First thing I do when I get a new job is dress casual.
If somebody complains I ask where I can pass my bill for dry cleaning, or if they have somebody else to do all the crawling that is needed when doing hardware support.
"Likely the real reason for the uniform is so that you will stand out, so when your walking past or in the vicinity they can spot you and grab you to immediately to assist them."
The only way to organize technical support in a big company (and 500 people is quite big already) is to prioritize the work.
What you suggest above is anathema to proper prioritization. Nothing kills planning like doing adhoc work.
In the case of the Inquisition the maniacs made clear their were acting in the name of religion.
In the case of the Soviets they never claimed to be acting in the name of Atheism (which was important in the Soviet state, but was not the major ideological point of the system, all Communist states tolerated religion eventually, and even promoted some forms of it that were sanctioned by the state).
You should get a hint about this by reading the myriad of replies to this topic (I have counted at least 10 different suggested languages, which tell you all what you need to know: the chosen language is frankly immaterial to the objective).
I would suggest that you use a language you are familiar with, you are bound to teach somebody better if you understand the tool used fully.
Look, we can argue about how the US came to be in possession of all the former Mexican territories until the end of times, the unquestionable truth is that the US expanded from its paltry origins to its current size.The US would be perhaps the first case in history in which such expansion is carried out by other countries voluntarily giving their own riches away to others. If you USians really think this is the truth you frankly need to wake up and smell the coffee.
The fact is that the US took possession of territories that had a strong Mexican and Hispanic character, but what was not realized at the time was that those parts of the country had a very specific cultural landscape shaped for thousands of years by Native Americans and by 300 years more by Spanish and Mexican cultures.
It would be incredibly naive to believe that absorbing territories with such strong cultural heritages would not affect in some way the conquering country.
It is my belief that the US will become a country with an Hispanic majority at some point, and there is nothing anybody cn do about it because the US seeded these changes on its own history by seizing the Mexican territories all those years ago.
Empires never learn, thankfully, since it would not be the first case of a major power being weakened by its own conquests.
Just so you know, people that claim asylum have a right to do so, this is not a gracious concession by the USA, is part of international law and all signatory states of the respective UN charter are legally obliged to offer asylum to people facing prosecution on their respective countries.
Asylum has nothing to do with illegal immigration, bar tickling the sensitive nerves of xenophobes.
If anything it would pay homage to the inventiveness of African people. They can fix things in unexpected and very clever ways, because more often than not they can't buy the expensive replacement parts.
If anything such device would fit perfectly with the local culture (same thing anywhere else where original replacement parts are too expensive).
People becoming wealthier means in the long run they can buy stuff from you (not necessarily directly mind you, but is no use to have people starving to death when they could be earning a living and trading with people around the world).
I know that many nature TV programs appeal to our instinctive preference for "cute" animals, specially monkeys of any kind, and until recently I was stil in favour of experimentation in primates, if that would save human lives.
No more.
When I watched the "Primates" episode of BBC's "Life" TV series a few weeks ago, I became convinced that primates should be granted special status amongst animals, I would go as far as to say that the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans) should be granted rights akin to human rights.
If you watch that programme and your heart does not melt when an otherwise unremarkable monkey uses tools, or when a female chimpanzee borrows stones, used as tools, from another chimp, then you simply have no heart.
I have read several comments, and it seems Slashdoters in the US are very fond of this practice of working for free.
Not only that, but they seem to believe that working for free is so much better if you force your boss to partake in the misery. Most endearingly bosses seem to believe that being miserable with your people for doing work, that you should not be doing in the first place, will enhance morale, in the same way the morale of the Titanic's crew was enhanced by the valiant captain staying to drown in the ill fated ship.
Another interesting tidbit that has emerged in the thread is several star-stripped Slashdoters referring to experiences in their Armed Forces as a good example to follow when dealing with a corporate civilian environment.
In the immortal words of my dad, a fearless Presidential Guard if you must know, "the military teaches you shit about real life because the military is not real life, unless you think your wife is General $YOUR_FAVOURITE_GENERAL"
So no, the manager should not stay, because arguably a good manager has planned unsocial hours work and you knew that and will be compensated properly.
Also in a properly run company, you will know the roles and responsibilities of most people, your manager included, and even if you don't, you should work under the assumption that every person is responsible and allocate their time in a matter that better serves the company's aims, as you surely do as well.
So if a manager leaves while you are working, perhaps it is because he has to be early next day, is taking lots of work home, or is going to watch a shitty movie like Avatar 3D, but since this is none of your business I fail to see why you should care at all instead of getting your work done.
If the employee is compensated properly and knows what the objectives are, there is no reason to be angry at a boss leaving on time.
A boss's job is not cheerleading, it is to provide leadership, and leadership is provided by setting clear targets, providing resources and ensure you are compensated properly for your efforts.
A manager that sits with you all your working hours but then proceeds to give you bad marks (thus lowering bonuses), fails to ensure you are compensated for working long hours, and puts hazzy objectives in front of you, is not any good.
Give me a manger that leads and that leaves at 17:00 please.
All this nonsensical management style comes from the US, where lots of people have seen this in play in the US Army, one of the biggest employers in the US.
Well, you are wrong, it is just a job, doing draconian shifts is not helping, is bullying your reports into putting unsocial hours when the real solution should be to have more resources.
The most productive companies I have seen (Asia, Mexico, UK, Germany) worked 9-5 and the boss was chasing people out of the door at 16:55.
.... that the team has to be sitting in the same place at the same time?
Don't you have a clear delineation of your responsibilities and the tasks that you need to accomplish?
Don't you have a clear delineation of how you will be compensated for your work out of hours?
If you have both of the above, why do you need your boss around?
Do you need moral support? Cant you gather enough of that while you are planning your work or during the emergency planning for the work you are now doing?
Honestly, I see no reason for this "Titanic" approach to working culture.
I have heard many times how people feel obliged to be in the office earlier because their boss is earlier, and leave late, because the boss leaves late.
Both the boss and the underlings are puerile: the boss should not be putting pressure on its reports this way, the people working for the boss should leave once their shift is finished: the boss has no way to give you your time back, so why are people giving it away for free?
I still don't see what is so great about somebody that has is head so stuck up his backside.
We are not ideal beings, so trying to live like a pure logical being is stupid and most likely unmanageable (does this guy goes to the loo? Does he eat? What else does he sacrifice in the name of "pure thought"? Where does he draw the line? Why there?)
Slashdot Mirror
Singling out help desk people is telling you that they consider your services janitorial in quality.
I just can't imagine working in a company requiring this. This is the 21st century, somebody should pass the memo to some companies out there.
First thing I do when I get a new job is dress casual.
If somebody complains I ask where I can pass my bill for dry cleaning, or if they have somebody else to do all the crawling that is needed when doing hardware support.
That sorts out the problem.
... to get a comfortable shirt and some cheap Chinos?
"Likely the real reason for the uniform is so that you will stand out, so when your walking past or in the vicinity they can spot you and grab you to immediately to assist them."
The only way to organize technical support in a big company (and 500 people is quite big already) is to prioritize the work.
What you suggest above is anathema to proper prioritization. Nothing kills planning like doing adhoc work.
In the case of the Inquisition the maniacs made clear their were acting in the name of religion.
In the case of the Soviets they never claimed to be acting in the name of Atheism (which was important in the Soviet state, but was not the major ideological point of the system, all Communist states tolerated religion eventually, and even promoted some forms of it that were sanctioned by the state).
There are many examples of atheists that didn't give up to the the snake oil of religion during hard times.
Carl Sagan just to cite one example.
You should get a hint about this by reading the myriad of replies to this topic (I have counted at least 10 different suggested languages, which tell you all what you need to know: the chosen language is frankly immaterial to the objective).
I would suggest that you use a language you are familiar with, you are bound to teach somebody better if you understand the tool used fully.
Look, we can argue about how the US came to be in possession of all the former Mexican territories until the end of times, the unquestionable truth is that the US expanded from its paltry origins to its current size.The US would be perhaps the first case in history in which such expansion is carried out by other countries voluntarily giving their own riches away to others. If you USians really think this is the truth you frankly need to wake up and smell the coffee.
The fact is that the US took possession of territories that had a strong Mexican and Hispanic character, but what was not realized at the time was that those parts of the country had a very specific cultural landscape shaped for thousands of years by Native Americans and by 300 years more by Spanish and Mexican cultures.
It would be incredibly naive to believe that absorbing territories with such strong cultural heritages would not affect in some way the conquering country.
It is my belief that the US will become a country with an Hispanic majority at some point, and there is nothing anybody cn do about it because the US seeded these changes on its own history by seizing the Mexican territories all those years ago.
Empires never learn, thankfully, since it would not be the first case of a major power being weakened by its own conquests.
A part of the US that was under Spanish and Mexican rule for around 300 years being predominantly Hispanic in nature.
What a frigging surprise.
Just so you know, people that claim asylum have a right to do so, this is not a gracious concession by the USA, is part of international law and all signatory states of the respective UN charter are legally obliged to offer asylum to people facing prosecution on their respective countries.
Asylum has nothing to do with illegal immigration, bar tickling the sensitive nerves of xenophobes.
Pretty simple....
You can get all the tools you Linux fan boys crave in Solaris.
Sun has been packaging them for you for years.
If anything it would pay homage to the inventiveness of African people. They can fix things in unexpected and very clever ways, because more often than not they can't buy the expensive replacement parts.
If anything such device would fit perfectly with the local culture (same thing anywhere else where original replacement parts are too expensive).
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/16/teaching-refugees-ho.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+(Boing+Boing)
People becoming wealthier means in the long run they can buy stuff from you (not necessarily directly mind you, but is no use to have people starving to death when they could be earning a living and trading with people around the world).
As for cannibalism, go on, show us some links.
Most cannibalism was done for ritual reasons and as a mark of respect for your elders.
I have witnessed many times providers telling clients they could not be bothered to fix things, in spite of recognizing a problem actually exists.
Closed source shops of course.
I know that many nature TV programs appeal to our instinctive preference for "cute" animals, specially monkeys of any kind, and until recently I was stil in favour of experimentation in primates, if that would save human lives.
No more.
When I watched the "Primates" episode of BBC's "Life" TV series a few weeks ago, I became convinced that primates should be granted special status amongst animals, I would go as far as to say that the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans) should be granted rights akin to human rights.
If you watch that programme and your heart does not melt when an otherwise unremarkable monkey uses tools, or when a female chimpanzee borrows stones, used as tools, from another chimp, then you simply have no heart.
Wait, I found the video I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7cY3w4tb4 (stupid geographic restrictions willing).
And also one of chimps sharing tools (not the same I saw, which is far more poignant): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Irp2UAQxM
I think the arguments for using primates for medical research are becoming morally indefensible.
How can anybody justify any more experimenting with animals like this one?
"The syntax is fairly straightforward and familiar, being a typical mishmash of shell scripting, C and perlisms"
How can somebody contradict himself in the short space of a single sentence?
I have read several comments, and it seems Slashdoters in the US are very fond of this practice of working for free.
Not only that, but they seem to believe that working for free is so much better if you force your boss to partake in the misery. Most endearingly bosses seem to believe that being miserable with your people for doing work, that you should not be doing in the first place, will enhance morale, in the same way the morale of the Titanic's crew was enhanced by the valiant captain staying to drown in the ill fated ship.
Another interesting tidbit that has emerged in the thread is several star-stripped Slashdoters referring to experiences in their Armed Forces as a good example to follow when dealing with a corporate civilian environment.
In the immortal words of my dad, a fearless Presidential Guard if you must know, "the military teaches you shit about real life because the military is not real life, unless you think your wife is General $YOUR_FAVOURITE_GENERAL"
So no, the manager should not stay, because arguably a good manager has planned unsocial hours work and you knew that and will be compensated properly.
Also in a properly run company, you will know the roles and responsibilities of most people, your manager included, and even if you don't, you should work under the assumption that every person is responsible and allocate their time in a matter that better serves the company's aims, as you surely do as well.
So if a manager leaves while you are working, perhaps it is because he has to be early next day, is taking lots of work home, or is going to watch a shitty movie like Avatar 3D, but since this is none of your business I fail to see why you should care at all instead of getting your work done.
The US is perhaps the only OECD country with provisions *not to pay* people for work they have provided.
The US also does not celebrate the 1st of May, which says it all really regarding workers' rights.
If the employee is compensated properly and knows what the objectives are, there is no reason to be angry at a boss leaving on time.
A boss's job is not cheerleading, it is to provide leadership, and leadership is provided by setting clear targets, providing resources and ensure you are compensated properly for your efforts.
A manager that sits with you all your working hours but then proceeds to give you bad marks (thus lowering bonuses), fails to ensure you are compensated for working long hours, and puts hazzy objectives in front of you, is not any good.
Give me a manger that leads and that leaves at 17:00 please.
All this nonsensical management style comes from the US, where lots of people have seen this in play in the US Army, one of the biggest employers in the US.
Well, you are wrong, it is just a job, doing draconian shifts is not helping, is bullying your reports into putting unsocial hours when the real solution should be to have more resources.
The most productive companies I have seen (Asia, Mexico, UK, Germany) worked 9-5 and the boss was chasing people out of the door at 16:55.
.... that the team has to be sitting in the same place at the same time?
Don't you have a clear delineation of your responsibilities and the tasks that you need to accomplish?
Don't you have a clear delineation of how you will be compensated for your work out of hours?
If you have both of the above, why do you need your boss around?
Do you need moral support? Cant you gather enough of that while you are planning your work or during the emergency planning for the work you are now doing?
Honestly, I see no reason for this "Titanic" approach to working culture.
I have heard many times how people feel obliged to be in the office earlier because their boss is earlier, and leave late, because the boss leaves late.
Both the boss and the underlings are puerile: the boss should not be putting pressure on its reports this way, the people working for the boss should leave once their shift is finished: the boss has no way to give you your time back, so why are people giving it away for free?
As I am sure does the original poster.
I still don't see what is so great about somebody that has is head so stuck up his backside.
We are not ideal beings, so trying to live like a pure logical being is stupid and most likely unmanageable (does this guy goes to the loo? Does he eat? What else does he sacrifice in the name of "pure thought"? Where does he draw the line? Why there?)