Speaking from experience, corporations are unable to give themselves just one name. They have to change their names regularly (because it obviously makes things better, like go faster stripes) and more, they have to change the names of departments even more regularly (again because it improves everything). The result is that any documentation system which is created rapidly becomes fragmented, out of date and lost as the paths to the documents are changed to match the names.
The conclusion is that using names only makes things worse.
Management don't care, why should you? It really can't be all that much of a problem. More a perception than a problem. By all means go ahead and create/use a documentation system for your group but clearly there just isn't a requirement for anything more comprehensive.
Oh enough hyperbole. Wouldn't worry about it, the companies in question will collapse and be replaced by someone else if the demand is high enough. Or not if it isn't.
Capitalism inevitably results in a few monopolies destroying capitalism. It's not a self sustaining economic structure.
So we prop it up here and regulate it there to try and keep it under control and from over-merging and consolidating like the blog consuming our entire economy.
But this obviously doesn't work. Just look around. The regulators have been captured. They do nothing. The fundamental problems are not being addressed.
The behaviour you mention is a fundamental feature of banking. Specifically fractional reserve banking. By creating and providing credit to organisations, they are enabled to grow.
Libertarians tend to fall into one of two camps, both of which would limit the ability to create credit and therefore organisations to grow.
1. Free Banking. Reduced regulation of banks, no state support for banks. The banks which extend too much credit will fail and be allowed to fail this will limit the leverage they can apply. There would be the occasional spectacular blow up. The problem with Free Banking is that it is not practised elsewhere in the world and this would allow external agencies which are backed by a central bank to support specific banks and inflate credit.
2. Full Reserve Banking, a rule which requires banks to maintain 100% reserves for all loans. This would prevent credit growth entirely. Loans would be effectively in the form of bonds, and depositors would be unable to access money invested in a bank while it was loaned out. Credit would stop growing exponentially. There would be naturally little inflation and little deflation. Most of the rest of bank regulation could be removed as irrelevant.
Particularly with Full Reserve Banking, growth to monopoly status would be almost impossible, it would remove money from the rest of the economy and effectively push up interest rates paid, increasing borrowing costs. Self limiting.
Base money created by the state and credit (private money) creation by banks.
It has only relatively recently been acknowledged that banks do indeed create money. The vast majority of the population have no idea that when they take out a loan, the bank creates new money to give to them. Most assume that the money actually came from depositors, but that isn't the case.
Paul Warburg - Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Rothschild) - Lehman Brothers Frank Vanderlip - National City Bank of New York - Citibank Henry P. Davison - JP Morgan Benjamin Strong - JP Morgan Charles D. Norton - First National Bank of New York - Citibank
Bank runs and failures prevent banks from becoming Too Big To Fail, and taking down the entire world economy. Which they did just as soon as they were able to ramp up the leverage (backed by the FED) during the "roaring" 1920s (can you say Credit Bubble?) until the inevitable result... The Great Depression, Hitler, World War II etc.
Banks are fundamentally unstable organisations, they operate through leverage so small negative changes cause catastrophic results, and central banks as lenders of last resort provide insurance, which allow banks to lend with higher leverage than they would if they had no insurance. The losses are obviously then socialised. This is highly desirable if you happen to be a Wall Street banker. Lucky they've got one then eh?
That is, central banks make the problem bigger. Tada, here we are again. Great Depression? Greater Depression? Greatest Depression? Are we going to see World War III as the results continue to roll round the world?
The bigger problem is these guys are zombies. They are insolvent the moment their "assets" are priced at market rates. It is going to take decades of support to keep them undead.
Remind you of Japan? The lost 2 decades? All because they refused to allow the people who fucked up to fail and those who didn't, to wipe out their debts and buy them out.
Don't get me wrong, everyone makes mistakes, people need to make mistakes, it's how we learn. But using cost as an excuse for choosing one person over another is a big mistake and your company will pay for it. Expensively. There are oops mistakes and there are 2 years in, was never, ever going to work kinds of mistakes.
Anyway. I recommend you build an alternative/hobby income. Ideally 180Â away from Tech. When Tech crashes your alternate won't necessarily.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an economic one. It needs an economic solution.
e.g.
Have people buy a $10 ticket to get an account on the email server.
That was weeks ago. It's unrelated to the drone.
Have you ever had your attention span tested?
They could do one thing, just one thing, but do it well...
Now... Where have I heard that philosophy before?
Speaking from experience, corporations are unable to give themselves just one name. They have to change their names regularly (because it obviously makes things better, like go faster stripes) and more, they have to change the names of departments even more regularly (again because it improves everything). The result is that any documentation system which is created rapidly becomes fragmented, out of date and lost as the paths to the documents are changed to match the names.
The conclusion is that using names only makes things worse.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Management don't care, why should you? It really can't be all that much of a problem. More a perception than a problem.
By all means go ahead and create/use a documentation system for your group but clearly there just isn't a requirement for anything more comprehensive.
And a new dark ages are born.
Oh enough hyperbole. Wouldn't worry about it, the companies in question will collapse and be replaced by someone else if the demand is high enough. Or not if it isn't.
Until you write it in cobol.
Someone just blew up (at least) one of their missile bases. There are reports of more attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/image-shows-than-an-iranian-missile-site-was-destroyed/2011/11/28/gIQA7KZW5N_blog.html
Iran claimed it was an accident...
Course then the UK embassy then gets invaded and a drone is shot down. Or claimed. All a coincidence of course.
There have been at least two attacks against Iranian missile bases.
Capitalism inevitably results in a few monopolies destroying capitalism. It's not a self sustaining economic structure.
So we prop it up here and regulate it there to try and keep it under control and from over-merging and consolidating like the blog consuming our entire economy.
But this obviously doesn't work. Just look around. The regulators have been captured. They do nothing. The fundamental problems are not being addressed.
The behaviour you mention is a fundamental feature of banking. Specifically fractional reserve banking. By creating and providing credit to organisations, they are enabled to grow.
Libertarians tend to fall into one of two camps, both of which would limit the ability to create credit and therefore organisations to grow.
1. Free Banking. Reduced regulation of banks, no state support for banks. The banks which extend too much credit will fail and be allowed to fail this will limit the leverage they can apply. There would be the occasional spectacular blow up.
The problem with Free Banking is that it is not practised elsewhere in the world and this would allow external agencies which are backed by a central bank to support specific banks and inflate credit.
2. Full Reserve Banking, a rule which requires banks to maintain 100% reserves for all loans. This would prevent credit growth entirely. Loans would be effectively in the form of bonds, and depositors would be unable to access money invested in a bank while it was loaned out.
Credit would stop growing exponentially. There would be naturally little inflation and little deflation. Most of the rest of bank regulation could be removed as irrelevant.
Particularly with Full Reserve Banking, growth to monopoly status would be almost impossible, it would remove money from the rest of the economy and effectively push up interest rates paid, increasing borrowing costs. Self limiting.
Fan boy?
I don't hate it. it's simply useless to me, and I suspect many millions upon millions of others.
Base money created by the state and credit (private money) creation by banks.
It has only relatively recently been acknowledged that banks do indeed create money. The vast majority of the population have no idea that when they take out a loan, the bank creates new money to give to them. Most assume that the money actually came from depositors, but that isn't the case.
No, it was created by Wall Street banks in order to save their asses when they screwed up and pump the leverage up too high. That's what it does.
The people who created the Federal Reserve were Wall Street:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island#Planning_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System
Paul Warburg - Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Rothschild) - Lehman Brothers
Frank Vanderlip - National City Bank of New York - Citibank
Henry P. Davison - JP Morgan
Benjamin Strong - JP Morgan
Charles D. Norton - First National Bank of New York - Citibank
Bank runs and failures prevent banks from becoming Too Big To Fail, and taking down the entire world economy. Which they did just as soon as they were able to ramp up the leverage (backed by the FED) during the "roaring" 1920s (can you say Credit Bubble?) until the inevitable result ... The Great Depression, Hitler, World War II etc.
Banks are fundamentally unstable organisations, they operate through leverage so small negative changes cause catastrophic results, and central banks as lenders of last resort provide insurance, which allow banks to lend with higher leverage than they would if they had no insurance. The losses are obviously then socialised. This is highly desirable if you happen to be a Wall Street banker. Lucky they've got one then eh?
That is, central banks make the problem bigger. Tada, here we are again. Great Depression? Greater Depression? Greatest Depression? Are we going to see World War III as the results continue to roll round the world?
Read up on the origins of the federal reserve.
It was created for precisely this purpose.
The revenue will follow.
Then the budgets.
Then the employees.
Bit of a lag between each stage as reality hits.
Facebook is just a fad. "Social" is so 2011.
http://dbacl.sourceforge.net/spam_chess.html
Now that's cool.
Just to put the actions of the FED into context.
It's purpose is to protect the banking sector, particularly a few Too Big To Fail banks. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Rope is cheaper of course.
The bigger problem is these guys are zombies. They are insolvent the moment their "assets" are priced at market rates. It is going to take decades of support to keep them undead.
Remind you of Japan? The lost 2 decades? All because they refused to allow the people who fucked up to fail and those who didn't, to wipe out their debts and buy them out.
You want bigger numbers?
Look at the bond sales... Quantitative Easing...
1. Treasury sells them.
2. Someone buys them.
3. Someone sells them on to the FED during POMO.
4. Profit.
Look, all filled in. No questions.
Guess who someone is.
Seriously...
Do a little graph of where they previously worked. Highly interesting.
Old boy's club owns America. Oh and Greece, Italy, ECB etc etc.
What you know, isn't capitalism. Hasn't been for quite a while.
Don't get me wrong, everyone makes mistakes, people need to make mistakes, it's how we learn. But using cost as an excuse for choosing one person over another is a big mistake and your company will pay for it. Expensively. There are oops mistakes and there are 2 years in, was never, ever going to work kinds of mistakes.
Anyway. I recommend you build an alternative/hobby income. Ideally 180Â away from Tech. When Tech crashes your alternate won't necessarily.
When you can simply ignore it.
It's not as if there are any repercussions.