The problem with brain teasers is they do not test if someone is smart or if they will be able to hack a situation.. they test how well the subject metathinks the test creator. They are artificial situations where the test creator has thought of both a problem and solution, and really only tests if the subject is good at figuring out how the test writer's mind works. It is kinda like reading a mystery novel... you are not solving a mystery, you are solving a writer's thought pattern.
That's only true if you care about the answer. Shot, sometimes I don't even know the answer or it's something bogus I've made up on the spot or stolen from Car Talk. I've asked them, and don't care about the answer - I want to see if the person can handle an unexpected, off beat question. Do they do it in a way that would make me comfortable turning them loose on a client? Or do they freeze? Can they work through a logical process to come to a reasonable conclusion?
It also helps me see if this person passes the "seat test" - would I want to sit next to this person for a 4 hour plus plane ride?
Under that they have to prove that the 3rd party software broke the phone. Just in a car they can't just you put in a 3rd party radio in and say the engine warranty is void.
No they don't. First, their unlocked will no doubt have a EULA that specifically states using it voids the warranty. It's no difference than Ford selling you parts to soup up your Mustang but telling you using them voids the engine and drivetrain warranty. Or, to your radio example, if the radio fries the ECM then you are out of luck; but your example isn't relevant to way ASUS is doing.
Any new tool developed with public funds should be entered into the public domain.
FTFY
True, but you would have to define what constitutes "developed with public funds." I do work for the government, and will sometimes modify something I've already developed for them. While I think a valid argument could be made that the modifications were public domain; the original work is not. It's not as easy as it sounds, especially when the work in question is:
A derivative work, and
not necessarily something that is specifically covered by a contract (i.e. - not a "develop this test" or "write code that does this."
Use of a tow-truck to steal vehicles is not that commonly employed. Mostly owing to the amount of time that it takes to properly hook up a vehicle to a tow truck, the likelihood of discovery is exponentially higher. Although the action might appear innocuous to quite a few people, there is a huge risk of being questioned or even photographed, and a thief risks having to deal with both situations. Cars on private property can only be legitimately be towed with consent of the owner of the vehicle, or else by consent of the owner of the property, and proof of such authorization might be requested by someone who sees a car being hooked up. This is problematic for thieves who might want to employ such a technique... they are taking a 15 minute gamble that nobody who works there or sees them will care what they are doing. Finally, to discourage property owners from profiting from thefts on their own property, if a host of thefts from one particular place occur in too short a time, the owner of that place is probably going to be facing something just short of an inquisition to confirm that he or she is not somehow party to the thefts. In fact, I actually know one store owner who once was questioned about an unusual number of car thefts (not towed... just ordinary thefts) on his property, and he ended up having to invest in security cameras, which I had heard actually immediately made a differences in the number of car thefts happening there.
To the best of my knowledge, the engine-kill anti-theft device has never been circumvented by any thief who did not have legitimate keys to the car in the first place.
"To the extent you can increase labor's bargaining power you will be able to extract higher wages - the result of the guild system worth replicating."
I agree, in the context of equalizing negotiating power with powerful companies. But the problem -- both in guilds and in trade unions -- has been abuse by the higher-ups of the organizations.
Even pretty recently there have been problems with organized crime running the leadership of trade unions. And even when there wasn't, there was still abuse by the leaders of unions... who managed to keep costs high and salaries lower than they would otherwise be.
If you could get the bargaining power without the abuse of the system, then I would probably be in favor of it. Unfortunately, I have seen very few real-world examples.
True. perhaps cross between a cooperative, such as Ocean Spray, and a temp agency, where the members own the agency and as such have a vested interest in its success.
The guild system -- followed by early trade unions, which were an extension of the same idea -- was a horrible, abusive system. I would not wish it on anybody.
Guilds were not created to help workers. Guilds were created to keep tradecrafts secret and expensive. They drove prices up, were terribly abusive to apprentices (that was part of the point... THEY got cheap unskilled labor) and kept common workers (who would have brought prices down through competition) OUT.
If you think guilds were good, for anybody but the master craftsmen, you haven't read your history very carefully.
While I agree the guild system as it original was setup would not be desirable; I think the concept of skilled labor banding together to improve their bargaining power is valid today. we need to shift from the concept of 'we work for a comp[any" to we sell one raw material - skilled labor - to a buyer and want to negotiate the best deal we can for our product. To the extent you can increase labor's bargaining power you will be able to extract higher wages - the result of the guild system worth replicating.
"They are looking for much more aggressive career development opportunities and the ability to learn new things quicker," says Lily Mok, vice president at Gartner for CIO Research. "Traditionally, it took two or three years for a person to move up into the next level in an organization. They want to be on a faster track than that. They don't want to stay in one spot for more than 12 or 18 months."
Even when CIOs promote 20- and 30-somethings, they often don't have loyalty to the organization, Mok says.
"Don't expect them to stay with you 15 or 20 or 30 years...That's not going to happen," Mok says. "They will stay with you as long as they see certain things, including personal growth or personal value enhancement, whether that's financial reward or career aspirations. But only think about being able to retain them for two or three years. If nothing happens, they will leave after their first year of employment."
Of course Gartner has always had a gift for stating the obvious.
No, their gift is getting paid well for stating the obvious.
OH, the horror. People don't appreciate that we give them a job and a paycheck. They should be grateful.
Of course, the first time the market slows or we can hire someone cheaper, we can show them the door. After all, we're the employees. We only owe them a paycheck for as long as we need them.
Somehow, I can't garner much sympathy for the poor CIO/CEO/CFO/CPHBO that can't keep staff. They've seen what's happened to their parents, older siblings, and friends at companies, and learned the lesson well. Watch out for number one. Your company, despite all it's statements about loyalty, only looks at the bottom line. That's fine, but loyalty is a two way street, and company's are discovering people care as much for them as they do of their people.
I've seen loyalty - in the military - but it's a loyalty because you know the person next to you would die for you and you'd do the same for them. Most company's have no idea what loyalty is, and will learn, as we used to say "Payback is a MF."
I anticipate, once the economy picks up, a lot of companies are going to be crying about how they can't keep employees despite all they "did for them in the recession" (like layoff people with 3 days notice, demand pay cuts, etc) and how horrible it is.
We're fast becoming a nation of hired guns - which is fine, and as things like health insurance and other "benefits" provided by companies become more portable you see more and more people selling themselves to the highest bidder and moving on whenever a better gig comes around. I'd almost see a return to the guild system - where individuals band together to get group discounts and find work but essentially are freelancers; a modern version of a union hiring hall.
That people don't try to return the product when they screw it up doing something that the product wasn't intended to do
It is a computer, not a hammer. Since when do we declare that a computer is "not intended" to do something in software? If people were complaining that their Nook could not solve the Post correspondence problem, you would have a point.
Neither company advertises there reader as anything but a reader designed to run their software. Just because it was capable of being rooted doesn't mean they have to continue to allow it to be rooted or that they are taking anything away. You are free to buy someone else's product or not upgrade yours and live with the capabilities and limitations of the current setup.
You are still also free to try to root the device or otherwise modify it - but neither company has any obligation to make it easy to do that. It's their product, their choice on what capabilities to include, and you choice wether or not to buy it based on those capabilities. If you buy it for an unadvertised capability then you're on your own if it goes away.
As a EU citizen I understand americans hate regulations. But would this not be a thing that should be covered by law? I mean... what the fuck? In your country a city can decide how long the traffic light is yellwo
(I know I will probably be modded into oblivion for this) As a foreigner living in the US I know exactly where you are coming from. This place takes parochialism to the extreme. From bottom to top its city vs county vs state vs federal. Everything is focussed on the smallest possible sphere of influence rather than looking at the bigger picture - which creates the situation where traffic laws are controlled (capriciously) by the local community rather than adhering to well thought out standards. Its the whole "we want to be free and do what we want to do without being controlled by someone else" mindset. I'm not going to say that this mindset is always bad, but it does leave you scratching your head over things like locally controlled yellow light times. One of my favourite examples of parochialism is that years ago I saw a letter in the Pittsburgh paper complaining that the team members of the Pittsburgh Steelers were denying the city of Pittsburgh valuable tax dollars by having the temerity to reside in county rather than in the city itself.
While I understand your POV, much of the reason behind the US viewpoint is cultural, just as in the EU. American's dislike of a strong central government (unless it is doing something they support) is rooted in our founding - we gave states rights very specifically and limited federal power; after our experiences with the British crown. As the US expanded across the continent, the distances form the central government widened and local control become the norm. This feeling still exists today.
You still see the same feelings in Europe, from the UK's sticking with the pound and Bavaria have it's one unique view on beer and food. More to the point, most EU countries haven't ceded control to the extent US states did, with our concept of federal supremacy.
" the ones who don't understand why you're making decisions that to them, seem stupid."
It should never get to that point. A key component of managing knowledge workers is communication. You must communicate the why of your decisions or the people you are supposed to lead will resent those decisions and cut you out of the loop. Not a problem if you are managing people who do not want to know (laborers), but knowledge workers must be a part of the loop.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the importance of good communications (except the laborer comment - they like to know why as well and having them understand why yields benefits when they suggest better ways to do things); there is a subtle difference between explaining "why" and understanding "why."
For example, some coders want to tweak their code to make it better - fewer lines, slightly faster, whatever they view as better. You can explain that once the code is robust enough to do the required job without crashing and responsive enough to meet end user needs; tweaking it adds no value but adds costs and may delay the project, which will annoy the client. Most get it, but some still think that is a stupid decision. They know "why" but refuse to understand "why."
1) find a mentor you can use to get advice and bounce ideas of of
2) contact some counterparts and see what professional pegs the belong to and join them and go to local meetings
3) and now the hardest part. While the developers are your friends you now have new responsibilities and may have to make some tough decisions. Be fair, but make the tough calls. If you don't, your team will suffer and do will you.
While I listed one of my favorites elsewhere in this thread, Toys for Tots is another I wholeheartedly support. They do good locally, and make a difference in a child life. The best story I heard about them was from a young Marine, who said while he as growing up, thought Santa wore Marine Dress Blues.
donorschoose.org - they support educational projects. I like them because you give to a specific project, can chose the type of project,location, etc, and they clearly lay out the need, what will be supplied, and their administrative fees up front. If you want to support education, they would be a good choice.
The big difference was the Iraqis gave up. If North Korea were invaded, North Koreans would fight for their leader to the death. They are fanatical, xenophobic, heavily armed, and intimately familiar with their terrain. The last time we fought there, we lost.
The original discussion was about a PRK innovation of the south, not an invasion of the PRK. In that case, they PRK Army would be moving against a well trained Army, fighting on their land, on terrain that would tend to negate size because of it's ruggedness. In addition, PRK would be fighting at the end of their supply lines and logistics train.
Well, we lost once the Chinese came across the border, and it's a point of debate that had we stopped earlier they may not have entered. We failed on the geopolitical front on that one. We got caught by surprise with a largely unprepared Army, something that should not happen again.
Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.
And yet, with all our technology, we are just now leaving after 8 years of horrific bloodshed. Don't count on technology.
True, but I'm not talking about hanging around for nation building, I'm wondering what the first six months of the war may look like.
As for the iraqi's giving up - I'm not surprised after seeing some of the things our weaponry did - before we invaded.
I work in the intelligence community, and every estimate says the same thing here. We would face an intense fight against a large dug-in motivated force that's been planning for 50 years. No one seriously thinks it would be a "landslide". If you have a source for this position other than your uniformed opinion, I'd be happy to hear it.
Which is why invading is a non-starter - on that we agree. A defensive war is much easier than an offensive one, and that is what ROK would be fighting if the PRK invaded. Would we move north? Probably, but that would only make sense once you've pretty much taken out much of their command and control and offensive capability. Even then, invading them would not be easy.
As for "landslide" in which we'd give initial ground but essentially destroy an invading force in a counter attack - which is what I think would happen if the PRK decided to invade like they seem to always threaten - that's based on work with the 8th Army; as well as others. It's no longer all that current; but, and this is opinion, our relative superiority in technology should still be there (or better) and just as capable if the PRK would decide to invade.
To me, the real question is how well trained is the PRK soldier so he can fight once the command and control structure is gone - or can PRK maintain it through very low tech means, while fighting a war in unfamiliar terrain.
U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.
No, not quite. NK has the fourth largest military in the world with 1.2 million active and 5 million in reserve. They have 8 conventional corps, 1 armored corps, 4 mechanized corps, 2 artillery corps, 1 capital defense command, 30 infantry divisions and 4 infantry brigades, 15 armored brigades, and 20 motorized/mechanized infantry brigades in their ground forces alone. Poor as the country may be, defenseless they are not.
While size has a quality all of it's own, Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.
While it would not be pretty, I'd bet on the ROK Army and Marines in a landslide. While they may be numerically 1/2 the size of the PRK, their equipment, training, ability and motivation is much better. Couple that with limited maneuver terrain from which to launch and assault, the ability to identify warnings that mean the PRK is preparing an assault, and modern remote guided weaponry and you have the makings of a slaughter after an initial breakthrough.
My guess is they the PRK leaders are happy to talk big but enjoy the comforts of absolute rule to much to do anything that threatens it.
(though have a personal bone over expecting experts to magically forget everything they know for the purposes of serving on a jury).
You don't have to - you are given a set of facts and make your decision based on that; but your experiences and knowledge is part of the deliberation process. What you can't do is use prior knowledge about the case to reach a verdict - so saying " I read that you couldn't get from A to B in 30 minutes" is not OK, using your knowledge of how fast a car can go to decide someone couldn't have done that is OK.
This is a maths test, not a test of guestimation. I knew which was the right answer just from inspection, however the test is supposed to be whether you can *work* it out.
That's one problem with a multiple choice test - it doesn't necessarily test your ability to actually do the math, just wetehr you can get the right answer. Even worth, since it allows using a calculator you don't really need to work it out - just check which answer is correct. That's actually not a bad strategy for taking timed multiple choice math tests - especially if the answers are low to high or vice versa. Pick the middle, see which way to go, up or down, and get the answer without really doing any math.
Incidentally, I'm currently a Systems Engineer, I do real work on running Computers, not design.
OK, but I figured you weren't a field engineer by the approach you took to problem solving. It's not a dig - just a comment on the very different approaches engineers can have to problem solving.
At worst, you have to multiply by numbers like 29.
No you don't.
"Last week Maureen earned $288.00 (before taxes) for working 40 hours. This week Maureen worked 29 hours at the same rate of pay. How much did Maureen earn (before taxes) this week?"
Divide 288 by 4 to get $72 for 10 hours. Multiply that by 3 to get 30 hours ($216). If 10 hours is $72, then one hour is $7.20
216 - 7.20 = $208.80
That is why I have an engineering degree from a world class university and this guy is a Teacher.
You don't even need to do the subtraction and second multiplication - $397.24 is clearly too high, Half of 288 is 144 - $203 is too close so it has to be 208.80.
I'm guessing you're a design engineer and not a field engineer.
After reading this article, having someone as influential as a school board member take this test and fail it is putting education on a very dangerous course. It normally wouldn't be too bad but this guy's ego is so big that instead of admitting that he just isn't knowledgeable on the subject, he goes on a rant about how irrelevant this stuff is to life and how unnecessary this subject matter is to evaluating a student's college career. I mean sure, it might not be relevant to him for his job duties, but any science/engineering discipline should be well versed in simple math like this. I really hope he doesn't make a push to dumb down these tests to make the math easier.
School boards already put education on a dangerous course in the US. they are elected and so serve to drive what their supporters want - wether it is prayer in school, teaching "creation science" or it's follow-ons, etc. It's not about education but political control to advance an agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with brain teasers is they do not test if someone is smart or if they will be able to hack a situation.. they test how well the subject metathinks the test creator. They are artificial situations where the test creator has thought of both a problem and solution, and really only tests if the subject is good at figuring out how the test writer's mind works. It is kinda like reading a mystery novel... you are not solving a mystery, you are solving a writer's thought pattern.
That's only true if you care about the answer. Shot, sometimes I don't even know the answer or it's something bogus I've made up on the spot or stolen from Car Talk. I've asked them, and don't care about the answer - I want to see if the person can handle an unexpected, off beat question. Do they do it in a way that would make me comfortable turning them loose on a client? Or do they freeze? Can they work through a logical process to come to a reasonable conclusion?
It also helps me see if this person passes the "seat test" - would I want to sit next to this person for a 4 hour plus plane ride?
Zynga's revenue for 2011 was roughly 1 billion:
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/12/15/so-whats-zynga-going-to-do-with-all-its-cash/
EA's revenue for 2010 was roughly 3.65 billion, with roughly 800 million in 'digital revenues':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts
So Zynga took in less than 1/3 what EA did this past year, still impressive, but quite far from beating EA so far.
In addition, revenue does not equal profit. What would be interesting was the net profit, how it was calculated, and the margins.
"Fun fact: In Finland, the only person you should confess a murder to is a priest. Even the court can't force a priest to break the secrecy."
Better fact: The best kept secret is the one that no one else knows about.
Two people can keep a secret - as long as one is dead.
Under that they have to prove that the 3rd party software broke the phone. Just in a car they can't just you put in a 3rd party radio in and say the engine warranty is void.
No they don't. First, their unlocked will no doubt have a EULA that specifically states using it voids the warranty. It's no difference than Ford selling you parts to soup up your Mustang but telling you using them voids the engine and drivetrain warranty. Or, to your radio example, if the radio fries the ECM then you are out of luck; but your example isn't relevant to way ASUS is doing.
Any new tool developed with public funds should be entered into the public domain.
FTFY
True, but you would have to define what constitutes "developed with public funds." I do work for the government, and will sometimes modify something I've already developed for them. While I think a valid argument could be made that the modifications were public domain; the original work is not. It's not as easy as it sounds, especially when the work in question is:
A derivative work, and
not necessarily something that is specifically covered by a contract (i.e. - not a "develop this test" or "write code that does this."
Use of a tow-truck to steal vehicles is not that commonly employed. Mostly owing to the amount of time that it takes to properly hook up a vehicle to a tow truck, the likelihood of discovery is exponentially higher. Although the action might appear innocuous to quite a few people, there is a huge risk of being questioned or even photographed, and a thief risks having to deal with both situations. Cars on private property can only be legitimately be towed with consent of the owner of the vehicle, or else by consent of the owner of the property, and proof of such authorization might be requested by someone who sees a car being hooked up. This is problematic for thieves who might want to employ such a technique... they are taking a 15 minute gamble that nobody who works there or sees them will care what they are doing. Finally, to discourage property owners from profiting from thefts on their own property, if a host of thefts from one particular place occur in too short a time, the owner of that place is probably going to be facing something just short of an inquisition to confirm that he or she is not somehow party to the thefts. In fact, I actually know one store owner who once was questioned about an unusual number of car thefts (not towed... just ordinary thefts) on his property, and he ended up having to invest in security cameras, which I had heard actually immediately made a differences in the number of car thefts happening there.
So you have heard of a tow truck.
To the best of my knowledge, the engine-kill anti-theft device has never been circumvented by any thief who did not have legitimate keys to the car in the first place.
Ever heard of a tow truck?
Score rear ends based on its measurements. Lets you know how your date scores on a 1 - 10 scale. Just don't use voice announcements.
Tells you when you need to go on a diet. great gift for the significant other in your life.
Think your significant other is cheating? - check out the butt log.
"To the extent you can increase labor's bargaining power you will be able to extract higher wages - the result of the guild system worth replicating."
I agree, in the context of equalizing negotiating power with powerful companies. But the problem -- both in guilds and in trade unions -- has been abuse by the higher-ups of the organizations. Even pretty recently there have been problems with organized crime running the leadership of trade unions. And even when there wasn't, there was still abuse by the leaders of unions... who managed to keep costs high and salaries lower than they would otherwise be. If you could get the bargaining power without the abuse of the system, then I would probably be in favor of it. Unfortunately, I have seen very few real-world examples.
True. perhaps cross between a cooperative, such as Ocean Spray, and a temp agency, where the members own the agency and as such have a vested interest in its success.
The guild system -- followed by early trade unions, which were an extension of the same idea -- was a horrible, abusive system. I would not wish it on anybody. Guilds were not created to help workers. Guilds were created to keep tradecrafts secret and expensive. They drove prices up, were terribly abusive to apprentices (that was part of the point... THEY got cheap unskilled labor) and kept common workers (who would have brought prices down through competition) OUT. If you think guilds were good, for anybody but the master craftsmen, you haven't read your history very carefully.
While I agree the guild system as it original was setup would not be desirable; I think the concept of skilled labor banding together to improve their bargaining power is valid today. we need to shift from the concept of 'we work for a comp[any" to we sell one raw material - skilled labor - to a buyer and want to negotiate the best deal we can for our product. To the extent you can increase labor's bargaining power you will be able to extract higher wages - the result of the guild system worth replicating.
Or maybe find a non 20-something that can program Java. They do exist and are more likely to stick around. They might even require less training.
Nah, they already fired them to hire cheaper talent.
"They are looking for much more aggressive career development opportunities and the ability to learn new things quicker," says Lily Mok, vice president at Gartner for CIO Research. "Traditionally, it took two or three years for a person to move up into the next level in an organization. They want to be on a faster track than that. They don't want to stay in one spot for more than 12 or 18 months." Even when CIOs promote 20- and 30-somethings, they often don't have loyalty to the organization, Mok says. "Don't expect them to stay with you 15 or 20 or 30 years...That's not going to happen," Mok says. "They will stay with you as long as they see certain things, including personal growth or personal value enhancement, whether that's financial reward or career aspirations. But only think about being able to retain them for two or three years. If nothing happens, they will leave after their first year of employment."
Of course Gartner has always had a gift for stating the obvious.
No, their gift is getting paid well for stating the obvious.
OH, the horror. People don't appreciate that we give them a job and a paycheck. They should be grateful.
Of course, the first time the market slows or we can hire someone cheaper, we can show them the door. After all, we're the employees. We only owe them a paycheck for as long as we need them.
Somehow, I can't garner much sympathy for the poor CIO/CEO/CFO/CPHBO that can't keep staff. They've seen what's happened to their parents, older siblings, and friends at companies, and learned the lesson well. Watch out for number one. Your company, despite all it's statements about loyalty, only looks at the bottom line. That's fine, but loyalty is a two way street, and company's are discovering people care as much for them as they do of their people.
I've seen loyalty - in the military - but it's a loyalty because you know the person next to you would die for you and you'd do the same for them. Most company's have no idea what loyalty is, and will learn, as we used to say "Payback is a MF."
I anticipate, once the economy picks up, a lot of companies are going to be crying about how they can't keep employees despite all they "did for them in the recession" (like layoff people with 3 days notice, demand pay cuts, etc) and how horrible it is.
We're fast becoming a nation of hired guns - which is fine, and as things like health insurance and other "benefits" provided by companies become more portable you see more and more people selling themselves to the highest bidder and moving on whenever a better gig comes around. I'd almost see a return to the guild system - where individuals band together to get group discounts and find work but essentially are freelancers; a modern version of a union hiring hall.
That people don't try to return the product when they screw it up doing something that the product wasn't intended to do
It is a computer, not a hammer. Since when do we declare that a computer is "not intended" to do something in software? If people were complaining that their Nook could not solve the Post correspondence problem, you would have a point.
Neither company advertises there reader as anything but a reader designed to run their software. Just because it was capable of being rooted doesn't mean they have to continue to allow it to be rooted or that they are taking anything away. You are free to buy someone else's product or not upgrade yours and live with the capabilities and limitations of the current setup.
You are still also free to try to root the device or otherwise modify it - but neither company has any obligation to make it easy to do that. It's their product, their choice on what capabilities to include, and you choice wether or not to buy it based on those capabilities. If you buy it for an unadvertised capability then you're on your own if it goes away.
As a EU citizen I understand americans hate regulations. But would this not be a thing that should be covered by law? I mean ... what the fuck? In your country a city can decide how long the traffic light is yellwo
(I know I will probably be modded into oblivion for this) As a foreigner living in the US I know exactly where you are coming from. This place takes parochialism to the extreme. From bottom to top its city vs county vs state vs federal. Everything is focussed on the smallest possible sphere of influence rather than looking at the bigger picture - which creates the situation where traffic laws are controlled (capriciously) by the local community rather than adhering to well thought out standards. Its the whole "we want to be free and do what we want to do without being controlled by someone else" mindset. I'm not going to say that this mindset is always bad, but it does leave you scratching your head over things like locally controlled yellow light times. One of my favourite examples of parochialism is that years ago I saw a letter in the Pittsburgh paper complaining that the team members of the Pittsburgh Steelers were denying the city of Pittsburgh valuable tax dollars by having the temerity to reside in county rather than in the city itself.
While I understand your POV, much of the reason behind the US viewpoint is cultural, just as in the EU. American's dislike of a strong central government (unless it is doing something they support) is rooted in our founding - we gave states rights very specifically and limited federal power; after our experiences with the British crown. As the US expanded across the continent, the distances form the central government widened and local control become the norm. This feeling still exists today.
You still see the same feelings in Europe, from the UK's sticking with the pound and Bavaria have it's one unique view on beer and food. More to the point, most EU countries haven't ceded control to the extent US states did, with our concept of federal supremacy.
" the ones who don't understand why you're making decisions that to them, seem stupid."
It should never get to that point. A key component of managing knowledge workers is communication. You must communicate the why of your decisions or the people you are supposed to lead will resent those decisions and cut you out of the loop. Not a problem if you are managing people who do not want to know (laborers), but knowledge workers must be a part of the loop.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the importance of good communications (except the laborer comment - they like to know why as well and having them understand why yields benefits when they suggest better ways to do things); there is a subtle difference between explaining "why" and understanding "why."
For example, some coders want to tweak their code to make it better - fewer lines, slightly faster, whatever they view as better. You can explain that once the code is robust enough to do the required job without crashing and responsive enough to meet end user needs; tweaking it adds no value but adds costs and may delay the project, which will annoy the client. Most get it, but some still think that is a stupid decision. They know "why" but refuse to understand "why."
1) find a mentor you can use to get advice and bounce ideas of of
2) contact some counterparts and see what professional pegs the belong to and join them and go to local meetings
3) and now the hardest part. While the developers are your friends you now have new responsibilities and may have to make some tough decisions. Be fair, but make the tough calls. If you don't, your team will suffer and do will you.
While I listed one of my favorites elsewhere in this thread, Toys for Tots is another I wholeheartedly support. They do good locally, and make a difference in a child life. The best story I heard about them was from a young Marine, who said while he as growing up, thought Santa wore Marine Dress Blues.
donorschoose.org - they support educational projects. I like them because you give to a specific project, can chose the type of project,location, etc, and they clearly lay out the need, what will be supplied, and their administrative fees up front. If you want to support education, they would be a good choice.
The big difference was the Iraqis gave up. If North Korea were invaded, North Koreans would fight for their leader to the death. They are fanatical, xenophobic, heavily armed, and intimately familiar with their terrain. The last time we fought there, we lost.
The original discussion was about a PRK innovation of the south, not an invasion of the PRK. In that case, they PRK Army would be moving against a well trained Army, fighting on their land, on terrain that would tend to negate size because of it's ruggedness. In addition, PRK would be fighting at the end of their supply lines and logistics train.
Well, we lost once the Chinese came across the border, and it's a point of debate that had we stopped earlier they may not have entered. We failed on the geopolitical front on that one. We got caught by surprise with a largely unprepared Army, something that should not happen again.
Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.
And yet, with all our technology, we are just now leaving after 8 years of horrific bloodshed. Don't count on technology.
True, but I'm not talking about hanging around for nation building, I'm wondering what the first six months of the war may look like.
As for the iraqi's giving up - I'm not surprised after seeing some of the things our weaponry did - before we invaded.
I work in the intelligence community, and every estimate says the same thing here. We would face an intense fight against a large dug-in motivated force that's been planning for 50 years. No one seriously thinks it would be a "landslide". If you have a source for this position other than your uniformed opinion, I'd be happy to hear it.
Which is why invading is a non-starter - on that we agree. A defensive war is much easier than an offensive one, and that is what ROK would be fighting if the PRK invaded. Would we move north? Probably, but that would only make sense once you've pretty much taken out much of their command and control and offensive capability. Even then, invading them would not be easy.
As for "landslide" in which we'd give initial ground but essentially destroy an invading force in a counter attack - which is what I think would happen if the PRK decided to invade like they seem to always threaten - that's based on work with the 8th Army; as well as others. It's no longer all that current; but, and this is opinion, our relative superiority in technology should still be there (or better) and just as capable if the PRK would decide to invade.
To me, the real question is how well trained is the PRK soldier so he can fight once the command and control structure is gone - or can PRK maintain it through very low tech means, while fighting a war in unfamiliar terrain.
U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.
No, not quite. NK has the fourth largest military in the world with 1.2 million active and 5 million in reserve. They have 8 conventional corps, 1 armored corps, 4 mechanized corps, 2 artillery corps, 1 capital defense command, 30 infantry divisions and 4 infantry brigades, 15 armored brigades, and 20 motorized/mechanized infantry brigades in their ground forces alone. Poor as the country may be, defenseless they are not.
While size has a quality all of it's own, Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.
While it would not be pretty, I'd bet on the ROK Army and Marines in a landslide. While they may be numerically 1/2 the size of the PRK, their equipment, training, ability and motivation is much better. Couple that with limited maneuver terrain from which to launch and assault, the ability to identify warnings that mean the PRK is preparing an assault, and modern remote guided weaponry and you have the makings of a slaughter after an initial breakthrough.
My guess is they the PRK leaders are happy to talk big but enjoy the comforts of absolute rule to much to do anything that threatens it.
(though have a personal bone over expecting experts to magically forget everything they know for the purposes of serving on a jury).
You don't have to - you are given a set of facts and make your decision based on that; but your experiences and knowledge is part of the deliberation process. What you can't do is use prior knowledge about the case to reach a verdict - so saying " I read that you couldn't get from A to B in 30 minutes" is not OK, using your knowledge of how fast a car can go to decide someone couldn't have done that is OK.
This is a maths test, not a test of guestimation. I knew which was the right answer just from inspection, however the test is supposed to be whether you can *work* it out.
That's one problem with a multiple choice test - it doesn't necessarily test your ability to actually do the math, just wetehr you can get the right answer. Even worth, since it allows using a calculator you don't really need to work it out - just check which answer is correct. That's actually not a bad strategy for taking timed multiple choice math tests - especially if the answers are low to high or vice versa. Pick the middle, see which way to go, up or down, and get the answer without really doing any math.
Incidentally, I'm currently a Systems Engineer, I do real work on running Computers, not design.
OK, but I figured you weren't a field engineer by the approach you took to problem solving. It's not a dig - just a comment on the very different approaches engineers can have to problem solving.
At worst, you have to multiply by numbers like 29.
No you don't.
"Last week Maureen earned $288.00 (before taxes) for working 40 hours. This week Maureen worked 29 hours at the same rate of pay. How much did Maureen earn (before taxes) this week?"
Divide 288 by 4 to get $72 for 10 hours. Multiply that by 3 to get 30 hours ($216). If 10 hours is $72, then one hour is $7.20
216 - 7.20 = $208.80
That is why I have an engineering degree from a world class university and this guy is a Teacher.
You don't even need to do the subtraction and second multiplication - $397.24 is clearly too high, Half of 288 is 144 - $203 is too close so it has to be 208.80.
I'm guessing you're a design engineer and not a field engineer.
After reading this article, having someone as influential as a school board member take this test and fail it is putting education on a very dangerous course. It normally wouldn't be too bad but this guy's ego is so big that instead of admitting that he just isn't knowledgeable on the subject, he goes on a rant about how irrelevant this stuff is to life and how unnecessary this subject matter is to evaluating a student's college career. I mean sure, it might not be relevant to him for his job duties, but any science/engineering discipline should be well versed in simple math like this. I really hope he doesn't make a push to dumb down these tests to make the math easier.
School boards already put education on a dangerous course in the US. they are elected and so serve to drive what their supporters want - wether it is prayer in school, teaching "creation science" or it's follow-ons, etc. It's not about education but political control to advance an agenda.