The driver behind the "data warehouse" concept is reporting and analysis. OLAP like capabilities have been available to end users for some time via tools like:
They usually have little appeal to software developers but are incredibly useful to managers. I've always wondered why as OLAP lets end users quickly pivot and drill through data without having to bug IT people to get reports written...
Adding OLAP type analysis is a great idea for any software that is database driven. It gives users the ability to get more knowledge out of data.
Spreadsheets are critical tools for "knowledge workers" because they allow them to explore ideas, analyze information and identify trends. The problem is that most "knowledge workers" are competant at some aspect of doing business and not at developing appropriate software tools. It is a problem when a spreadsheet is used as a multiuser shared data application. Spreadsheets allow:
* Entrepeneuers to financially model their business plan. * Calculations to be performed more accurately than say, in the margin of a ledger pad. * Simple busines processes to be tracked and managed using a computer instead of say, a legal pad. * Executives to summarize and categorize and drill down to analyze information from a database (pivot tables)
At the end of the day, I've found that spreadsheets are not the cause of business mistakes. When there is a spreadsheet failure, there are ususally a couple of fundamental problems:
* Lack of attention to detail * No oversight or validation * Numbers are not reliable to begin with * No one bothered to actually do a what-if using a reasonable range of scenarios - they only looked at the rose colored one.
Due to the terrorism threat, travel for all non-corporate purposes using vehicles powered by flamable substances has been prohibited. Instead, we expect you to watch your television like a good lemming -er- citizen.
Please call the Ministry of Love if you have any questions.
I thought the idea of build it and they'll come was dead a few years ago... Regardless, 500,000 plus transactions per day is not a reasonable expectation unless you are Wal-Mart.
If we get caught the punishment will be way less severe than jailtime.
This is exactly the injustice that we've all been trying to express for some time now. That and the fact that copyright infringement is almost impossible no to commit as it's almost impossible to know what is and is not copyrighted and what is or is not fair use. Instead of all these draconian laws, how about some clarity?
This law is so draconian that it will cause the general population to wake up. Special interests cannot trump general interests very long when individual rights are being trampled into the ground.
I'm sure that many SS soldiers who were excecuted for there crimes would (if they were still alive) argue that it apparantlyh IS against the law to follow orders on ocassion!
Hitler's SS is an example of a system with no saftey valves. No soldier had the right to review an order of their superior in any way. Obey or die.
In the US military, one can refuse to follow an order on the grounds it is illegal. After the fact, your decision to refuse an order will be reviewed. If you are correct, no foul. If you are incorrect, then you will be held responsible for your actions. In my career, I refused several orders. I was forunate that my decisions were correct. One of the resons we have a class in the chain of command call Non-Commissioned Officers is to provide a mechanism where orders can be objected to by someone with appropriate experience and judgement without grave risk to their career (NCOs cannot be reduced in rank without congressional review or conviction by court martial).
The idea being advocated here though is that the entire Iraq war is illegal and therefore a uniform serviceperson should refuse to fight. This is totally incorrect. The order to go to war was legal - and refusing to fight would be a very serious violation of the UCMJ (military law). If you did this on the battlefield, you would probably be shot the second it happened. If you did so in the barracks, you would likely be court martialed and sent to a gated community in Kansas for most of your adult life.
The question is, were the orders to attack Iraq and Afghanistan lawful?
I have read a lot of really poorly formed ideas about the war in Iraq. This idea of the order to go to war being unlawful is comically poorly formed. The standard of lawfullness of the general order to attack Iraq is simple: did the President order it or not and is it in violation of the War Powers Act (WPA). The WPA may or may not be constitutional. The Iraq operation has covered both standards. Bush had authorization under WPA. Bush made the order. Refusing to obey a general order and refusing to fight are very serious crimes in the military and can and will likely be punished very severely. Don't ruin some 18 year old Marine's life by making he or she get the idea that he or she can refuse orders on the grounds the war is illegal. The best thing that would happen to that marine is two months without pay. The worst could be the death penalty.
1. The Internet will fail because of ______. We are doomed AAAAUUUUUHHHHGGGGHHHHH!
We've been hearing this since back in the day. Whatever. The internet evolves in a "darwinistic" way just like malware. Right now the problem is poor or non-existent security on client computers. Clients on the net will have to get fixed or they will be cut off a la Comcast. So the IT people of the world will make a few billion fixing broken software. Nothing new here. Whoop-de-doo.
2. When your dentist says "this will hurt just a little."
3. Any engineer or tech that says that it simply can't be done
As a rule, it's better to say "I can't think of a way to do this." Never is too strong. Maybe you can't find a way, but someone else will.
Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars
Or at least a cartoon adaptation -- oh wait what's that 10 minute thing on the cartoon network?
I don't think Hollywood gets it: people want new stories, not rehashes of bad 90's syndicated TV shows. Sequels, prequels and remakes are notably uncreative. Now I'm sounding like Rumsfield.
Bush is interesting in that he generally says what he is going to do and then does it. Some people just happen to not like what he is going to do - sometimes I am one of those people. Bush operates like a businesman (PHB/Suit/etc...) - he makes decisions on the margin. Marginal decisions are usually tough ones. In a corporation, a marginal decision would be to discontinue a product and wind down the division because it will become in the future unprofitable. Layoffs to stem losses. Mergers when you are weak. Firing someone for cultural fit who is popular, etc...
The Hubble decision is a marginal decision. Bush can't raise taxes. He also can't increase NASA's budget. So he looks for projects with enough $$ in the budget that could be directed towards the Mars goal - one that has far greater potential for the good of humanity than a telescope (although possibly the most usefull one in history). The telescope works today.
I admire that Bush has guts. It's frusterating though to see marginal decision making because it isn't a binary decision - it's all done in shades of gray.
And in cases where the integrity of government is in question, a lunch can be a kind of bribe - it may give a vendor an unfair advantage should the technical and financial merits be equal. A piece of software like office that costs $500.00 creates goodwill towards the benefactor that gave it to you. In accepting the gift, you can no longer perform my duty to make sound financial and technical decisions. BTW - you would probably agree if a salesman showed up and handed me $100 for spending an hour with him to hear him out that that would be unethical. How is it not unethical to accept a $500 gift where your orders specify $0 is acceptable?
Even if it's $5.00, it was my duty in the Navy to say no. I worked supply for a while and I would not even permit a vendor to buy my lunch. The military persons who accept the free copies are in violation of several standing orders and could be literally get 20 years at hard labor at a nice gated community in Kansas.
LOLx2. The idea of the manfacturer being responsible for disposal makes no sense in a property rights based economy. Encouraging recycling is one thing... but making the farmer responsible for disposing of the chicken bones deserves severwe ridicule.
I think insurance rates have increased mainly from the increasing cost of practicing medicine as a whole.
Medical inflation has run about 9% per year for the last four. Health premium has increased 14%, 18% and 13% in the last three years. Cost of care accounts for some of the increase, but a substantial portion is the result is the result of increased utilization of insurance - more people are seeing their doctor or are sick.
High insurances rates aren't being caused by malpractice lawsuits; they're being caused by the stock market tanking. The medical insurance companies' holdings took a massive beating and they're raising rates to compensate.
Very perceptive. The current crunch in the insurance market was caused by the following:
* 9/11 settlements. * Stock market tanking * Massive adverse selection (where healthy groups change insurers to get a better priced plan leaving the high-claim customers insuring each other)
lawyers have become convienient scapegoats for those who would like to avoid responsibility for their actions.
I totally agree with this. If modern hospitals and modern care providers had half the attention to detail and rigor in managing care of say, the average QS9001 approved manufacturer we wouldn't be having this discussion. The care delivery process is really, really sloppy in most medical organizations - it's no wonder they want off the hook for the bad outcomes.
I get the same drugs and the same treatments regardless of what insurance company I've had.
Because you've been lucky enough not to need a $1,000/mo drug that is not covered by your insurance doesn't prove anything. I've seen plenty of examples where a doctor actually changes their treatment because their patient cannot afford what they want to do. And then there are approved and unapproved tests and proceedures. Your doctor already knows many of the proceedures that your insurer is likely to not approve. Your doctor knows if he recommends or performs something insurance won't pay that the patient is likely to take an average of nine months to pay the bill. And there's the doctor will be sharing the take for that proceedure with a collection agency.
I've spent some time in the insurance business and can tell you that insurance affects everything that goes on in a doctor's office and head: you see, they pay the bills and are the real customer.
Have companies report sales to states, so states can go after people. Treat everyone like criminals. It even states that in the article.
This is why a few years ago durring the Newt Gingrich era that the rules of evidence for the IRS were changed. Used to be the IRS could say "PROOVE YOU HAVE PAID YOUR TAXES!" and the burden of proof was on the accused. Now the IRS has to have probable cause and now has to proove that you did not pay your share. They can still access your records, etc... but have to have a reason to do so and you may not have to disclose everything they want. The result is that the audit is used much differently. States often operate under the old rules where the state department of revenue can say proove you have paid your fair share.
Incidentally, I like working with the IRS a lot better than states.
The states might have little to do now, but if theres money involved, expect it to get bigger.
In many states, the Sheriff gets a cut (as in personal pay) of all overdue taxes collected. In a large county that can represent 250K-500K per year. In a small rural county it can bee $50-$100K. Some department budgets at the state level are specifically pegged to tax collection as well - often the secretary of state's office is responsible for collecting past due corporate taxes.
After taking a lexmark inkjet out back and having an Office Space session with it I purchased the i550. It is hands down the only ink jet printer I've ever owned that I am satisfied with:
* Ink is inexpensive * Cartridges can easily be refilled if you want to. * No DRM, no false "your ink is low" messages * It has never ever jammed on anything. * It's very quiet compared to the HP, Lexmarks and Xeroxes I've owned in the past. * It is built like a tank (especially compared to Lexmark which is built like a cereal box). * it is $99 at Office Max/Depot/Whatever
Slashdot Mirror
The driver behind the "data warehouse" concept is reporting and analysis. OLAP like capabilities have been available to end users for some time via tools like:
* Crystal Reports
* MS Excel Pivot Tables
* Cognos
* Brio Enterprise
They usually have little appeal to software developers but are incredibly useful to managers. I've always wondered why as OLAP lets end users quickly pivot and drill through data without having to bug IT people to get reports written...
Adding OLAP type analysis is a great idea for any software that is database driven. It gives users the ability to get more knowledge out of data.
It is a fairly easy to use tool that allows end users to answer their own questions and solve problems without relying on programmers or engineers.
Don't forget - spreadsheets are very low cost compared to the project management overhead included with developers and engineers...
Spreadsheets are critical tools for "knowledge workers" because they allow them to explore ideas, analyze information and identify trends. The problem is that most "knowledge workers" are competant at some aspect of doing business and not at developing appropriate software tools. It is a problem when a spreadsheet is used as a multiuser shared data application. Spreadsheets allow:
* Entrepeneuers to financially model their business plan.
* Calculations to be performed more accurately than say, in the margin of a ledger pad.
* Simple busines processes to be tracked and managed using a computer instead of say, a legal pad.
* Executives to summarize and categorize and drill down to analyze information from a database (pivot tables)
At the end of the day, I've found that spreadsheets are not the cause of business mistakes. When there is a spreadsheet failure, there are ususally a couple of fundamental problems:
* Lack of attention to detail
* No oversight or validation
* Numbers are not reliable to begin with
* No one bothered to actually do a what-if using a reasonable range of scenarios - they only looked at the rose colored one.
Due to the terrorism threat, travel for all non-corporate purposes using vehicles powered by flamable substances has been prohibited. Instead, we expect you to watch your television like a good lemming -er- citizen.
Please call the Ministry of Love if you have any questions.
I thought the idea of build it and they'll come was dead a few years ago... Regardless, 500,000 plus transactions per day is not a reasonable expectation unless you are Wal-Mart.
If we get caught the punishment will be way less severe than jailtime.
This is exactly the injustice that we've all been trying to express for some time now. That and the fact that copyright infringement is almost impossible no to commit as it's almost impossible to know what is and is not copyrighted and what is or is not fair use. Instead of all these draconian laws, how about some clarity?
This law is so draconian that it will cause the general population to wake up. Special interests cannot trump general interests very long when individual rights are being trampled into the ground.
I'm sure that many SS soldiers who were excecuted for there crimes would (if they were still alive) argue that it apparantlyh IS against the law to follow orders on ocassion!
Hitler's SS is an example of a system with no saftey valves. No soldier had the right to review an order of their superior in any way. Obey or die.
In the US military, one can refuse to follow an order on the grounds it is illegal. After the fact, your decision to refuse an order will be reviewed. If you are correct, no foul. If you are incorrect, then you will be held responsible for your actions. In my career, I refused several orders. I was forunate that my decisions were correct. One of the resons we have a class in the chain of command call Non-Commissioned Officers is to provide a mechanism where orders can be objected to by someone with appropriate experience and judgement without grave risk to their career (NCOs cannot be reduced in rank without congressional review or conviction by court martial).
The idea being advocated here though is that the entire Iraq war is illegal and therefore a uniform serviceperson should refuse to fight. This is totally incorrect. The order to go to war was legal - and refusing to fight would be a very serious violation of the UCMJ (military law). If you did this on the battlefield, you would probably be shot the second it happened. If you did so in the barracks, you would likely be court martialed and sent to a gated community in Kansas for most of your adult life.
It was illegal in the sense that USA has signed treaties with UN
It is the President's decision to break a treaty. Every war ever fought on foreign soil involved breaking at least one treaty with someone.
The question is, were the orders to attack Iraq and Afghanistan lawful?
I have read a lot of really poorly formed ideas about the war in Iraq. This idea of the order to go to war being unlawful is comically poorly formed. The standard of lawfullness of the general order to attack Iraq is simple: did the President order it or not and is it in violation of the War Powers Act (WPA). The WPA may or may not be constitutional. The Iraq operation has covered both standards. Bush had authorization under WPA. Bush made the order. Refusing to obey a general order and refusing to fight are very serious crimes in the military and can and will likely be punished very severely. Don't ruin some 18 year old Marine's life by making he or she get the idea that he or she can refuse orders on the grounds the war is illegal. The best thing that would happen to that marine is two months without pay. The worst could be the death penalty.
Problem is it does happen and work doesn't get done.
I've been taking a hard look at several offshoring options for my business. I've decided that I'm not outsourcing for one reason:
I'm not sold that the work that is supposed to get done is really getting done.
Unfortunately, I called references...
We've been hearing this since back in the day. Whatever. The internet evolves in a "darwinistic" way just like malware. Right now the problem is poor or non-existent security on client computers. Clients on the net will have to get fixed or they will be cut off a la Comcast. So the IT people of the world will make a few billion fixing broken software. Nothing new here. Whoop-de-doo.
2. When your dentist says "this will hurt just a little."
3. Any engineer or tech that says that it simply can't be done
As a rule, it's better to say "I can't think of a way to do this." Never is too strong. Maybe you can't find a way, but someone else will.
Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars
Or at least a cartoon adaptation -- oh wait what's that 10 minute thing on the cartoon network?
I don't think Hollywood gets it: people want new stories, not rehashes of bad 90's syndicated TV shows. Sequels, prequels and remakes are notably uncreative. Now I'm sounding like Rumsfield.
With the codes to your DVD, you can make unlimited copies, and do anything and everything with them.
So what? If I can access my car's computer I can adjust performance parameters to my hearts content. I could even destroy my engine.
That I can make copies does not mean that I will make copies, just as I will not use that cutlery set I just bought illegally.
I can't think of a single object that couldn't be used to do something illegal.
Bush is interesting in that he generally says what he is going to do and then does it. Some people just happen to not like what he is going to do - sometimes I am one of those people. Bush operates like a businesman (PHB/Suit/etc...) - he makes decisions on the margin. Marginal decisions are usually tough ones. In a corporation, a marginal decision would be to discontinue a product and wind down the division because it will become in the future unprofitable. Layoffs to stem losses. Mergers when you are weak. Firing someone for cultural fit who is popular, etc...
The Hubble decision is a marginal decision. Bush can't raise taxes. He also can't increase NASA's budget. So he looks for projects with enough $$ in the budget that could be directed towards the Mars goal - one that has far greater potential for the good of humanity than a telescope (although possibly the most usefull one in history). The telescope works today.
I admire that Bush has guts. It's frusterating though to see marginal decision making because it isn't a binary decision - it's all done in shades of gray.
A bribe is a bribe. A lunch is a lunch.
And in cases where the integrity of government is in question, a lunch can be a kind of bribe - it may give a vendor an unfair advantage should the technical and financial merits be equal. A piece of software like office that costs $500.00 creates goodwill towards the benefactor that gave it to you. In accepting the gift, you can no longer perform my duty to make sound financial and technical decisions. BTW - you would probably agree if a salesman showed up and handed me $100 for spending an hour with him to hear him out that that would be unethical. How is it not unethical to accept a $500 gift where your orders specify $0 is acceptable?
Um. $500 retail is crap.
Even if it's $5.00, it was my duty in the Navy to say no. I worked supply for a while and I would not even permit a vendor to buy my lunch. The military persons who accept the free copies are in violation of several standing orders and could be literally get 20 years at hard labor at a nice gated community in Kansas.
LOLx2. The idea of the manfacturer being responsible for disposal makes no sense in a property rights based economy. Encouraging recycling is one thing... but making the farmer responsible for disposing of the chicken bones deserves severwe ridicule.
I think insurance rates have increased mainly from the increasing cost of practicing medicine as a whole.
Medical inflation has run about 9% per year for the last four. Health premium has increased 14%, 18% and 13% in the last three years. Cost of care accounts for some of the increase, but a substantial portion is the result is the result of increased utilization of insurance - more people are seeing their doctor or are sick.
High insurances rates aren't being caused by malpractice lawsuits; they're being caused by the stock market tanking. The medical insurance companies' holdings took a massive beating and they're raising rates to compensate.
Very perceptive. The current crunch in the insurance market was caused by the following:
* 9/11 settlements.
* Stock market tanking
* Massive adverse selection (where healthy groups change insurers to get a better priced plan leaving the high-claim customers insuring each other)
lawyers have become convienient scapegoats for those who would like to avoid responsibility for their actions.
I totally agree with this. If modern hospitals and modern care providers had half the attention to detail and rigor in managing care of say, the average QS9001 approved manufacturer we wouldn't be having this discussion. The care delivery process is really, really sloppy in most medical organizations - it's no wonder they want off the hook for the bad outcomes.
I get the same drugs and the same treatments regardless of what insurance company I've had.
Because you've been lucky enough not to need a $1,000/mo drug that is not covered by your insurance doesn't prove anything. I've seen plenty of examples where a doctor actually changes their treatment because their patient cannot afford what they want to do. And then there are approved and unapproved tests and proceedures. Your doctor already knows many of the proceedures that your insurer is likely to not approve. Your doctor knows if he recommends or performs something insurance won't pay that the patient is likely to take an average of nine months to pay the bill. And there's the doctor will be sharing the take for that proceedure with a collection agency.
I've spent some time in the insurance business and can tell you that insurance affects everything that goes on in a doctor's office and head: you see, they pay the bills and are the real customer.
That always amased me about the US: How manufacturers and sellers don't have to take responsibility for the stuff they sell.
Perhaps because after you buy their product, they no longer own it?
Have companies report sales to states, so states can go after people. Treat everyone like criminals. It even states that in the article.
This is why a few years ago durring the Newt Gingrich era that the rules of evidence for the IRS were changed. Used to be the IRS could say "PROOVE YOU HAVE PAID YOUR TAXES!" and the burden of proof was on the accused. Now the IRS has to have probable cause and now has to proove that you did not pay your share. They can still access your records, etc... but have to have a reason to do so and you may not have to disclose everything they want. The result is that the audit is used much differently. States often operate under the old rules where the state department of revenue can say proove you have paid your fair share.
Incidentally, I like working with the IRS a lot better than states.
The states might have little to do now, but if theres money involved, expect it to get bigger.
In many states, the Sheriff gets a cut (as in personal pay) of all overdue taxes collected. In a large county that can represent 250K-500K per year. In a small rural county it can bee $50-$100K. Some department budgets at the state level are specifically pegged to tax collection as well - often the secretary of state's office is responsible for collecting past due corporate taxes.
After taking a lexmark inkjet out back and having an Office Space session with it I purchased the i550. It is hands down the only ink jet printer I've ever owned that I am satisfied with:
* Ink is inexpensive
* Cartridges can easily be refilled if you want to.
* No DRM, no false "your ink is low" messages
* It has never ever jammed on anything.
* It's very quiet compared to the HP, Lexmarks and Xeroxes I've owned in the past.
* It is built like a tank (especially compared to Lexmark which is built like a cereal box).
* it is $99 at Office Max/Depot/Whatever