I can certainly echo that, but the long-term effects are even worse. Companies that get into this mode end up doing layoffs and reorganizations so frequently that nobody stays in a role for a long time. Everybody adjusts to this, which leads to some really bad culture changes.
Any big company tends to get bureaucratic. The official way of getting things done tends to be slow as a result, but that doesn't have to be a problem since everybody learns how to navigate the bureaucracy. Employees can either use this knowledge to quickly jump through hoops when there is something urgent to be done, or to work around the system by calling in favors (and granting them in turn). A common term used in big companies is "influencing people" - reflecting that rarely does anybody have the actual managerial power to make something happen that they need to happen.
The problem is that once you have layoffs and frequent re-orgs the employees never develop this level of organizational knowledge. Heck, at work my IM contact list is still grouped by the names of departments that went away 5 years ago, though the people in the groupings are still strangely relevant today. When something needs to be done, people need to figure out how to get it done like they are new hires even if they've been around for 10 years. Also, nobody is in a position to ask for a favor - you never work with anybody in any particular role long enough to actually be able to "influence" them - everything gets done by the book.
Instead of focusing all that internal networking on figuring out how to get work done, the internal networking effort all goes into understanding what is going on (as you describe), and trying to gather intelligence on where the next cuts are coming. Relationship-building isn't about team interaction - it is about finding people who can help you find a job should you lose your own. Half the socializing at work ends up being with people who don't even work at the company any longer.
All of this is horrible for morale, and for productivity as well.
Tree branches kill people. Being safer than that is a low bar.
I agree, but we still manage to get by without issuing federal licenses to tree owners.
I just don't see the need to regulate low-flying drones at all (1000'). I can see the need to come up with a more workable way to handle aircraft of any type including drones at higher altitudes, since a drone getting sucked into an engine can cause serious problems or death for hundreds of people. Frankly, the FAA's approaches aren't really adequate even for small aircraft, which is why the whole general aviation industry is dying out. They need to get past "see and avoid" which is basically just another way of washing their hands of doing anything to proactively prevent collisions.
We don't really care about the general reader. we are talking about the reader that is using information to make a hiring decision. Why would you want to work for someone that will treat you differently based on out-dated information?
Because every employer will treat you that way, and their money is still green?
We can't fix the real problem, so we attack irrelevant people and technologies. Good plan!
Well, the choice is live with the problem or do something to help mitigate it.
That's the reasoning. I can't say I'm a fan of this approach, but fixing the root cause isn't really possible until we can control everybody's thoughts and actions.
Sure, but a drone's shape and materials will probably be less likely to cause damage than a baseball or other more common object flying through the air (like a tree branch).
The drone is designed to fly - it is going to be light and flimsy.
That get lumps in with the "it wasn't because you're black or a woman" category. It's a problem with society we're going to have to fight one step at a time.
And that was my whole point. The problem is that in the meantime you still have to deal with the damage.
I agree this does not mean the US Government is okay with it, but shouldn't this set a precedent for every other nation to say with their own court order they can extradite information from servers inside US borders if the data's owner has business inside those other nations' borders?
I'm not sure why they'd be waiting for the US to do it first, but sure.
Look at it the other way around. Suppose that somebody has reason to think that Google has been collecting private data about Germans illegally. They sue Google. Google says they don't have to produce any evidence to the court, since Google doesn't store any data or documents relevant to its German operations in Germany.
Allowing this kind of argument will just lead every single company everywhere to move all their records retention and datacenters around so that nothing relevant is stored in a country that it is relevant to. They could send the US paperwork to Germany, and the German paperwork to the US, for example, or move it all to some friendly shelter.
Courts don't like shell games, so they just tell the company that figuring out how to comply is its problem, and to produce the documents/etc.
MAKE IT ILLEGAL for businesses to use certain resources in determine job eligibility, loan qualifications, etc.
How does one prove that a business used those resources to make those determinations?
If I send out a job application I don't get a letter back saying, "thank you for your job application - we wanted to hire you but the manager didn't like the color of your hair." I simply don't get a response, or if I do it doesn't speak to whether any determinations were made, or at most simply states that I wasn't the best candidate for the job.
Ditto when losing a job - they just say that they no longer require your services.
Companies learned a LONG time ago that if they don't say anything, you don't have anything to sue them over.
Agree, but fixing the root cause of this is MUCH harder than removing some search results.
Heck, getting gay marriage legalized is probably an easier cultural change than getting people to treat information they hear with appropriate skepticism and giving people a chance. Actually, if we could fix that then getting gay marriage legalized would be a simple follow-on...
I choose to, first and foremost, obey all of the laws of Antarctica.
Excellent. Then as long as you restrict yourself to selling your products in Antartica and locating all your operations there, you'll be fine.
If you sell elsewhere, then you'll be fine to the extent that the armies of Antartica make the rest of the world stand in awe of its ability to bring freedom and the Antartic legal system to their shores.
Does this mean that the US Gov is fine with those same companies turning over all their data to China if a Chinese official decides he wants it? Wonder what other companies this fun can extend to.
Nope. Every nation on earth maintains double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. Ultimately, you have to pick a side.
This is about basic research, not development. As I said in my post, "That said, when it comes to the basic research side of things pharma companies do tend to let the academics do the work for them."
Maybe another zero. A single drug candidate doesn't have to be all that expensive. The problem is that there are so many of them for each one that succeeds.
As the other post indicated, this is all from certification costs. These would be issued by the FAA, and thus the FAA would bear these costs and not pass them along (out of interest for public safety). This would make planes safer as well, since everybody would have them and not just pilots with more money to burn.
There is nothing in an ADS-B transceiver that isn't present in a feature phone. It is a GPS, a micro-controller, and a radio. Many cheap hobby UAVs already have all 3 anyway.
As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.
A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.
How do you figure. The damage from either is kinetic energy. Either can smash a window, distract a driver, and so on.
Many utilities operated under a cost-plus arrangement. If they waste more money, they make more profits.
That is why stuff like this has to be prevented.
This is why Bell Labs back in the day got Nobel Prizes. This wasn't corporate philanthropy - at the time they could consider that R&D expenditure part of providing phone service and charge higher rates to recoup it, plus a profit on top. When the rules were changed, Bell Labs died (at least, in the sense of what it used to be).
Agree. This isn't an SEO issue so much as stewardship issue. Utilities shouldn't be advertising, unless it is part of some kind of public service goal (like informing poor people of benefits programs or something like that).
Utilities are generally monopolies. If I want electricity for my home, there is exactly one place to get it. If I don't want it, that should be fine. There should be no expenditure of what amounts to a form of tax dollars to advertise services that aren't in competition with anything else.
Ditto for utilities sponsoring the Olympics and such. If funding the Olympics is a valid political goal then it should just get a spending bill in the legislature like anything else.
What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?
Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders which anybody can install on a drone or aircraft and that would probably do a lot more to promote collision avoidance than keeping people from taking pictures of their own houses.
As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.
Flatten the organization is simple enough - fire or demote managers so that there are more people reporting to any particular manager.
Really this sounds like the kind of buzz-speak I was hearing at work a few years ago when the same sorts of things were done. The same Accenture consultant probably wrote the slide deck.
Fewer people = fewer people involved in each decision, etc. They always talk about changing the culture, because talking about layoffs doesn't exactly make people excited to go to work.
You get a radio pulse every time lightning strikes. I think that this is a fairly unlikely explanation. If it were more regular and had some kind of repeating pattern to it then I'd start thinking galactic navigation beacon or something, but natural pulsars probably work well enough for that already.
Yeah, I get a chuckle every time I hear some IT manager at my employer talk about "big data." Often it is followed by a reference to an archive of raw scientific data which spans maybe 8-10 TB from the last 6 years or so and is mostly junk in a huge variety of formats.
When your big data problem can fit in the PC sitting under my desk, it isn't a big data problem. Heck, I'd give them "you can solve it like you would a big data problem" angle except they're not really doing that either.
The problem with this is the tragedy of the commons. It would be like letting your kids decide how to spend the household budget. You'd go to 14 movies each weekend, and eat Happy Meals every night, and nobody would pay the mortgage.
If the average voter can't figure out how to vote for somebody other than the guy with the biggest campaign fund, how is giving them a line-item veto over the budget going to help?
Oh, and keep in mind who pays all the taxes. Funding for the pesky SEC, who needs that? ERISA and OSHA - how quaint! Let's go ahead and spend the national budget on more corporate bailouts!
Slashdot Mirror
I can certainly echo that, but the long-term effects are even worse. Companies that get into this mode end up doing layoffs and reorganizations so frequently that nobody stays in a role for a long time. Everybody adjusts to this, which leads to some really bad culture changes.
Any big company tends to get bureaucratic. The official way of getting things done tends to be slow as a result, but that doesn't have to be a problem since everybody learns how to navigate the bureaucracy. Employees can either use this knowledge to quickly jump through hoops when there is something urgent to be done, or to work around the system by calling in favors (and granting them in turn). A common term used in big companies is "influencing people" - reflecting that rarely does anybody have the actual managerial power to make something happen that they need to happen.
The problem is that once you have layoffs and frequent re-orgs the employees never develop this level of organizational knowledge. Heck, at work my IM contact list is still grouped by the names of departments that went away 5 years ago, though the people in the groupings are still strangely relevant today. When something needs to be done, people need to figure out how to get it done like they are new hires even if they've been around for 10 years. Also, nobody is in a position to ask for a favor - you never work with anybody in any particular role long enough to actually be able to "influence" them - everything gets done by the book.
Instead of focusing all that internal networking on figuring out how to get work done, the internal networking effort all goes into understanding what is going on (as you describe), and trying to gather intelligence on where the next cuts are coming. Relationship-building isn't about team interaction - it is about finding people who can help you find a job should you lose your own. Half the socializing at work ends up being with people who don't even work at the company any longer.
All of this is horrible for morale, and for productivity as well.
I'm not in favor of making Google take down search results, and I'm not in favor of affirmative action either for somewhat similar reasons.
Tree branches kill people. Being safer than that is a low bar.
I agree, but we still manage to get by without issuing federal licenses to tree owners.
I just don't see the need to regulate low-flying drones at all (1000'). I can see the need to come up with a more workable way to handle aircraft of any type including drones at higher altitudes, since a drone getting sucked into an engine can cause serious problems or death for hundreds of people. Frankly, the FAA's approaches aren't really adequate even for small aircraft, which is why the whole general aviation industry is dying out. They need to get past "see and avoid" which is basically just another way of washing their hands of doing anything to proactively prevent collisions.
We don't really care about the general reader. we are talking about the reader that is using information to make a hiring decision. Why would you want to work for someone that will treat you differently based on out-dated information?
Because every employer will treat you that way, and their money is still green?
We can't fix the real problem, so we attack irrelevant people and technologies. Good plan!
Well, the choice is live with the problem or do something to help mitigate it.
That's the reasoning. I can't say I'm a fan of this approach, but fixing the root cause isn't really possible until we can control everybody's thoughts and actions.
Sure, but a drone's shape and materials will probably be less likely to cause damage than a baseball or other more common object flying through the air (like a tree branch).
The drone is designed to fly - it is going to be light and flimsy.
That get lumps in with the "it wasn't because you're black or a woman" category. It's a problem with society we're going to have to fight one step at a time.
And that was my whole point. The problem is that in the meantime you still have to deal with the damage.
I agree this does not mean the US Government is okay with it, but shouldn't this set a precedent for every other nation to say with their own court order they can extradite information from servers inside US borders if the data's owner has business inside those other nations' borders?
I'm not sure why they'd be waiting for the US to do it first, but sure.
Look at it the other way around. Suppose that somebody has reason to think that Google has been collecting private data about Germans illegally. They sue Google. Google says they don't have to produce any evidence to the court, since Google doesn't store any data or documents relevant to its German operations in Germany.
Allowing this kind of argument will just lead every single company everywhere to move all their records retention and datacenters around so that nothing relevant is stored in a country that it is relevant to. They could send the US paperwork to Germany, and the German paperwork to the US, for example, or move it all to some friendly shelter.
Courts don't like shell games, so they just tell the company that figuring out how to comply is its problem, and to produce the documents/etc.
MAKE IT ILLEGAL for businesses to use certain resources in determine job eligibility, loan qualifications, etc.
How does one prove that a business used those resources to make those determinations?
If I send out a job application I don't get a letter back saying, "thank you for your job application - we wanted to hire you but the manager didn't like the color of your hair." I simply don't get a response, or if I do it doesn't speak to whether any determinations were made, or at most simply states that I wasn't the best candidate for the job.
Ditto when losing a job - they just say that they no longer require your services.
Companies learned a LONG time ago that if they don't say anything, you don't have anything to sue them over.
And that was the whole point of my post in the first place.
We can't fix the reader, so we fix the technology since it is something we actually can fix.
Agree, but fixing the root cause of this is MUCH harder than removing some search results.
Heck, getting gay marriage legalized is probably an easier cultural change than getting people to treat information they hear with appropriate skepticism and giving people a chance. Actually, if we could fix that then getting gay marriage legalized would be a simple follow-on...
I choose to, first and foremost, obey all of the laws of Antarctica.
Excellent. Then as long as you restrict yourself to selling your products in Antartica and locating all your operations there, you'll be fine.
If you sell elsewhere, then you'll be fine to the extent that the armies of Antartica make the rest of the world stand in awe of its ability to bring freedom and the Antartic legal system to their shores.
Does this mean that the US Gov is fine with those same companies turning over all their data to China if a Chinese official decides he wants it? Wonder what other companies this fun can extend to.
Nope. Every nation on earth maintains double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. Ultimately, you have to pick a side.
And the reaction will be that all high tech companies will just leave the USA.
The ruling pertains to anybody who does business in the US. So, they can leave the USA, as long as they don't sell anything in the USA.
You're joking, right?
Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than Basic Research: Report
Has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.
Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?
Also has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.
Why Pharma Needs the NIH: Basic Biology Drives the Industry, Says Genentech VP
This is about basic research, not development. As I said in my post, "That said, when it comes to the basic research side of things pharma companies do tend to let the academics do the work for them."
I love research about research
Also has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.
My point was that most drug DEVELOPMENT costs are incurred by private industry, because it isn't a low-risk publication environment.
I wasn't saying that the drug industry didn't have problems.
Maybe another zero. A single drug candidate doesn't have to be all that expensive. The problem is that there are so many of them for each one that succeeds.
ADS-B transponders start at $2500.
As the other post indicated, this is all from certification costs. These would be issued by the FAA, and thus the FAA would bear these costs and not pass them along (out of interest for public safety). This would make planes safer as well, since everybody would have them and not just pilots with more money to burn.
There is nothing in an ADS-B transceiver that isn't present in a feature phone. It is a GPS, a micro-controller, and a radio. Many cheap hobby UAVs already have all 3 anyway.
As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.
A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.
How do you figure. The damage from either is kinetic energy. Either can smash a window, distract a driver, and so on.
Many utilities operated under a cost-plus arrangement. If they waste more money, they make more profits.
That is why stuff like this has to be prevented.
This is why Bell Labs back in the day got Nobel Prizes. This wasn't corporate philanthropy - at the time they could consider that R&D expenditure part of providing phone service and charge higher rates to recoup it, plus a profit on top. When the rules were changed, Bell Labs died (at least, in the sense of what it used to be).
Agree. This isn't an SEO issue so much as stewardship issue. Utilities shouldn't be advertising, unless it is part of some kind of public service goal (like informing poor people of benefits programs or something like that).
Utilities are generally monopolies. If I want electricity for my home, there is exactly one place to get it. If I don't want it, that should be fine. There should be no expenditure of what amounts to a form of tax dollars to advertise services that aren't in competition with anything else.
Ditto for utilities sponsoring the Olympics and such. If funding the Olympics is a valid political goal then it should just get a spending bill in the legislature like anything else.
What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?
Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders which anybody can install on a drone or aircraft and that would probably do a lot more to promote collision avoidance than keeping people from taking pictures of their own houses.
As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.
Flatten the organization is simple enough - fire or demote managers so that there are more people reporting to any particular manager.
Really this sounds like the kind of buzz-speak I was hearing at work a few years ago when the same sorts of things were done. The same Accenture consultant probably wrote the slide deck.
Fewer people = fewer people involved in each decision, etc. They always talk about changing the culture, because talking about layoffs doesn't exactly make people excited to go to work.
You get a radio pulse every time lightning strikes. I think that this is a fairly unlikely explanation. If it were more regular and had some kind of repeating pattern to it then I'd start thinking galactic navigation beacon or something, but natural pulsars probably work well enough for that already.
Yeah, I get a chuckle every time I hear some IT manager at my employer talk about "big data." Often it is followed by a reference to an archive of raw scientific data which spans maybe 8-10 TB from the last 6 years or so and is mostly junk in a huge variety of formats.
When your big data problem can fit in the PC sitting under my desk, it isn't a big data problem. Heck, I'd give them "you can solve it like you would a big data problem" angle except they're not really doing that either.
The problem with this is the tragedy of the commons. It would be like letting your kids decide how to spend the household budget. You'd go to 14 movies each weekend, and eat Happy Meals every night, and nobody would pay the mortgage.
If the average voter can't figure out how to vote for somebody other than the guy with the biggest campaign fund, how is giving them a line-item veto over the budget going to help?
Oh, and keep in mind who pays all the taxes. Funding for the pesky SEC, who needs that? ERISA and OSHA - how quaint! Let's go ahead and spend the national budget on more corporate bailouts!