That's a bit like saying that a car is there to be tinkered with, not to drive it. Not saying that it isn't fun to tinker with cars (I do it from time to time), but in the end most people have them in order to use them for something else (i.e. getting around or just driving them for the hell of it)used. Same as with computers. Programming is fun, but that's not why I own a computer.
If the telecom systems or the plumbing are critical to the business and provide a potential competitive advantage, then yes, I would expect management and the board to have at least some understanding of that infrastructure and how it is (or should be) managed, or (and this is what the article is getting at), have someone with a good understanding talking to to board or even sitting in it, so that they are well-informed and advised regarding matters of technology, by someone they know and take seriously.
If you treat technology as infrastructure, don't be surprised when other companies start eating your lunch.
IT is often called "plumbing": it just has to work. Working in IT might be a blueish-collar job, but technology strategy and security policies sure as fuck aren't. Having great toilets doesn't do much for the bottom line, and having crappy ones is not much of a risk. But having the right tech applied the right way can be a competitive advantage. And having the wrong tech poorly administered can kill your business
Even if the engineers were completely unaware of the nature of this change, you'd still expect them to follow process and ask for a requirement to be logged. If management refuses even if you offer to log the requirement for them, you know something is fishy.
Not everyone gets headaches from 3D, but it's a good point actually... 3D movies still "work" in 2D, but is that the case for VR movies with the 3D removed as well? What does non-stereoscopic VR look like?
The focus issue has little to do with VR; it's something inherent to 3D (and hard to solve)
VR won't remove direction from the movie; the director will still have to take decisions about camera setup and directing the viewer's attention, but he'll have to go about it differently. For instance the director will have to make decisions about where the action takes place. In front of the viewer is a safe default; you end up with a regular movie in which you can look around to ejoy the scenery. But the director can also make the action happen to the side of or even behind the viewer, in which case he will want to use an audible cue to direct the viewer's gaze there (great for horror movies). And what to do with camera setup? Tracking a moving object with the camera might be disorienting in a VR environment; you may want to go with a fixed camera position but again you'll have to direct the viewer's gaze to the right point of interest. Jump cuts from wide scenery shots to close ups of actors might prove to be too jarring an experience; how to handle that? Making a movie for VR will be a rather different affair.
Speaking of Avatar, I'd think that Cameron would be the one director able to pull this off and create a great VR movie, just as he proved with Avatar that 3D can work wonders for immersion.
The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it. Even Google struggles with that, as Sergei Brin lamented the other day. Also, I fail to see how Uber, Spotify and AirBnB are eating those IT departments' lunches. The businesses they serve, perhaps, but not those departments.
And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords. "Leverage relationships with decision-makers", "Move at the speed of trust" (Really? Really?! What does that even mean), "If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it", "Use process as business accelerator". These are copied verbatim from the article, and if this is what the best and brightest CIOs in the bunsiess have to offer us, it is small wonder that the IT profession is in such a shite state. I've seen similar statements on a great many powerpoints, and they all failed to make one iota of difference. Yes, you CIO's are going to have to "shift the culture" in your departments, as you like to say. And yes, most of you are woefully unequipped for the task.
You have to try and get past the "I don't wanna", sometimes. I was one of those kids who "doesn't like sports". Tried hockey and baseball (hated it), and my parents figured I might enjoy individual sports more than team ones, so they made me try track (liked it but it didn't stick), horseback riding (showjumping and dressage; I kept at that well into my college years) and a few others with varying success. Point is: I would never have tried those if they hadn't made me. Same with computers: if a child doesn't show much interest in programming, perhaps they'll enjoy the more artistic side of web design, or other technical hobbies. Stimulating a child means exposing them to all manner of sports, hobbies and intellectual pastimes. And sometimes it's ok to make them try something, as long as you keep in mind that's it about them, and not about your idea of a perfect childhood or spending Saturdays on the bleachers drinking beers with the other dads at little league. And of course you have to understand your child a little bid, and get good at picking activities they might like.
It reads like a sensible ruling. A stiff fine but not excessively so, and no panic "terrorist" or similarly silly charges for flying near Buckingham Palace.
Maybe you're right; I'm not too familiar with what the U.S. president can and cannot do. But if I were in any way in the direct chain of command (like minister of justice in my own country), I'd have these clowns in front of my desk tomorrow.
It's a good move, but I know an even better one. How about "inviting" (summoning) the teacher, the principle, the police officers and their chief of police to the White House, to ask them what the fuck they were thinking. The president giving these idiots an earful semi-publicly (not in public but it'll make the news) might give other panic-mongers and closet dictators some pause. It'll be worth it even in the extremely unlikely event that the backlash from a presidential chewing-out allows a terrorist to slip through. Fear, suspicion, surveillance and oppression aren't going to stop them anyway.
Auditable, anonymous, and transparent to / understandable by to a layman. A paper ballot system has the advnatgae that pretty much everyone can understand how it works, what the conditions for a fair vote are, and if those conditions are met at least in their local area. It is very hard to do any large-scale rigging in a properly conducted ballot, and people understand why it is so. You may be able to implement electronic voting that offers audits as well as anonymity, mathematically proven, and well-secured, but only a few people in this world will have the knowledge to actually verify the system, and it may be impossible for them to do so nationwide, before and on the day of voting. It's important that people know they can trust the outcome.
According to the administrative law judge who heard the first appeal, Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts.
Based on that, "there was in fact an employer/employee relationship", according to the decision.
I don't know if that is sufficient argument to make someone an employee in the US (for purposes of taxation / benefits), but this is about there being an employer/employee relationship, which is not the same thing. There's a similar distinction here in the Netherlands, where freelancing is becoming rather popular. Internal Revenue considers someone to be a contractor ("entrepreneur") if they are free to set rates, and perform their assignments as they think best. If a client or an agency sets too many conditions and rules, the tax office may decide that there is in fact an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't make the contractor an actual employee, but it does entitle him for benefits, and also makes him and the employer liable for social security taxes.
Actually, I stand corrected. I went into the whisky cabinet and as it turns out quite a few bottles are indeed corked. Interestingly though, many of the best whiskies in there (20+ years) do have screw caps.
I suppose I need to stick my nose in there a bit more often before opening my big mouth, though my wife might disagree with that.,,
All quality scotches are corked, as in with a cork
Utter rubbish. Cork is not inherently better than a simple screw-cap (each has their own disadvantages). These days pretty much every brand and bottler I know of (plenty...) uses screw-caps, except for special editions that are meant as expensive gifts or for collectors. Perhaps it was more common in the past, but if you buy an 18, 35 or 50 year old whisky today, chances are that it has been bottled only very recently.
Those are common tasting notes. Unlike their wine-sampling colleagues (or the whisky tasters in marketing), whisky tasters often use such words to describe the taste and smell of a whisky. They may sound odd and a bit nasty, but I find that notes from a good taster are usually pretty much in line with the memories invoked when tasting the whisky myself.
I'm surprised the whisky aged differently (or at all) up there; sitting in a glass vial doesn't do much for whisky, it's the barrel that matters. Perhaps they used a sealed vial with some wood from a typical barrel in there.
The vast majority of people currently flocking to Europe are not refugees from the war, but emigrants with economic motives. Throwing money at them is only going to encourage even more of them to make the (often dangerous) trek.
Refugees in Greece arrive with money and iPhones, checking with friends on the best places to go. Many arrive in Greece, Italy and Hungary, but very few stay in those countries even though they are safe there. They prefer Germany, Sweden and the UK, where the welcome is much warmer and comes with a house, medical care, a generous stipend, and the possibility of work. In Belgium, they see a large influx of young males (mostly from Iraq), all with identical rehearsed story about Syria and of course no papers to prove their identity. A great example is the story behind little Aylan, made famous by that heart-wrenching picture showing him washed ashore on a beach in Turkey. As it turns out, his family was already living in prefect safety in Istanbul for a few years, after fleeying the troubles in Syria. The father had tried to get asylum status in Canada (he has a relative there) but was denied. He then decided to try Europe, possibly because here he'd get the $14k in dental work he needed for free. He loaded his family in a crappy little boat and tried the crossing, which failed terribly as we know. The father lived, and is now back in Syria of all places to bury his family. This is a great tragedy, but it was brought on not by the war in Syria, not by ISIS, not by cold-hearted Europeans denying such people refuge, not by ruthless human trafficers, but by the man's own god-damned stupidity.
We in Europe (the vast majority of the people, not the politicians) do not want these people here. We'll take real refugees and care for them as best we can, but there are limits to what we can take. The social fabric in Sweden, Germany, France and other countries is already under tremendous strain, despite desperate attempts by media and government to paint a rosy picture. Should we do nothing? Of course not. One of the things we can do for example is to help Turkey manage the vast influx of refugees, help set them up in decent camps, and ensure that they stay there. Another thing we can do is what Australia does: tow these immigrants back from where they came, and destroy the boats. But the one thing we should be doing is to make it crystal clear: if you are not a real refugee, there is no future for you here.
The email analogy is interesting. Sure, you can usually find something in your email archives if you really have to, but as a knowledge repository it *sucks*. And transcriptions of conversations will make an equally sucky repository, mostly useful for replaying a conversation. What these archives need is technology that can infer some useful info from all that data, like a digital PA whom you can ask questions. "Who was the project manager on that project I did back around 2005?" or "Did Central Services actually mail me the 27B/6 form at some point?" are questions you can get from an email archive with some Google fu, but "Who was involved in project X?" is a bit harder to answer.
Even if the car would be programmed to follow the rules exactly, how much time would you actually lose on your daily commute? Really? Especially when weighed against the fact that you can spend the drive to work reading / working / making calls or whatever.
I don't think they even know what to measure (or how to measure it), let alone how to analyze the data. A guy is surfing the web 10 hours of every 40, and you might decide he's skiving. What if he is actually your best / most productive coder? Someone who continues to work on the train home? Or someone who does what everybody else is doing but declines to fill his downtime with pretend meetings or calls? Managers like to measure effort rather than results. For one, it kind of makes sense: your contract tells you to work 40 hours a week, so if you work less, they have a good legal stick to beat you with. Effort is also far, far easier to measure than results, especially individual results. But in the end, managers who only measure effort are only looking at how hard the galley slaves are rowing, not at how fast the ship is moving or even where it's going.
An increasingly common cause of burnout is cognitive overload. That doesn't mean too much work, but too many tasks, and/or too may distractions throughout the day. Our work is increasingly compartimentalized; where in the past we'd work on 1-3 things, nowadays it's not uncomming to contribute to over 10 different projects at a time. Upping the pace by managing away downtime using this software is a surefire way to push more people over the edge.
In contrast, monitoring software could also be used to spot employees on the verge of burning out (something that often goes unnoticed by the employee or their co-workers and managers), and offer advice to better manage their time, not to increase productivity but to prevent an actual burnout. It might actually suggest little breaks, a bit like RSI prevention software that locks out the keyboard every now and then for half a minute (annoying but it did help me recover). Even so I am not a big fan of monitoring software even in this case, simply because I do not think most managers can be trusted with the information. You get a warning from the system that Joey is about to blow a gasket, so you inform HR and inquire as to how to best get rid of Joey.
Slashdot Mirror
Lighten up. It's recreation.
That's a bit like saying that a car is there to be tinkered with, not to drive it. Not saying that it isn't fun to tinker with cars (I do it from time to time), but in the end most people have them in order to use them for something else (i.e. getting around or just driving them for the hell of it)used. Same as with computers. Programming is fun, but that's not why I own a computer.
If the telecom systems or the plumbing are critical to the business and provide a potential competitive advantage, then yes, I would expect management and the board to have at least some understanding of that infrastructure and how it is (or should be) managed, or (and this is what the article is getting at), have someone with a good understanding talking to to board or even sitting in it, so that they are well-informed and advised regarding matters of technology, by someone they know and take seriously.
If you treat technology as infrastructure, don't be surprised when other companies start eating your lunch.
IT is often called "plumbing": it just has to work. Working in IT might be a blueish-collar job, but technology strategy and security policies sure as fuck aren't. Having great toilets doesn't do much for the bottom line, and having crappy ones is not much of a risk. But having the right tech applied the right way can be a competitive advantage. And having the wrong tech poorly administered can kill your business
Even if the engineers were completely unaware of the nature of this change, you'd still expect them to follow process and ask for a requirement to be logged. If management refuses even if you offer to log the requirement for them, you know something is fishy.
Not everyone gets headaches from 3D, but it's a good point actually... 3D movies still "work" in 2D, but is that the case for VR movies with the 3D removed as well? What does non-stereoscopic VR look like?
The focus issue has little to do with VR; it's something inherent to 3D (and hard to solve)
VR won't remove direction from the movie; the director will still have to take decisions about camera setup and directing the viewer's attention, but he'll have to go about it differently. For instance the director will have to make decisions about where the action takes place. In front of the viewer is a safe default; you end up with a regular movie in which you can look around to ejoy the scenery. But the director can also make the action happen to the side of or even behind the viewer, in which case he will want to use an audible cue to direct the viewer's gaze there (great for horror movies). And what to do with camera setup? Tracking a moving object with the camera might be disorienting in a VR environment; you may want to go with a fixed camera position but again you'll have to direct the viewer's gaze to the right point of interest. Jump cuts from wide scenery shots to close ups of actors might prove to be too jarring an experience; how to handle that? Making a movie for VR will be a rather different affair.
Speaking of Avatar, I'd think that Cameron would be the one director able to pull this off and create a great VR movie, just as he proved with Avatar that 3D can work wonders for immersion.
The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it. Even Google struggles with that, as Sergei Brin lamented the other day. Also, I fail to see how Uber, Spotify and AirBnB are eating those IT departments' lunches. The businesses they serve, perhaps, but not those departments.
And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords. "Leverage relationships with decision-makers", "Move at the speed of trust" (Really? Really?! What does that even mean), "If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it", "Use process as business accelerator". These are copied verbatim from the article, and if this is what the best and brightest CIOs in the bunsiess have to offer us, it is small wonder that the IT profession is in such a shite state. I've seen similar statements on a great many powerpoints, and they all failed to make one iota of difference. Yes, you CIO's are going to have to "shift the culture" in your departments, as you like to say. And yes, most of you are woefully unequipped for the task.
You have to try and get past the "I don't wanna", sometimes. I was one of those kids who "doesn't like sports". Tried hockey and baseball (hated it), and my parents figured I might enjoy individual sports more than team ones, so they made me try track (liked it but it didn't stick), horseback riding (showjumping and dressage; I kept at that well into my college years) and a few others with varying success. Point is: I would never have tried those if they hadn't made me. Same with computers: if a child doesn't show much interest in programming, perhaps they'll enjoy the more artistic side of web design, or other technical hobbies. Stimulating a child means exposing them to all manner of sports, hobbies and intellectual pastimes. And sometimes it's ok to make them try something, as long as you keep in mind that's it about them, and not about your idea of a perfect childhood or spending Saturdays on the bleachers drinking beers with the other dads at little league. And of course you have to understand your child a little bid, and get good at picking activities they might like.
It reads like a sensible ruling. A stiff fine but not excessively so, and no panic "terrorist" or similarly silly charges for flying near Buckingham Palace.
Maybe you're right; I'm not too familiar with what the U.S. president can and cannot do. But if I were in any way in the direct chain of command (like minister of justice in my own country), I'd have these clowns in front of my desk tomorrow.
It's a good move, but I know an even better one. How about "inviting" (summoning) the teacher, the principle, the police officers and their chief of police to the White House, to ask them what the fuck they were thinking. The president giving these idiots an earful semi-publicly (not in public but it'll make the news) might give other panic-mongers and closet dictators some pause. It'll be worth it even in the extremely unlikely event that the backlash from a presidential chewing-out allows a terrorist to slip through. Fear, suspicion, surveillance and oppression aren't going to stop them anyway.
Auditable, anonymous, and transparent to / understandable by to a layman. A paper ballot system has the advnatgae that pretty much everyone can understand how it works, what the conditions for a fair vote are, and if those conditions are met at least in their local area. It is very hard to do any large-scale rigging in a properly conducted ballot, and people understand why it is so. You may be able to implement electronic voting that offers audits as well as anonymity, mathematically proven, and well-secured, but only a few people in this world will have the knowledge to actually verify the system, and it may be impossible for them to do so nationwide, before and on the day of voting. It's important that people know they can trust the outcome.
(semi-related; but fun, "Prince Rupert Drops" are a great demonstration of this
That is just freaky... (Here's a nice video including some high FPS shots of one breaking)
According to the administrative law judge who heard the first appeal, Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts. Based on that, "there was in fact an employer/employee relationship", according to the decision.
I don't know if that is sufficient argument to make someone an employee in the US (for purposes of taxation / benefits), but this is about there being an employer/employee relationship, which is not the same thing. There's a similar distinction here in the Netherlands, where freelancing is becoming rather popular. Internal Revenue considers someone to be a contractor ("entrepreneur") if they are free to set rates, and perform their assignments as they think best. If a client or an agency sets too many conditions and rules, the tax office may decide that there is in fact an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't make the contractor an actual employee, but it does entitle him for benefits, and also makes him and the employer liable for social security taxes.
Actually, I stand corrected. I went into the whisky cabinet and as it turns out quite a few bottles are indeed corked. Interestingly though, many of the best whiskies in there (20+ years) do have screw caps.
I suppose I need to stick my nose in there a bit more often before opening my big mouth, though my wife might disagree with that.,,
All quality scotches are corked, as in with a cork
Utter rubbish. Cork is not inherently better than a simple screw-cap (each has their own disadvantages). These days pretty much every brand and bottler I know of (plenty...) uses screw-caps, except for special editions that are meant as expensive gifts or for collectors. Perhaps it was more common in the past, but if you buy an 18, 35 or 50 year old whisky today, chances are that it has been bottled only very recently.
Those are common tasting notes. Unlike their wine-sampling colleagues (or the whisky tasters in marketing), whisky tasters often use such words to describe the taste and smell of a whisky. They may sound odd and a bit nasty, but I find that notes from a good taster are usually pretty much in line with the memories invoked when tasting the whisky myself.
I'm surprised the whisky aged differently (or at all) up there; sitting in a glass vial doesn't do much for whisky, it's the barrel that matters. Perhaps they used a sealed vial with some wood from a typical barrel in there.
For better results: puppies with frikkin' lasers attached to their adorable little heads.
The vast majority of people currently flocking to Europe are not refugees from the war, but emigrants with economic motives. Throwing money at them is only going to encourage even more of them to make the (often dangerous) trek.
Refugees in Greece arrive with money and iPhones, checking with friends on the best places to go. Many arrive in Greece, Italy and Hungary, but very few stay in those countries even though they are safe there. They prefer Germany, Sweden and the UK, where the welcome is much warmer and comes with a house, medical care, a generous stipend, and the possibility of work. In Belgium, they see a large influx of young males (mostly from Iraq), all with identical rehearsed story about Syria and of course no papers to prove their identity. A great example is the story behind little Aylan, made famous by that heart-wrenching picture showing him washed ashore on a beach in Turkey. As it turns out, his family was already living in prefect safety in Istanbul for a few years, after fleeying the troubles in Syria. The father had tried to get asylum status in Canada (he has a relative there) but was denied. He then decided to try Europe, possibly because here he'd get the $14k in dental work he needed for free. He loaded his family in a crappy little boat and tried the crossing, which failed terribly as we know. The father lived, and is now back in Syria of all places to bury his family. This is a great tragedy, but it was brought on not by the war in Syria, not by ISIS, not by cold-hearted Europeans denying such people refuge, not by ruthless human trafficers, but by the man's own god-damned stupidity.
We in Europe (the vast majority of the people, not the politicians) do not want these people here. We'll take real refugees and care for them as best we can, but there are limits to what we can take. The social fabric in Sweden, Germany, France and other countries is already under tremendous strain, despite desperate attempts by media and government to paint a rosy picture. Should we do nothing? Of course not. One of the things we can do for example is to help Turkey manage the vast influx of refugees, help set them up in decent camps, and ensure that they stay there. Another thing we can do is what Australia does: tow these immigrants back from where they came, and destroy the boats. But the one thing we should be doing is to make it crystal clear: if you are not a real refugee, there is no future for you here.
The email analogy is interesting. Sure, you can usually find something in your email archives if you really have to, but as a knowledge repository it *sucks*. And transcriptions of conversations will make an equally sucky repository, mostly useful for replaying a conversation. What these archives need is technology that can infer some useful info from all that data, like a digital PA whom you can ask questions. "Who was the project manager on that project I did back around 2005?" or "Did Central Services actually mail me the 27B/6 form at some point?" are questions you can get from an email archive with some Google fu, but "Who was involved in project X?" is a bit harder to answer.
Even if the car would be programmed to follow the rules exactly, how much time would you actually lose on your daily commute? Really? Especially when weighed against the fact that you can spend the drive to work reading / working / making calls or whatever.
A real hobbyist uses whatever is in the drawer.
I don't think they even know what to measure (or how to measure it), let alone how to analyze the data. A guy is surfing the web 10 hours of every 40, and you might decide he's skiving. What if he is actually your best / most productive coder? Someone who continues to work on the train home? Or someone who does what everybody else is doing but declines to fill his downtime with pretend meetings or calls? Managers like to measure effort rather than results. For one, it kind of makes sense: your contract tells you to work 40 hours a week, so if you work less, they have a good legal stick to beat you with. Effort is also far, far easier to measure than results, especially individual results. But in the end, managers who only measure effort are only looking at how hard the galley slaves are rowing, not at how fast the ship is moving or even where it's going.
An increasingly common cause of burnout is cognitive overload. That doesn't mean too much work, but too many tasks, and/or too may distractions throughout the day. Our work is increasingly compartimentalized; where in the past we'd work on 1-3 things, nowadays it's not uncomming to contribute to over 10 different projects at a time. Upping the pace by managing away downtime using this software is a surefire way to push more people over the edge.
In contrast, monitoring software could also be used to spot employees on the verge of burning out (something that often goes unnoticed by the employee or their co-workers and managers), and offer advice to better manage their time, not to increase productivity but to prevent an actual burnout. It might actually suggest little breaks, a bit like RSI prevention software that locks out the keyboard every now and then for half a minute (annoying but it did help me recover). Even so I am not a big fan of monitoring software even in this case, simply because I do not think most managers can be trusted with the information. You get a warning from the system that Joey is about to blow a gasket, so you inform HR and inquire as to how to best get rid of Joey.