If an employee didn't ask every customer about a cell phone AND a satellite dish they were fired
yep...that's a sure sing of toxic management
I try to explain to people...it's not just 'a bad sign'...when you see a company do this, it's evidence of a **systemic** problem that is complex to describe accurately in detail but can be summed up by "bad management"
companies that approach business in this way will fail with **mathematical certainty**
Selling them in consumer packaging in a consumer store doesn't work.
I see what you're saying, but I'm a retailer (among other things) and it's not about "hobbyist components"
Your Auto Parts example is actually the same thing. Auto parts = Components
I think Radio Shack should take your suggestion, precisely **because** it allows them to stock **more** of those components, and offer them in any ammount not a pre-packaged ammount. It allows for more stock in the same ammount of space.
Radio Shack & Auto Zone can afford the overhead of stocking all those specialized parts because of **economy of scale**
if you have 3000 stores & suppliers set up, the scale makes it profitable...don't put them in shitty low-rent neighborhoods though?!? that's horrible advice...also, they mall locations are not that much more than a regular storefront. Its a good choice, b/c they make alot of money on consumer electronics! Radio Shack should stock more high-end stuff...not exit the market!
the online aspect really is just a matter of logistics...look at Sears' online store...its' actually really good & prices are lower than Amazon etc on some things....Radio Shack could do that AND take your advice AND keep their stores open!
Radio Shack is awesome. I mean, the *ideal* of the concept...in execution now it's still good but could be improved.
I make suitcase boomboxes & in our startup phase Radio Shack's ubiquity was absolutely crucial as we were working with builders of varying tech ability across several states. If a builder needed to ship by deadline & was short a few wire clips or broke a capacitor Radio Shack was our savior!
Fry's is great but it's not the same retail scale.
What really bothers me about this news is that its clear now Radio Shack Inc. is horribly mismanaged. The closing of the brick/mortar stores as a response to online competition is ridiculous. It's two different lines of business.
'the internet' is not a replacement for a brick & mortar store...they are two **parallel** methods of business
brick & mortar wins 'the last mile' competition every time...plus it provides an employment opportunity for a young techie...
right. fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...but hilariously, all the rabid Bitcoin defenders have all gone away here on/. only to be replaced by its critics.
i can't help but think that some of the posters who are saying "I told you so" were also big time Bitcoin fanbois a few months ago
yep, the 'known attractiveness' thing stuck in m craw too
I just want to add that *this is SOP in research across all disciplines*
The standards for what constitutes scientific research are just obliterated at this point...what happened to success being defined by getting good accurate data that tests the hypothesis? Is it that 'science' is a part of pop culture now? Is it the influence of pseudo-science?
There's valuable research to be done in this area. Testing the difference in perception to an online profile (and what conclusions people draw) vs an interpersonal interaction (and those conclusions)
Also, one last tidbit, from real research I found on this topic...when it comes to sex, random hook ups consistently occur mostly often between two people who share a larger social group that interacts often. The idea is that a person who has alot of friends will be more easily held accountable for any misdeeds because you **both know the same people**
So, having a social circle helps, but not at all in the ways this study tests...
I like this research area alot...it's my research area...but something about this whole thing bothered me...
from a database of photographs with known attractiveness to a photo of moderate attractiveness
...right...a 'database of photos with known attractiveness' is well...wtf is that? a group of poor souls who's mugshots from a study in 2005 have been recycled over and over, rated by bored broke undergrads
the thing that kills me though, is the number of 'friends' they assigned in the various iterations
'unpopular' people had 100 friends
now, no one has 100 friends on facebook unless they are over the age of 40 or intentionally keeps their friend list low...it guarantees an 'unattractive' rating but not in way that supports the hypothesis
the point is, the lower bound limit for 'unpopular' is much too low...in the real world the figure should be more around 200
Friend lists and 'attractiveness' are not nearly this simple & quantifiable. You can test this stuff, but it takes more than what these researcherse did. this is sort of like if the 'photos of known attractiveness' had 50% male 50% female, but the 50% female were drawn from the college sports teams & the males drawn from the Computer Science dept...it would statistically be 'even' but the data would be skewed because of the original population
I have been reading/. since August of 2001 and I honestly don't care at all that/. posted a story about this 4 hours after Reddit.
I'm fine with 4 hours. I just don't care. If it was a story I cared about enough to check a few times...one that was on Reddit but not/. then after probably 4 hours to 2 days I'd submit my own story.
I like for topics to get good discussion, and if the topic is relevant to stay on the main page for awhile. Bitcoin is a recent example. I could have used a "bitcoin open thread" or something because the news changed so fast it was hard to keep up with discussions in 8-12 hour old stories and keep up with new stories as they were posted.
In general I just would rather/. not change than risk it getting worse (fuck beta)...I know that's the kind of thing old people say but I don't really care there aren't very many sites like/. left.
will soon be installable on Android tablets and phones. Bingo.
"bingo"
gah...this kills me...yes i'm posting vitriol but I have a coherent point...
you can't say "bingo" in a witty retort unless you...you know...actually 'slam' the person with your witticism..
see, saying X is good because it will be here "soon" therefore you "bingo" made some kind of awesome winning point in a debate....especially in relation to Linux distros....well it's fucking stupid
here's the thing...this FANBOI ABOVE ALL ELSE mentality is actually hurting our industry
it gives people unrealistic notions of what is actually used and what actually **works** in tech...it makes us look stupid when inevitably the all-volunteer OS software isn't ready when it is claimed...it gives newer tech workers false notions of what work is valuable
I HATE ALL FANBOIDOM....all fanboi hype bullshit...apple, M$, Linux, I don't give a FUCK it's all stupid
you drew connections between things that have no connection, or historically were very opposed
i'm interested...i'm always looking to learn here so can you give me some examples?
i know that my perspective is a-typical, but like I said in another response on this thread, academics use **very** cautious language in the literature...you know this
im curious of your response, and I am willing to be educated in an area, but irrelevant specifics aside I think I'm just saying plainly what people are usually used to hearing in academic language
Obviously you're not used to reading scientific literature.
It's...ahem...kind of dry at times. He was choosing his words carefully.
No he doesn't mention Cambridge or Hawking by name. That I added of course, but I didn't just randomly pick a university & cosmologist...those are good examples of my point.
IANAC but its close enough to my research area (information science) that I keep up on 'the literature' as best I can
I am actually more of a 'fan' of cosmology. From a young age I was obsessed with space & cosmology asks alot of fun questions.
Look, it's not *only* Cambridge, and not everyone at Cambridge is evil, and I didn't say cosmology was evil...that's all overreaction
Hawking is totally trolling...that's not equivocation that's fact...but even though I'm a critic I must admit that reading "A Brief History of Time" was educational for me at the time, in the sense that it was a 'point of departure' that spurred me to seek out answers!
What I found most interesting is what the head researcher found interesting:
Physicist Ofer Lahav has some interesting observations in the article about how difficult it is these days for physicists to develop independent points of view on cosmology
In other words: Cambridge (Hawking) Dogma
Cosmology has become a branding exercise for universities & their long research grant coat tails. It has been, in my view, hijacked by ideologically/branding driven pseudo-science that seeks to purvey an institutional view rather than reflect accurate science.
Stephen Hawking is a main offender. It's all about him being right that the universe does *not* end in heat death
TFA's premise is off...the whole 20th Century was a giant clusterfuck of human rights & technology.
"getting" ridiculous...that notion itself is ridiculous
Here's what I find really ridiculous...this happened in 1968 & basically all computing now is just an upscale version of that tech...faster, more colors, bigger...
The only difference is that so many people have been screwed over by so many different expressions of our modern greed that **they can't hide anymore**
who really *pays* for Windoze? MOST PEOPLE GOT WINDOWS 'FREE' WITH THEIR PC PURCHASE
virtually all Windows users got it *bundled* when they bought their Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.
sure we've all seen the news stories of people on Windows X release day but professional PR people can make that kind of thing happen...no...
the only reason Windows is used so much is because Gates & M$ got *****government contracts***** to put an IBM running Windows on every Federal Government desk.
**that's** why so many people use Windows...it was ALREADY FREE
Windows is dead...M$ is dead...I know their stock price says otherwise, but thats a tremendously lagging indicator...if you judge a company by the products they make, M$ is a FAIL
thnx for the comment...I like your trust that NASA would've gone for it...
if we had understood the gravity of the situation
now...didn't we? isn't there evidence, the stuff Feynman pointed out in his addendum, that essentially indicated that on the ground someone saw something, kicked it up to the bean counters who decided that investigating if there was an issue wasn't 'economical' given their determination that there was a very low chance that something needed checked outside.
Right? "beauracratic decision making" was how Feynman described it, right?
I started out as a +1 then my +1 modifier, and got modded all over...over 10 mods both directions +/- ending with a neutral
Here's a less trollface logged-in user, one of many on that thread, that tried to tell me how stupid I was for asking those questions: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
And now...wow...look at the top comments...everyone seems to have seen this "coming a mile away"
But really,/. is just so big...point being...it was reasonable for/. editors to assume that a sizable portion of/. users would have trusted Bitcoin.
This kind of thing really makes me angry, because the Columbia crew *did not have to die*
I absolutely hate the triumph of spreadsheet analysis over human intuition and experience.
NOTE: I'm not saying quantitative analysis, project management, risk analysis, etc isn't important...trolls...for fucks sake...I'm acknowledging that all of it is valuable and should be done.
That being said, humans need to be dealt back into the NASA decision process.
Two reasons:
1. Humans can comprehend complexity that we cannot program a machine to compute or put into numbers on a spreadsheet.
2. Redundant decision systems provide cover for incompetence & mismanagement. If the system is so complex no top decision has a human to be held accountable...well what's the difference then between an overly complex system and total anarchy?
NASA isn't the only organization suffering from 'paralysis by analysis' but it is such a special case b/c it is a government agency, very PR sensitive, & involves human lives & billions of dollars.
It's one of the most advanced orgs in existence...doing the most complex tasks humans are attempting...its logical then that NASA would have the 'worst' of these problems but it's due to their scale not any incompetence on your NASA workforce.
Slashdot Mirror
yep...that's a sure sing of toxic management
I try to explain to people...it's not just 'a bad sign'...when you see a company do this, it's evidence of a **systemic** problem that is complex to describe accurately in detail but can be summed up by "bad management"
companies that approach business in this way will fail with **mathematical certainty**
I see what you're saying, but I'm a retailer (among other things) and it's not about "hobbyist components"
Your Auto Parts example is actually the same thing. Auto parts = Components
I think Radio Shack should take your suggestion, precisely **because** it allows them to stock **more** of those components, and offer them in any ammount not a pre-packaged ammount. It allows for more stock in the same ammount of space.
Radio Shack & Auto Zone can afford the overhead of stocking all those specialized parts because of **economy of scale**
if you have 3000 stores & suppliers set up, the scale makes it profitable...don't put them in shitty low-rent neighborhoods though?!? that's horrible advice...also, they mall locations are not that much more than a regular storefront. Its a good choice, b/c they make alot of money on consumer electronics! Radio Shack should stock more high-end stuff...not exit the market!
the online aspect really is just a matter of logistics...look at Sears' online store...its' actually really good & prices are lower than Amazon etc on some things....Radio Shack could do that AND take your advice AND keep their stores open!
Radio Shack is awesome. I mean, the *ideal* of the concept...in execution now it's still good but could be improved.
I make suitcase boomboxes & in our startup phase Radio Shack's ubiquity was absolutely crucial as we were working with builders of varying tech ability across several states. If a builder needed to ship by deadline & was short a few wire clips or broke a capacitor Radio Shack was our savior!
Fry's is great but it's not the same retail scale.
What really bothers me about this news is that its clear now Radio Shack Inc. is horribly mismanaged. The closing of the brick/mortar stores as a response to online competition is ridiculous. It's two different lines of business.
'the internet' is not a replacement for a brick & mortar store...they are two **parallel** methods of business
brick & mortar wins 'the last mile' competition every time...plus it provides an employment opportunity for a young techie...
here's your problem...you don't process the word "soon"
you say this:
NO ITS NOT...it's not an option at all...it **might** be an option "soon"
you comment as if something that **might** happen has already happened
that's bullshit...that's hype
right. fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...but hilariously, all the rabid Bitcoin defenders have all gone away here on /. only to be replaced by its critics.
i can't help but think that some of the posters who are saying "I told you so" were also big time Bitcoin fanbois a few months ago
look at this discussion, from early December, when I **dared** to ask if Bitcoin had peaked: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
look at the mods...
I want /. to do better on this...MtGox and Bitcoin were hype, and sockpuppets on /. helped build that hype & it pisses me off
real techies should have seen this a mile away! now everyone thinks we're idiots
yep, the 'known attractiveness' thing stuck in m craw too
I just want to add that *this is SOP in research across all disciplines*
The standards for what constitutes scientific research are just obliterated at this point...what happened to success being defined by getting good accurate data that tests the hypothesis? Is it that 'science' is a part of pop culture now? Is it the influence of pseudo-science?
There's valuable research to be done in this area. Testing the difference in perception to an online profile (and what conclusions people draw) vs an interpersonal interaction (and those conclusions)
Also, one last tidbit, from real research I found on this topic...when it comes to sex, random hook ups consistently occur mostly often between two people who share a larger social group that interacts often. The idea is that a person who has alot of friends will be more easily held accountable for any misdeeds because you **both know the same people**
So, having a social circle helps, but not at all in the ways this study tests...
I like this research area alot...it's my research area...but something about this whole thing bothered me...
the thing that kills me though, is the number of 'friends' they assigned in the various iterations
'unpopular' people had 100 friends
now, no one has 100 friends on facebook unless they are over the age of 40 or intentionally keeps their friend list low...it guarantees an 'unattractive' rating but not in way that supports the hypothesis
the point is, the lower bound limit for 'unpopular' is much too low...in the real world the figure should be more around 200
Friend lists and 'attractiveness' are not nearly this simple & quantifiable. You can test this stuff, but it takes more than what these researcherse did. this is sort of like if the 'photos of known attractiveness' had 50% male 50% female, but the 50% female were drawn from the college sports teams & the males drawn from the Computer Science dept...it would statistically be 'even' but the data would be skewed because of the original population
I have been reading /. since August of 2001 and I honestly don't care at all that /. posted a story about this 4 hours after Reddit.
I'm fine with 4 hours. I just don't care. If it was a story I cared about enough to check a few times...one that was on Reddit but not /. then after probably 4 hours to 2 days I'd submit my own story.
I like for topics to get good discussion, and if the topic is relevant to stay on the main page for awhile. Bitcoin is a recent example. I could have used a "bitcoin open thread" or something because the news changed so fast it was hard to keep up with discussions in 8-12 hour old stories and keep up with new stories as they were posted.
In general I just would rather /. not change than risk it getting worse (fuck beta)...I know that's the kind of thing old people say but I don't really care there aren't very many sites like /. left.
"bingo"
gah...this kills me...yes i'm posting vitriol but I have a coherent point...
you can't say "bingo" in a witty retort unless you...you know...actually 'slam' the person with your witticism..
see, saying X is good because it will be here "soon" therefore you "bingo" made some kind of awesome winning point in a debate....especially in relation to Linux distros....well it's fucking stupid
here's the thing...this FANBOI ABOVE ALL ELSE mentality is actually hurting our industry
it gives people unrealistic notions of what is actually used and what actually **works** in tech...it makes us look stupid when inevitably the all-volunteer OS software isn't ready when it is claimed...it gives newer tech workers false notions of what work is valuable
I HATE ALL FANBOIDOM....all fanboi hype bullshit...apple, M$, Linux, I don't give a FUCK it's all stupid
stop the madness....stop the fanboi hype
yes...I was confused & got lost in the threads...
i'm not a "young earth creationist" in any way, shape or form
that's all that I really want to be clear
thanks for the response
i'm interested...i'm always looking to learn here so can you give me some examples?
i know that my perspective is a-typical, but like I said in another response on this thread, academics use **very** cautious language in the literature...you know this
im curious of your response, and I am willing to be educated in an area, but irrelevant specifics aside I think I'm just saying plainly what people are usually used to hearing in academic language
Obviously you're not used to reading scientific literature.
It's...ahem...kind of dry at times. He was choosing his words carefully.
No he doesn't mention Cambridge or Hawking by name. That I added of course, but I didn't just randomly pick a university & cosmologist...those are good examples of my point.
Yes I'm remotely aware...
IANAC but its close enough to my research area (information science) that I keep up on 'the literature' as best I can
I am actually more of a 'fan' of cosmology. From a young age I was obsessed with space & cosmology asks alot of fun questions.
Look, it's not *only* Cambridge, and not everyone at Cambridge is evil, and I didn't say cosmology was evil...that's all overreaction
Hawking is totally trolling...that's not equivocation that's fact...but even though I'm a critic I must admit that reading "A Brief History of Time" was educational for me at the time, in the sense that it was a 'point of departure' that spurred me to seek out answers!
this is an amazing quotation...i hope its not true, but what a way to express a complex situation with simple terms
just wanted to chime in and say 'what the fuck?'
I know you're trolling, but for the record I absolutely am not promoting 'creation science' or whatever
Just because I criticize **cambridge dogma** and Lord Hawking doesn't mean I'm a "young earth creationist"
What I found most interesting is what the head researcher found interesting:
In other words: Cambridge (Hawking) Dogma
Cosmology has become a branding exercise for universities & their long research grant coat tails. It has been, in my view, hijacked by ideologically/branding driven pseudo-science that seeks to purvey an institutional view rather than reflect accurate science.
Stephen Hawking is a main offender. It's all about him being right that the universe does *not* end in heat death
I mean that artificial scarcity & consumer manipulation is so common it's virtually everywhere you look in business & society.
thnx for fixing that
TFA's premise is off...the whole 20th Century was a giant clusterfuck of human rights & technology.
"getting" ridiculous...that notion itself is ridiculous
Here's what I find really ridiculous...this happened in 1968 & basically all computing now is just an upscale version of that tech...faster, more colors, bigger...
The only difference is that so many people have been screwed over by so many different expressions of our modern greed that **they can't hide anymore**
I love this, from TFA:
that's equivocation....very harmful equivocation
Kinect's design is *evil* and to require critics to meet such a large burden of proof is inconsistent, illogical, and harmful to our industry
let me be clear...the 'fear' of Capitalist Big Brother is not "partially justified" it is absolutely a full realized FACT
to analyze the issue, claim expertise, then to equivocate in such a manner is **wrong**
it hurts our industry in untold ways, giving non-tech's a skewed idea of how tech works
who really *pays* for Windoze? MOST PEOPLE GOT WINDOWS 'FREE' WITH THEIR PC PURCHASE
virtually all Windows users got it *bundled* when they bought their Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.
sure we've all seen the news stories of people on Windows X release day but professional PR people can make that kind of thing happen...no...
the only reason Windows is used so much is because Gates & M$ got *****government contracts***** to put an IBM running Windows on every Federal Government desk.
**that's** why so many people use Windows...it was ALREADY FREE
Windows is dead...M$ is dead...I know their stock price says otherwise, but thats a tremendously lagging indicator...if you judge a company by the products they make, M$ is a FAIL
thnx for the comment...I like your trust that NASA would've gone for it...
now...didn't we? isn't there evidence, the stuff Feynman pointed out in his addendum, that essentially indicated that on the ground someone saw something, kicked it up to the bean counters who decided that investigating if there was an issue wasn't 'economical' given their determination that there was a very low chance that something needed checked outside.
Right? "beauracratic decision making" was how Feynman described it, right?
It assumes a positive that for most people doesn't exist.
I know what you mean, but there are several Bitcoin fanbois on /. as well....was it really a bad assumption?
Just look how bad I got trolled & downmodded when I dared ask if Bitcoin had peaked & questioned MT Gox's credentials
I started out as a +1 then my +1 modifier, and got modded all over...over 10 mods both directions +/- ending with a neutral
Here's a less trollface logged-in user, one of many on that thread, that tried to tell me how stupid I was for asking those questions: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
And now...wow...look at the top comments...everyone seems to have seen this "coming a mile away"
But really, /. is just so big...point being...it was reasonable for /. editors to assume that a sizable portion of /. users would have trusted Bitcoin.
You're putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my point.
I took *great pains* to point out that *I value all quantifiable data greatly*...damn...
Also, you make it out like my side is saying, "Oh if you're trick knee twinges then 'go for it dude'!" or some kind of ridiculous crap.
That's absolutely not what I said at all....I said humans can comprehend complexity that they **cannot program a machine or quantify**
Big difference.
This kind of thing really makes me angry, because the Columbia crew *did not have to die*
I absolutely hate the triumph of spreadsheet analysis over human intuition and experience.
NOTE: I'm not saying quantitative analysis, project management, risk analysis, etc isn't important...trolls...for fucks sake...I'm acknowledging that all of it is valuable and should be done.
That being said, humans need to be dealt back into the NASA decision process.
Two reasons:
1. Humans can comprehend complexity that we cannot program a machine to compute or put into numbers on a spreadsheet.
2. Redundant decision systems provide cover for incompetence & mismanagement. If the system is so complex no top decision has a human to be held accountable...well what's the difference then between an overly complex system and total anarchy?
NASA isn't the only organization suffering from 'paralysis by analysis' but it is such a special case b/c it is a government agency, very PR sensitive, & involves human lives & billions of dollars.
It's one of the most advanced orgs in existence...doing the most complex tasks humans are attempting...its logical then that NASA would have the 'worst' of these problems but it's due to their scale not any incompetence on your NASA workforce.