Good point. Battlestar is a soap opera set in space and they STILL use shakey-cam "technique" (some cinematographer probably thinks that it still looks "edgey" and causes viewer eyeballs to pay attention). I can watch it for about 10 minutes and then I tune out.
All this hinges upon peoples' perception of "safety". I usually do not watch network TV, but last night I accidentally caught something by John Stossel wherein he was talking about relative safety. In this group we're pretty sophisticated (mod me up, pandering to the audience) but the average slob/pleb/6-pack Joe gets his info from mainstream TV.
Aside from providing big muscle to win good wars, make good entertainment and do the manifest destiny thing, the US is pretty good at mobilizing its citizens for the good fight.
This approach works if you have a team that is able to work together with well-defined goals and the members are not afraid to admit mistakes and not be shit-on for making a mistake. For this to happen usually a good leader who knows his place is needed.
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all", if I may borrow a phrase.
The best outcome to most meetings is where all is discussed and nothing is decided other than to have another meeting. It gives the attendees (typically management types) something to do and doesn't affect the actual work that is getting done outside of the meeting room.
If some smart-ass hotshot starts proposing that actual decisions be made in these meetings, usually an infusion of coffee and donuts and 3D flythru videos delivered by a cute intern will take care of that. If that doesn't work, call in the strippers and lapdancers.
...20 page, fully formulated, linked to external datasources (via ODBC, SQL on the backend...
Yes, I'm trolling, but I think I have a valid point.
Y'know, back in the old days smart people used to deal with really complicated information effectively without all this stuff. In many ways the hyper acceleration of technology just begets more technology and more focus on the tools, not the task at hand.
If the true goal of computerization in the workplace was to create jobs (rather than increase efficiency) then I might agree more with it. See: paperless office.
For communications, it's brilliant but in certain fields of endeavour it has actually slowed-down formerly-efficient processes.
I used to work for an engineering company that had every document/drawing stamped "confidential" as SOP. One day I noticed that the receptionist was paging through such "confidential" paper documents (I think she was writing down drawing numbers or something as busywork) and she mentioned that it was good that it was her that was doing this because she didn't understand anything.
My point is that 99% of all digital information transmitted is not sensitive but some people like to pretend it is (you figure out the reasons). The really key stuff is typically not sent by methods that can be easily intercepted.
We're treating the problem in the typical western style, symptomatically - instead of as a whole broadly because the resources available to solve the issues aren't being focused and concentrated.
This is because doing so would be considered socialism.
...looked like a cool design but if you hooked your thumb and forefinger in it and pulled it down to cover up the inner four inches or so, it said "FUCK YOU."
Ah, the old Mad Magazine fold-in trick, eh? Good to see that things haven't changed much over the past 30 years.
Does the crow actually kill its future food with the stick or just use the stick to get access to it? Grubs are not the most agile/quick creatures (as opposed to mammals).
Aaaarrrggghhh! If I hear that again my head will explode! It's right up there with marketing-types saying, "absolutely" every 12.7 seconds.
"Good to go" is a military way of communicating, let's leave it with the military, please. "Absolutely", as used by PR/ad people is a suck-up platitude designed to imply total agreement while they are usually smiling and lying (or at the very least, deflecting a question to somewhere they want you to go).
Modded as funny, but probably true. In the past we had relatively simple tools which people fully understood to accomplish basic tasks; now we have very complicated tools which people don't fully understand to accomplish the same basic tasks.
Now, operating and maintaining the tools are the focus of a disproportionate amount of energy and effort. So, yes, there's a job creation element, it's just that most people aren't being more effective with the high-powered tools (unless we count the "efficiency" of faster communications between morons).
"Tech" is not necessarily always computer-related although computers do play a substantial role. Materials science, for example, has been making a big difference because engineers (not software or computer "engineers") have started becoming more specialized in focus.
It's pretty much the same thing with AutoCAD, although AutoCAD does allow you to set a default save file format (i.e., compatible with a previous version).
Give a good project manager 10 devs @ $100,000 a year and I wager within a year or two you could produce an entire open source graphics engine that would rival DX10, just as an example.
Have you considered the concept that sometimes people are highly-paid to not be creative?
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Battlestar is a soap opera set in space and they STILL use shakey-cam "technique" (some cinematographer probably thinks that it still looks "edgey" and causes viewer eyeballs to pay attention). I can watch it for about 10 minutes and then I tune out.
All this hinges upon peoples' perception of "safety". I usually do not watch network TV, but last night I accidentally caught something by John Stossel wherein he was talking about relative safety. In this group we're pretty sophisticated (mod me up, pandering to the audience) but the average slob/pleb/6-pack Joe gets his info from mainstream TV.
Aside from providing big muscle to win good wars, make good entertainment and do the manifest destiny thing, the US is pretty good at mobilizing its citizens for the good fight.
Please don't let us down, America.
Regards from your younger obscure brother,
Canada
Are you looking forward to 2007's version of OMG Ponies? I am.
This approach works if you have a team that is able to work together with well-defined goals and the members are not afraid to admit mistakes and not be shit-on for making a mistake. For this to happen usually a good leader who knows his place is needed.
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all", if I may borrow a phrase.
The best outcome to most meetings is where all is discussed and nothing is decided other than to have another meeting. It gives the attendees (typically management types) something to do and doesn't affect the actual work that is getting done outside of the meeting room.
If some smart-ass hotshot starts proposing that actual decisions be made in these meetings, usually an infusion of coffee and donuts and 3D flythru videos delivered by a cute intern will take care of that. If that doesn't work, call in the strippers and lapdancers.
Are you really sure about that?
...20 page, fully formulated, linked to external datasources (via ODBC, SQL on the backend...
Yes, I'm trolling, but I think I have a valid point.
Y'know, back in the old days smart people used to deal with really complicated information effectively without all this stuff. In many ways the hyper acceleration of technology just begets more technology and more focus on the tools, not the task at hand.
If the true goal of computerization in the workplace was to create jobs (rather than increase efficiency) then I might agree more with it. See: paperless office.
For communications, it's brilliant but in certain fields of endeavour it has actually slowed-down formerly-efficient processes.
(due to security reasons, for example)
I used to work for an engineering company that had every document/drawing stamped "confidential" as SOP. One day I noticed that the receptionist was paging through such "confidential" paper documents (I think she was writing down drawing numbers or something as busywork) and she mentioned that it was good that it was her that was doing this because she didn't understand anything.
My point is that 99% of all digital information transmitted is not sensitive but some people like to pretend it is (you figure out the reasons). The really key stuff is typically not sent by methods that can be easily intercepted.
Children do not have the ability to empathize with the people around them.
That's pure nonsense. Where did you get that idea?
I misread your subject line to read, "Freedom has lawyers." Sorry.
We're treating the problem in the typical western style, symptomatically - instead of as a whole broadly because the resources available to solve the issues aren't being focused and concentrated.
This is because doing so would be considered socialism.
...looked like a cool design but if you hooked your thumb and forefinger in it and pulled it down to cover up the inner four inches or so, it said "FUCK YOU."
Ah, the old Mad Magazine fold-in trick, eh? Good to see that things haven't changed much over the past 30 years.
It'll be the old case of 'looks cheaper on paper' but ultimately costs more than all the ink in India.
Very punny!
Only because the squirrels are too slick to get caught.
Not true: A new approach to rodent performance evaluation.
Does the crow actually kill its future food with the stick or just use the stick to get access to it? Grubs are not the most agile/quick creatures (as opposed to mammals).
Are CAD and animation not considered graphics?
Isn't that called cogeneration?
...you are good to go
Aaaarrrggghhh! If I hear that again my head will explode! It's right up there with marketing-types saying, "absolutely" every 12.7 seconds. "Good to go" is a military way of communicating, let's leave it with the military, please. "Absolutely", as used by PR/ad people is a suck-up platitude designed to imply total agreement while they are usually smiling and lying (or at the very least, deflecting a question to somewhere they want you to go).
Whatever happened to Sonny anyway?
Modded as funny, but probably true. In the past we had relatively simple tools which people fully understood to accomplish basic tasks; now we have very complicated tools which people don't fully understand to accomplish the same basic tasks.
Now, operating and maintaining the tools are the focus of a disproportionate amount of energy and effort. So, yes, there's a job creation element, it's just that most people aren't being more effective with the high-powered tools (unless we count the "efficiency" of faster communications between morons).
"Tech" is not necessarily always computer-related although computers do play a substantial role. Materials science, for example, has been making a big difference because engineers (not software or computer "engineers") have started becoming more specialized in focus.
It's pretty much the same thing with AutoCAD, although AutoCAD does allow you to set a default save file format (i.e., compatible with a previous version).
Give a good project manager 10 devs @ $100,000 a year and I wager within a year or two you could produce an entire open source graphics engine that would rival DX10, just as an example.
Have you considered the concept that sometimes people are highly-paid to not be creative?
I live in Boston. The city screwed up, badly.
Got any tea handy?
It occurs to me that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. But then again, trees are our friends.