run on electric power instead of gas. The Tesla is an expensive car. The people driving them are the same people that a year or two ago would have bought a Porsche or a top end BMW or Audi. These are people that like fast cars and have a lot of disposable income.
Above all, the Tesla is a status symbol. It's a rich guy's way of saying I could drive a Porsche but I choose to drive a Tesla because it's environmentally friendly.
The Leaf, sadly, is DOA. Unless you start getting charging stations everywhere the only practical alternative is the hybrid. That's why the Prius, and to a lesser extent the Volt, have been so successful. It won't leave you stranded.
If you get stranded in the Tesla you just call Jeeves the butler to come pick you up in the Range Rover and all is well:-)
From what I understand WhatsApp requires you to use a real phone number (your cellphone number in fact) in order to receive text messages via your data plan rather than the SMS plans that cost extra with many carriers.
Sure, Facebook has a messaging app but they don't have your phone number. You can give it to them but I suspect that most people either leave it blank or put in a fake number. I suspect that a large part of this deal is getting a hold of that huge phone book that WhatsApp has now. Once FB has your cellphone number they can serve up ads to you via text messages even if you are not logged on to FB. Or maybe they will just sell your number to someone else.
Just watch - they will bury this 10 layers deep in the service agreement where nobody reads it. Next thing you know you'll be bombarded with junk...all in exchange for "free" text messaging. It's one more reason not to trust Zuck and company.
I'm not a WhatsApp user but if I were I'd be closing my account and looking for an alternative - pronto.
I've been in IT for a long time. If i wanted to be a "boss" I could have been one a long time ago. I have tried my hand at technical management more than once because I was asked to do it...not because I had a deep desire to manage others. My takeaway from it was basically that if you're going to be in management you don't want to be on the bottom rung of management.
A lot of it is, as the article says, "taking out the trash". Meetings, reports, deadlines. You have to directly supervise people that you used to work with. For me, it was difficult to give out orders. I'd rather just do the code myself than tell someone else to do it. In short, it wasn't a lot of fun. To me, coding is fun.
The other aspect, which turned out to be interesting, was that it gave me an insight into how other managers are chosen. Many of them seemed to have common traits. Far more extroverts than introverts. Long on self confidence, short on any real skills. A lot of them seemed to be the ones that are good at playing the corporate games. It seemed to me that the only interesting things happening in management were happening at the very top. The strategy, planning and business direction were being decided by a very few people at the very top of the organization. The rest of them were mired in some sort of middle management purgatory.
What I discovered is that the real power lies in having a job where you have freedom to do the things you want to do. Many engineering jobs offer just this, particularly in consulting. Sure, you still have to answer to deadlines and such but you get to focus on things that you enjoy without having to attend a lot of meetings or having to kiss the bosses ass. I might not be making as much money as some of the top brass but I'm having fun doing what I'm doing and I'm making a very good living at the same time. To me, it's a life well lived.
First off, "idiot" is a very strong word to use when speaking about someone professionally. I would be very careful about using that word unless you have very strong evidence that its true. As a consultant I can tell you that reputation is everything.
Secondly, there is a good chance that your boss (or his/her boss) hired this "idiot". If you try to make the consultant look bad you are, in turn, making your boss look bad by inferring that they have bad judgement.
Thirdly, ask yourself what you have to gain by outing this person? Probably not as much as you think. Best case scenario, they get rid of the person and bring in someone else. What if they are worse? What do you do then?
So what to do? If it were me I'd try to document things that the person is doing that you know are bad decisions. Don't - under any circumstances - try to sabotage or impede the project. The blame will fall on you. When you think you have a very, very strong case then bring it to your manager. But if he/she takes the consultants side then you'd better be prepared to walk. Your boss doesn't have your back and you are finished at that company.
One last thought...I'm not suggesting this is true in this case but I have seen it many times before. Is it possible that you have a case of "consultant envy"? Envious of the money they make or the influence they have? If so, let it go. It won't change a thing and will only put you in a bad mood. Life's too short.
Yeah I kind of wondered that myself. What if I had been dark skinned or spoke with a Middle Eastern accent? Would I have had such an easy time? Perhaps not.
I have light skin and a very anglo-sounding name. One day I go to check in for my flight and discover that I can't print my boarding pass. So I go to the ticket counter and after some hushed tone conversations they give me my boarding pass. This happens three weeks in a row and finally I ask someone why I can't print the darn pass at home. It was then I discovered that I'm on the no-fly list.
Eventually I was able to get something called a "Redress number" and was then able to board planes like everyone else.
But what pissed me off was that a) I was never told that I was on the no-fly list b) Nobody was able to tell me why I ended up on it in the first place c) I had to clear my name to get off the list.
In effect I was tried and convicted without even knowing that I was charged with anything. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was famously put on this list as well. Yet another example of blatant government stupidity and waste.
Crap - my mod points expired yesterday or you'd be getting some from me.
I fly a lot and there is something about being on a plane that acts as sort of a social amplifier. If you're a nice guy in real life they tend to be nicer on planes (helping old ladies with their luggage, etc.). If you're an asshole in real life then you'll be a bigger asshole on a plane. You know the type...puts his computer bag in the overhead bin depriving a later passenger of a place to put their luggage. Reclines the seat all the way back...right into the lap of the person behind them.
It's bad enough sitting at the airport gate listening to some self-important, narcissistic asshole talk for hours on a cellphone loud enough for the whole damn airport to hear them. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit beside him on a plane for the next 3 hours. I'd club the motherfucker unconscious with my laptop and probably get a heroes welcome from the other passengers.
If the builder was asked use an inferior cement, and he warned the boss about it before he built the wall, then it's the fault of the boss. The boss should pay to have the builder rebuild the wall.
This sort of thing happens all the time in software development. More than once I have been asked to code what I consider to be an inferior design. I explain why I think it is so. I document it in writing. They tell me to build it that way anyhow. Down the road, there are problems. If they ask me to fix it I will remind them that I told them it wouldn't work in the first place. If they still want me to fix it I will charge them for the time to fix it.
If, on the other hand, the fault is mine then I will fix it at no charge. I've never ran into this by the way but that's what I would do to keep my customer happy. Heck, if it's a really good customer I might just fix it for free just because they have been good to me. Just depends.
Dell had stated before he took the company private that he intended on entering new markets with a greater focus on services rather than hardware. Well, those are different skill sets. You can't just take a hardware guy and turn him into a software guy. Or vice versa. The other aspect, which I'm sure Dell is well aware of, is that the company is bloated in the middle management layer. Like just about every other big company out there.
What's interesting to me is not so much the layoffs themselves but where the cuts occur. Will he actually take the opportunity to get rid of some of the belly fat or will the dead wood continue to remain? Time will tell.
As long as Billy G. is still on the board it's going to be business as usual for MS. Sure, Gates stepped down from the largely ceremonial Chairman role only to transition to "technology advisor". Whatever that is. The point is, he's still got a seat on the board. Certainly, he's still the largest individual stock holder so some might argue that he deserves a seat on the board of the company that he built. That's a fair argument.
But if MS is going to thrive in this market it's going to need new leadership and new ideas. And it's going to need someone that can execute on those ideas without Gates hovering over him. Make no mistake - Gates still has a huge influence over MS no matter what his role is or what his title is.
Exactly right, Doc. This flipping around of security settings is deliberate on FB's part. They know that most of their users won't bother to go and change them back to what it was. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that a good percentage of FB users don't even understand all the settings. A simple "Opt Out" option is conspicuously absent. They make it hard to delete things by making you choose them one at a time, with no Select All functionality.
I use LinkedIn because it helps me professionally. The one thing that bugs me about it is the inability to have different settings for different people. You should be able to connect with a recruiter without exposing your entire contact list to them. But you can't - it's an all or nothing proposition. I should have the ability to show all my contacts to people I know well and hide my contacts from people I don't know well (or at all, in the case of some recruiters). Much like how you can do things on Google +.
FB is by no means alone when it comes to questionable tactics. At least with LinkedIn and Google I feel like I have a bit more control on how my data is presented. FB provides nothing useful for me so I choose not to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
I spent a few years as a public servant before doing what I do now. It was, to say the least, an eye opening experience. If you want to learn exactly how NOT to run a business go work for the government for a while.
The procurement system is completely whacked. Everyone seems to know it but nobody wants to do anything to fix it. Democrats and Republicans alike have both had ample opportunity to fix it and both have shied away from it.
It is nearly impossible to fire an incompetent federal employee. The best management can do is put the person in a crummy job and hope they quit. Likewise, management is forbidden from giving bonuses to top performing employees. It doesn't take long before people realize that they get paid the same whether they put in an honest days work or sit there with their feet up on the desk.
Efficiency in government is punished, not rewarded. If you find a way to save money your reward is a reduced budget for next year. No raise, no promotion, no bonus, no thanks. So you end up with year end spending sprees to ensure that you spend every penny allocated to your department.
It's very difficult to measure success in government. If you are selling a product you can say we sold X last year and this year we sold X+2. Therefore, this year was better than last. In public service how do you measure it? We had fewer complaints this year than last?
It seemed to me that if you worked in government you had one of two choices. You could either suck it up and wait for your pension or leave and do something else. I chose to leave. I did find a lot of good, hard working people in government. I also found a lot of lazy, good for nothing doorstops. Such is life.
First of all, this would end up costing at least twice what they say it would. Let's say the first coal plant sells for $1B. The second one says...hmmm...they got $1B...I can get $1.2B....and so on.
Secondly, the US is far from the largest coal user and polluter. Even if you could shut down every coal plant in the US you would have to repeat the process in every country in the world that uses coal (starting with China). Yeah, good luck with that.
Thirdly, they suggest having it publicly funded or letting the rich guys pay for it. Obamacare is the latest huge publicly funded project in the US. Before that, it was TARP funds for infrastructure projects. Both of them have failed to meet stated goals. Both of them went vastly over budget. Both of them were rife with abuse and cronyism. Am I the only one that sees a pattern here?
So let's get the rich guys to pay for it. Ahh...the battle cry of the Socialist. And how is that going to happen exactly? Are we, the public, going to ask them to voluntarily give up large swaths of their fortunes to fund this project? Uh huh....not gonna happen. So then what? We take the money whether they like it or not through taxation or penalties or some other such method. This has been tried time and time again. They will simply hire accountants and lawyers to find a way around it and the middle class guy - who can't afford to hire the fancy accountants and lawyers - gets stuck with the bill.
So what to do? Why not try investing some of that $50B into finding ways of making coal safer to use and less harmful to the environment?
Absolutely right. I'm not passing judgement on people that are gaming it. Who am I to tell someone with a family to feed how to make that choice? People do what they have to do. I blame more the system that has evolved that practically forces you to cheat to stay in the game.
And others...with even more insight...might actually try to answer "why". Oh, I see that's missing from your response.
What do you think the reason is?
I don't pretend to know what it is - but I know what it isn't and that's discrimination. This two-wrongs-make-a-right type of approach when we tilt things one way and then re-tilt them back to address some supposed injustice just doesn't work.
How about we let the market decide? When IT jobs pay enough and have the right balance of home/work and provide whatever it is that would make it attractive to women as a career option they will join the ranks.
Do you really think that Google offering $100 to some schoolgirl is going to magically re-balance the workforce? It's nothing more than feel good, PR bullshit.
Right. So what you end up getting in interviews are people that "inflate" their resume (i.e. lie about their skills). And you get people that know how to "game" the system by using the right buzz words to fool the software and/or HR. Doesn't sound like much of a talent pool to me. Personally, I'd rather hire someone that just told me "you know, I don't have every single skill listed on there but I have a lot of them and I've proven that I can learn quickly".
If you're really lucky you might get a rockstar that actually has all the requirements you are looking for.
another solution looking for a problem. The reason there are fewer women in IT is not because they are being discriminated somehow. It's because they don't see it as a viable occupation for them. They are choosing not to enter the field - for whatever reason - but it is a choice that women have made.
This is not something that needs "fixing" but yet another diversity fuck-wit.
So Google is handing out $100 to girls that complete the JavaScript course? That's great but how about giving it to boys too?
-- Sarcasm begin: Oh but make sure you don't give it to any white boys. They have enough advantages in life already, don't ya know. What about those asian boys? Nah - we have enough of them in IT already. They don't need the $100. Yup, better just stick with giving it to the black and hispanic boys. They are, no doubt, under represented as well so they need a helping hand. And all girls - even white girls - will get the money. That should even things up. -- Sarcasm end
See where this is going?
"Meanwhile, employers say managers are struggling to find qualified workers in STEM fields" - at the wages they are willing to pay and with the qualifications they require. This notion that we don't have enough STEM workers is ridiculous. The reason that Employers want more H1-B workers is that H1-B workers don't have the same employment protections that US Citizens have and will work for less money. Period.
As I see it, here are the problems:
1) Unrealistic expectations on the part of Employers - Have you seen some of these job postings? They want the applicant to know everything under the Sun and the starting salary is 50K. Good luck with that.
2) Resume screening programs/HR people - Often, good candidates are excluded from even applying for a job unless they meet each and every requirement. Sometimes the rejection is done via software and sometimes it's someone in HR that simply doesn't understand what the requirements mean and their relative importance to the position. The whole system encourages lying and gaming in order to get the interview.
3) The insistence that candidates have a 4 year degree - I'm not against higher education but I've been in the business long enough to know that lots of jobs in IT can be done by someone that does not have a 4 year degree, as long as they get the proper training and mentoring. Heck, even people with 4 year degrees need training and mentoring. This notion that people without 4 year degrees are incapable of learning IT skills is elitist and absurd.
Start addressing some of these issues and the STEM "shortage" will disappear.
Higher Ed, by the way, loves this idea of giving out more H1-B visas. Why? Because it will attract more foreign students to their schools if the Student can get a Green Card the day they graduate. And foreign students just happen to pay about double the tuition that an in-state, US Citizen would pay for exactly the same courses.
One thing I have learned working with big Universities over the years - they love money as much as the greedy private sector capitalists that they love to deride.
So Big Business and Big Education promote the idea of STEM shortage as a means to an end. The US STEM worker gets left out in the cold.
is similar to yours. I had a relatively cushy job working for the local government. It was a great training ground and I had advanced as far as I could go. The pay was OK but not great and raises were hard to come by. I got an opportunity to take a job with a very small company (less than 10 employees) doing what looked like really interesting work.
The pay was less than what I was making and I had to move to a more expensive city. But the opportunity excited me and I was young so I took it. Best move I ever made. The small company never went public or anything like that but I learned a great deal and it positioned me to take on increasingly responsible (and lucrative) roles in the future.
I'm convinced that if I had stayed in my cushy government job I would still be making peanuts and wishing I'd done something else with my life.
It taught me that the worst move you'll ever make is the move you never make. Sometimes you have to take a step sideways, or even backwards, in order to get ahead.
If FB shut it down it was only because they could not find a way to make money off it. Let's face it - everyone has caught on to these creeps and how they operate. Does anyone actually use their real name on there anymore? Does anyone actually sign up using their primary email address (with all your contacts and every important email message you have ever sent)?
FB reminds me a lot of Microsoft. You can only piss off your users so much before they 1) stop trusting you with their data and 2) start looking for alternative services. Microsoft has seen this happen over the past several years, particularly in the Consumer market. Witness the rise in Mac vs. PC sales. Witness Microsoft's almost complete lack of presence in either the tablet or mobile OS market. I think a lot of people just got pissed off with MS and started looking for other (better?) ways of getting things done.
Now lets take a look at FB. What do they offer? A place to post your photos, exchange news with your friends and a way to chat with them. So along comes Instagram and a lot of people switch to that for posting photos. Similarly, a lot of people have switched to Twitter for exchanging news information with their groups of friends. WhatsApp offers a way to chat with your friends around the world with no SMS charges, just like FB chat does.
So what is FB's response to this? They buy up Instagram and WhatsApp. Rumors continue to swirl that they are trying to buy Twitter. If you can't beat em, swallow them up.
What should be very disturbing to FB is that users are continuing to flee their service. Why? Because we don't trust them to be good custodians of our data. FB has a well documented history of terms of service head fakes and slights of hand.
If I were a FB user (and I'm not) I would be filling my profile with completely fake information, rendering their supposed advertising powerhouse completely useless. And if you have to go to that extent what's the point of even using it?
Well, there are different models of Tesla but I would argue that they are all high performance cars. Even the "low end" model (with the 60kWh battery) is capable of 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. This is posted on their website if you want to have a look (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design). While there are quicker cars, 5.9 is pretty darn quick in my books. And the torque comes on instantly so I'm sure it's a heck of a ride.
You make a fair point on diesel fuel. It does cost more but you get far better mileage than the average gas powered car. And if you're looking to make an environmental statement then diesel is hard to beat. Modern diesels are extremely clean. There is very little of the "clatter" associated with the older diesels. They typically have TONS of torque. The engines require less maintenance and have proven reliability.
In Europe and Asia diesel fuel is cheaper than regular gas so diesels tend to be very popular there. In the USA, as you noted, diesel sells at a premium. So if you look strictly at pump prices then, yes, gas powered cars are cheaper. But if you look at the whole picture I think that diesels make a compelling choice for many people.
Very interesting post. It seems that the Tesla Superchargers are the real deal. Coupled with the much longer battery life on the Tesla vs. Leaf and Volt it really does seem like a viable alternative. But again, you are in the Bay Area with lots of chargers. Yes, I know there are Superchargers all over the country but not in the same density as they are in California. I expect that to change in the coming years but as of now, it's not optimal.
The vast majority of Teslas have been sold in California. I know that because I happen to be doing some work in Silicon valley at the moment and I see a Tesla (or 5) every single day. I don't think I've seen one Tesla where I live.
The difference is that in California there are lots of charging stations set up so you can "plug in" when you need to. I'd be willing to bet there are not many charging stations in Montana.
The Leaf is a commuter car, the Tesla is a high end sports car that just happens to run on electric power instead of gas. The Tesla is an expensive car. The people driving them are the same people that a year or two ago would have bought a Porsche or a top end BMW or Audi. These are people that like fast cars and have a lot of disposable income.
Above all, the Tesla is a status symbol. It's a rich guy's way of saying I could drive a Porsche but I choose to drive a Tesla because it's environmentally friendly.
The Leaf, sadly, is DOA. Unless you start getting charging stations everywhere the only practical alternative is the hybrid. That's why the Prius, and to a lesser extent the Volt, have been so successful. It won't leave you stranded.
If you get stranded in the Tesla you just call Jeeves the butler to come pick you up in the Range Rover and all is well :-)
From what I understand WhatsApp requires you to use a real phone number (your cellphone number in fact) in order to receive text messages via your data plan rather than the SMS plans that cost extra with many carriers.
Sure, Facebook has a messaging app but they don't have your phone number. You can give it to them but I suspect that most people either leave it blank or put in a fake number. I suspect that a large part of this deal is getting a hold of that huge phone book that WhatsApp has now. Once FB has your cellphone number they can serve up ads to you via text messages even if you are not logged on to FB. Or maybe they will just sell your number to someone else.
Just watch - they will bury this 10 layers deep in the service agreement where nobody reads it. Next thing you know you'll be bombarded with junk...all in exchange for "free" text messaging. It's one more reason not to trust Zuck and company.
I'm not a WhatsApp user but if I were I'd be closing my account and looking for an alternative - pronto.
I've been in IT for a long time. If i wanted to be a "boss" I could have been one a long time ago. I have tried my hand at technical management more than once because I was asked to do it...not because I had a deep desire to manage others. My takeaway from it was basically that if you're going to be in management you don't want to be on the bottom rung of management.
A lot of it is, as the article says, "taking out the trash". Meetings, reports, deadlines. You have to directly supervise people that you used to work with. For me, it was difficult to give out orders. I'd rather just do the code myself than tell someone else to do it. In short, it wasn't a lot of fun. To me, coding is fun.
The other aspect, which turned out to be interesting, was that it gave me an insight into how other managers are chosen. Many of them seemed to have common traits. Far more extroverts than introverts. Long on self confidence, short on any real skills. A lot of them seemed to be the ones that are good at playing the corporate games. It seemed to me that the only interesting things happening in management were happening at the very top. The strategy, planning and business direction were being decided by a very few people at the very top of the organization. The rest of them were mired in some sort of middle management purgatory.
What I discovered is that the real power lies in having a job where you have freedom to do the things you want to do. Many engineering jobs offer just this, particularly in consulting. Sure, you still have to answer to deadlines and such but you get to focus on things that you enjoy without having to attend a lot of meetings or having to kiss the bosses ass. I might not be making as much money as some of the top brass but I'm having fun doing what I'm doing and I'm making a very good living at the same time. To me, it's a life well lived.
First off, "idiot" is a very strong word to use when speaking about someone professionally. I would be very careful about using that word unless you have very strong evidence that its true. As a consultant I can tell you that reputation is everything.
Secondly, there is a good chance that your boss (or his/her boss) hired this "idiot". If you try to make the consultant look bad you are, in turn, making your boss look bad by inferring that they have bad judgement.
Thirdly, ask yourself what you have to gain by outing this person? Probably not as much as you think. Best case scenario, they get rid of the person and bring in someone else. What if they are worse? What do you do then?
So what to do? If it were me I'd try to document things that the person is doing that you know are bad decisions. Don't - under any circumstances - try to sabotage or impede the project. The blame will fall on you. When you think you have a very, very strong case then bring it to your manager. But if he/she takes the consultants side then you'd better be prepared to walk. Your boss doesn't have your back and you are finished at that company.
One last thought...I'm not suggesting this is true in this case but I have seen it many times before. Is it possible that you have a case of "consultant envy"? Envious of the money they make or the influence they have? If so, let it go. It won't change a thing and will only put you in a bad mood. Life's too short.
Yeah I kind of wondered that myself. What if I had been dark skinned or spoke with a Middle Eastern accent? Would I have had such an easy time? Perhaps not.
* rim shot *
After I showed them a photo ID that seemed to be sufficient to let me on the plane.
I have light skin and a very anglo-sounding name. One day I go to check in for my flight and discover that I can't print my boarding pass. So I go to the ticket counter and after some hushed tone conversations they give me my boarding pass. This happens three weeks in a row and finally I ask someone why I can't print the darn pass at home. It was then I discovered that I'm on the no-fly list.
Eventually I was able to get something called a "Redress number" and was then able to board planes like everyone else.
But what pissed me off was that a) I was never told that I was on the no-fly list b) Nobody was able to tell me why I ended up on it in the first place c) I had to clear my name to get off the list.
In effect I was tried and convicted without even knowing that I was charged with anything. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was famously put on this list as well. Yet another example of blatant government stupidity and waste.
Correct - I'm a contractor. I've been an employee too and I can certainly see your side of it. It's a very different sort of dynamic.
Crap - my mod points expired yesterday or you'd be getting some from me.
I fly a lot and there is something about being on a plane that acts as sort of a social amplifier. If you're a nice guy in real life they tend to be nicer on planes (helping old ladies with their luggage, etc.). If you're an asshole in real life then you'll be a bigger asshole on a plane. You know the type...puts his computer bag in the overhead bin depriving a later passenger of a place to put their luggage. Reclines the seat all the way back...right into the lap of the person behind them.
It's bad enough sitting at the airport gate listening to some self-important, narcissistic asshole talk for hours on a cellphone loud enough for the whole damn airport to hear them. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit beside him on a plane for the next 3 hours. I'd club the motherfucker unconscious with my laptop and probably get a heroes welcome from the other passengers.
If the builder was asked use an inferior cement, and he warned the boss about it before he built the wall, then it's the fault of the boss. The boss should pay to have the builder rebuild the wall.
This sort of thing happens all the time in software development. More than once I have been asked to code what I consider to be an inferior design. I explain why I think it is so. I document it in writing. They tell me to build it that way anyhow. Down the road, there are problems. If they ask me to fix it I will remind them that I told them it wouldn't work in the first place. If they still want me to fix it I will charge them for the time to fix it.
If, on the other hand, the fault is mine then I will fix it at no charge. I've never ran into this by the way but that's what I would do to keep my customer happy. Heck, if it's a really good customer I might just fix it for free just because they have been good to me. Just depends.
Dell had stated before he took the company private that he intended on entering new markets with a greater focus on services rather than hardware. Well, those are different skill sets. You can't just take a hardware guy and turn him into a software guy. Or vice versa. The other aspect, which I'm sure Dell is well aware of, is that the company is bloated in the middle management layer. Like just about every other big company out there.
What's interesting to me is not so much the layoffs themselves but where the cuts occur. Will he actually take the opportunity to get rid of some of the belly fat or will the dead wood continue to remain? Time will tell.
As long as Billy G. is still on the board it's going to be business as usual for MS. Sure, Gates stepped down from the largely ceremonial Chairman role only to transition to "technology advisor". Whatever that is. The point is, he's still got a seat on the board. Certainly, he's still the largest individual stock holder so some might argue that he deserves a seat on the board of the company that he built. That's a fair argument.
But if MS is going to thrive in this market it's going to need new leadership and new ideas. And it's going to need someone that can execute on those ideas without Gates hovering over him. Make no mistake - Gates still has a huge influence over MS no matter what his role is or what his title is.
Exactly right, Doc. This flipping around of security settings is deliberate on FB's part. They know that most of their users won't bother to go and change them back to what it was. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that a good percentage of FB users don't even understand all the settings. A simple "Opt Out" option is conspicuously absent. They make it hard to delete things by making you choose them one at a time, with no Select All functionality.
I use LinkedIn because it helps me professionally. The one thing that bugs me about it is the inability to have different settings for different people. You should be able to connect with a recruiter without exposing your entire contact list to them. But you can't - it's an all or nothing proposition. I should have the ability to show all my contacts to people I know well and hide my contacts from people I don't know well (or at all, in the case of some recruiters). Much like how you can do things on Google +.
FB is by no means alone when it comes to questionable tactics. At least with LinkedIn and Google I feel like I have a bit more control on how my data is presented. FB provides nothing useful for me so I choose not to use it.