Re:Best Management Book ever written?
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I would agree, on the whole, that treating business as a *cutthroat* war is a bad thing. Look at Microsoft. However, on the flip side, any system needs some competition - AKA chaos - to keep it from sliding into entropy and self-destruction.
However, Art of War actually addresses this - talks about how one shouldn't wage war on anyone you don't NEED to, and how the costs and problems with managing an empire go up pretty much exponentially, the more territory you control. The conclusion is don't go to war unless you have a really good reason, and peaceably coexist if it's possible.
So in that sense, it still holds true economically - any monopoly will eventually crumble into ruin under its own weight, but only after causing great destruction. Same as empires.
I'd say Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'. Despite being 2,500-odd years old, I can't think of any single text with more plain useful advice for how to manage a major competitive venture of any sort.
One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.
One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose.
One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
It does great harm because the words "conspiracy theory" are instantly linked to untrustworthy nutcases in the public mind.
I'm guessing this article appeared in some form on CBS news. So it would reach a whole lot of Average Joes who may have otherwise never heard of the controversy, or known anything about the issue besides that the government wants to use electronic voting booths to prevent another November 4th debacle.
So the first time they hear about this issue, the take-away message they get is, "A bunch of liberal conspiracy theorist nutcases on the Internet are afraid of electronic voting."
Whether intentional or not, CBS choosing to present the issue in THIS way virtually ensures everyone who hears about the issue from them will emerge from it fully in favor of the electronic booths, and thinking that anyone who opposes them is just part of the tinfoil hat brigade.
I totally agree. I was just pointing out that even if you buy the idea that they're good predicters, making the choices overly vague will make it only slightly more accurate than John Edwards.
Once again, if the people reading that petition would just read Jackson's letter to AICN talking about it, it would be a non-issue. He sounds regretful as anyone that it has to be taken out, but as he described it, the scene just did not work within the context of the theatrical cut of the film. If that's his decision as an experienced filmmaker, the "opinions" of tens of thousands who have never seen the scene at all, much less in context of an edited copy of the film, aren't going to sway him.
And besides that, he has stated it is most definately going in the Expanded Edition.
So this is really a whole hell of a lot of adieu about nothing.
And from the reports I've read, the only change is in some wording. Things like "Ariel Sharon will be assassinated" are gone in favor of "Ariel Sharon will lose power." Which doesn't preclude violence being one method to that end.
Of course, go too far to the side of vagarity, and it suddenly becomes useless - or a matter of simple wagering rather than the complex interplay that the system's proponents claim.
Simple scientific method-approach to a problem. A Problem exists. If you cannot logically derive the solution beforehand, you try Solution A. If, given adequate time, Solution A fails to solve the problem, you move on to Solution B.
Our power grid has not been upgraded significantly in decades. The power companies have shown quite well that, without direct regulation, they are not going to willingly do so. (especially as the costs of upgrading go up every year technology advances and the grid goes up) Ergo, at this point it's time to try a new solution.
I'm not talking about centrally socializing the entire grid or something. In a country our size, that would be impractical (as opposed to someplace much smaller like France). But the fact remains, it is a gigantic problem for the country - both in terms of security AND the sheer common sense social benefits to having a stable power grid. And it's getting worse every year thanks to entropy.
My proposal would be along the lines of: Form an INDEPENDENT committee. (IE no industry folks acting as anything but advisors) It decides what needs to be upgraded for us to have a power grid roughly on par with Europe's. It gives the power companies adequate time (a decade? Years anyway) to achieve this. And it gives them some money to do so. (as I pointed out in another post, since this is very much a matter of national security, I can see no reason why we can't take a billion or so normally meant for building bombs and use it for the power grid instead)
Canada would undoubtedly help us out in this, as our grids are (we know now) so closely tied together.
And at the end of that time limit, if the power companies have failed to upgrade themselves, THEN we start talking about getting draconian and collectivizing everything - since at that point the power companies would have well proven beyond reasonable doubt they are putting their own financial profits ahead of *national security.* Such an entity would have no right to exist within the US, as far as I'm concerned. (or at least not to own and control such an important chunk of our infrastructure)
(and sadly, I can easily see them pocketing the money and then doing nothing. Just look at how much Verizon has stolen from various states with promises of fiber-optic upgrades that never happened)
I'm American, have been all my life, and I agree. Fundamentally, I believe the Power Grid is too important to leave solely in the control of private individuals.
That blackout should have been a terrifying wakeup call to everyone in the country. Had it been caused by an act of deliberate sabotage (a large bomb on that same place on the power grid would achieve the same effect) the hypothetical attackers would have had an entire weekend to pummel New England with virtually no way for the area to respond. And the fundamental reason it would have happened was because the power companies are greedy and will never upgrade their lines past bare-bones maintenence if it means cutting into their stockholder's profit margins.
Thanks to land lines, the Internet, Cell Phones, and Satellites, we have a completely robust communications network. No one will ever manage to cut out our ability to talk with each other. Which means the single biggest liability left in the country, infrastructure-wise, is the power grid.
Yet despite this rather vivid demonstration of how vulnerable it is, our government is doing virtually nothing to correct the problem.
So we can spend as much as the rest of the world combined (almost) on "Defense," yet can't spare a billion or so to bring our power grid to a point more modern than the 60s?
It seems to me an open and shut case that any prohibition against an adult consuming the substances of his choice would be unconstitutional.
And I would totally agree. The only reason drug prohibition exists is through a completely rediculous abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause - even more than its usual abuses.
But, just as the Constitution can be reexamined to discover it provides no case for restricting what two adults can do in their bedroom, perhaps one day people will realize there's no basis for restricting what one can personally ingest...
The 9th Amendment was an admission on the part of the founding fathers that it would not be humanly possible to actually innumerate ALL human rights. It's a catch-all. People who attempt to claim there are NO other rights besides those specifically enumerated (*cough*Scalia*cough*) are going directly against the intent of the Founders, and the plain wording of the Amendment (the MOST clear and concise of them all), so they have an excuse to snatch up powers for the government without asking the People about it.
In contrast to your peeing example, I might point out that we ALSO do not have an ennumerated "Right to Breathe." Does that mean an "air tax" would be legal and reasonable? Under Scalia's definition of the Constitution it would be.
For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.
Stop listening to Scalia, and go reread the 9th Amendment. In fact, I'll go on cut and paste it, as it's very short and clear:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Any questions?
Yeah, I've heard similar schemes. The problem is that for them to be workable, there has to be some sort of objective arbiter of the system to make sure it doesn't turn into a popularity contest. Otherwise, we'd be right back to where we're currently at, with Jean-Claude Van Damme getting millions of whuffies to do absolutely nothing, while sewage maintenence workers are snubbed by all of society because they smell bad and have a "dirty" job, no matter how vital their work is.
And I can't imagine any sort of aribtration system which wouldn't be abused.
Well, people have been predicting the collapse of the workforce for at least a century, and it hasn't happened yet. But I do agree that at some point, we're going to run out of things, even make-work, for people to do and pretend to be useful.
The problem is that socialistic practices wreak havok with the money flow. A solution to the overall problem isn't JUST going to be moving away from Objectivist capitalism - which is making the problem worse every day - but finding some new way of handling "money" that allows for everyone to eat, but still encourages productivity and prevents rampant inflation.
And that's where it gets nasty. We may need another Smith or Marx or Keynes to wander along to work out the solution - I don't think it's going to happen through government committees.
Well, that one's half and half. Original intent plays a part, and there's no reason to believe Jon whathisname had any intention for DeCSS besides enabling him to play DVDs on his Linux box. And that's still all a great many people use it for, since the DVD companies won't make players for Linux.
Generally, to rule a technology or invention illegal, it must really be without any redeeming use. So the question really comes down to, just because the DVD is encrypted, does that mean the copyright owners have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with a DVD past the point of sale. (besides illegal copying and distribution, of course)
And that's gonna require a whole different legal battle...
That is, you could "employ" everyone at digging holes and filling them in, and "pay" them, but if that results in less goods and services then the pay they get does not matter -- quality of life will suffer.
The problem is, we already do that. A lot. We just call the hole diggers "middle management" and similar titles. At least a quarter of the workforce is employed at jobs that contribute nothing whatsoever to society.
Yet if they were to go away, the entire economy would collapse due to the resulting huge unemployment. We simply don't have enough "real" jobs to employ everyone in society.
IANAL, but couldn't this ruling be cited in defense of unauthorized DVD players / DeCSS? The basic principle is the same - I own a whole bunch of DVDs, if my current player breaks, I should be able to obtain a new player for them however I like. Even if it's for my Linux installation.
I suppose it's fruitless to point out that, while Marx did highlight many very valid problems that have yet to be fully addressed or solved, his own solutions to them were also absurdly wrong.
Nor does your post really touch on anything I said, since my entire point was that sort of information SHOULD be made public so that the corporations cannot entirely take over. That they're working in their own personal best interests does not negate the idea that they're working against the best interests of your system.
So, in short, did you in fact have A Point, or were you just looking for an excuse to drop Marx's name?
Hmm, that's a good point, but it sort of depends on your point of view. They produce a product which, in the end, really contributes very little to society besides, admittedly, keeping a lot of people employed.
But anyway, my point wasn't that advertisers need to be gotten rid of - but that the Corporations have no business whatsoever trying to keep accurate and information information out of the media. Widespread proliferation of this sort of stuff (the FatWallet prices) can provide an effective counterbalance to the excesses of tricky advertising, and thus, hopefully bring the system back to a slightly more stable state.
However, should they ever succeed in quashing people who post information\opinions on their products that they don't approve of, then we're in SERIOUS trouble, because suddenly, the propaganda becomes the only truth that people know.
It's a matter of maintaining balance more than anything, which is why nothing even remotely like what Best Buy's pulling should be allowed, or even seriously considered.
Generally, getting these prices means trolling their websites and looking for pages which have been uploaded but not yet linked-to. If it's HTTP Secure, that means it's encrypted. Therefore, in a REAL stretch of the legal imagination, it's illegally accessing encrypted information.
It occurs to me, however, that Fat Wallet could reverse-DMCA them. Before you can get to their actual prices, you have to click through a screen that says something like, "The information contained on this site is licensed for use only by private individuals. Commercial use or access of these pages are strictly prohibited. This content is encrypted. If you certify you are a private individual who intends to use this information for non-commercial purposes, enter the decryption code below to enter the site." Then stick the rest of the content on HTTPS servers so it's sent out in encryped form.
At that point, if a Best Buy representative continued on to view the material, and admitted to doing so, you would have at least a marginal DMCA claim against them. Since prices have been ruled to be public information time and again, they couldn't really claim to have any justification. It would probably be shot down in court, but you might be able to at least pester them into leaving you alone.
The entire basis of a (more or less) free market economy and its success is the ability of consumers to make learned, rational market decisions which are in their own interest. Advertising today, however, relies far more on trickery, psychological games, and "invisible" price hikes and drops than actually producing a quality product at a competitive price. If it is harmful to Best Buy for just their *prices* to be made public, then it means Best Buy is doing business in such a way that basically undermines the functioning of our economy.
Much of the reason the system seems so out of wack right now is that it's the company who has the most clever advertising that wins, NOT the one actually producing the best product. And that's very destructive in the long run.
Bad idea. Under post-9/11 laws, that could get you declared a terrorist and we know what happens then. I wouldn't trust our current government to understand the difference between civil disobedience and malicious tampering.
It's not e-voting itself we're against (generally), it's the incredibly flawed implementation which Diebold and its ilk are pushing. I don't know about everyone else, but give me an e-voting system with transparent code and which produces a paper verification \ backup ballot when you vote, and I'll have no problem with e-voting.
However, having a black box which can do anything with your vote it likes, provides no verification of vote cast, and is completely open to manipulation - THAT I have a problem with.
Yes, since obviously, allowing anyone besides major corporations to have intellectual property is a horrible thing and must be wiped out, lest the serfs begin to think they have power. Best to make sure they sign their lives over to you in the TOS, just to be safe.
Slashdot Mirror
However, Art of War actually addresses this - talks about how one shouldn't wage war on anyone you don't NEED to, and how the costs and problems with managing an empire go up pretty much exponentially, the more territory you control. The conclusion is don't go to war unless you have a really good reason, and peaceably coexist if it's possible.
So in that sense, it still holds true economically - any monopoly will eventually crumble into ruin under its own weight, but only after causing great destruction. Same as empires.
One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.
One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose.
One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
I'm guessing this article appeared in some form on CBS news. So it would reach a whole lot of Average Joes who may have otherwise never heard of the controversy, or known anything about the issue besides that the government wants to use electronic voting booths to prevent another November 4th debacle.
So the first time they hear about this issue, the take-away message they get is, "A bunch of liberal conspiracy theorist nutcases on the Internet are afraid of electronic voting."
Whether intentional or not, CBS choosing to present the issue in THIS way virtually ensures everyone who hears about the issue from them will emerge from it fully in favor of the electronic booths, and thinking that anyone who opposes them is just part of the tinfoil hat brigade.
See the problem now?
I totally agree. I was just pointing out that even if you buy the idea that they're good predicters, making the choices overly vague will make it only slightly more accurate than John Edwards.
And besides that, he has stated it is most definately going in the Expanded Edition.
So this is really a whole hell of a lot of adieu about nothing.
Of course, go too far to the side of vagarity, and it suddenly becomes useless - or a matter of simple wagering rather than the complex interplay that the system's proponents claim.
Our power grid has not been upgraded significantly in decades. The power companies have shown quite well that, without direct regulation, they are not going to willingly do so. (especially as the costs of upgrading go up every year technology advances and the grid goes up) Ergo, at this point it's time to try a new solution.
I'm not talking about centrally socializing the entire grid or something. In a country our size, that would be impractical (as opposed to someplace much smaller like France). But the fact remains, it is a gigantic problem for the country - both in terms of security AND the sheer common sense social benefits to having a stable power grid. And it's getting worse every year thanks to entropy.
My proposal would be along the lines of: Form an INDEPENDENT committee. (IE no industry folks acting as anything but advisors) It decides what needs to be upgraded for us to have a power grid roughly on par with Europe's. It gives the power companies adequate time (a decade? Years anyway) to achieve this. And it gives them some money to do so. (as I pointed out in another post, since this is very much a matter of national security, I can see no reason why we can't take a billion or so normally meant for building bombs and use it for the power grid instead)
Canada would undoubtedly help us out in this, as our grids are (we know now) so closely tied together.
And at the end of that time limit, if the power companies have failed to upgrade themselves, THEN we start talking about getting draconian and collectivizing everything - since at that point the power companies would have well proven beyond reasonable doubt they are putting their own financial profits ahead of *national security.* Such an entity would have no right to exist within the US, as far as I'm concerned. (or at least not to own and control such an important chunk of our infrastructure)
(and sadly, I can easily see them pocketing the money and then doing nothing. Just look at how much Verizon has stolen from various states with promises of fiber-optic upgrades that never happened)
That blackout should have been a terrifying wakeup call to everyone in the country. Had it been caused by an act of deliberate sabotage (a large bomb on that same place on the power grid would achieve the same effect) the hypothetical attackers would have had an entire weekend to pummel New England with virtually no way for the area to respond. And the fundamental reason it would have happened was because the power companies are greedy and will never upgrade their lines past bare-bones maintenence if it means cutting into their stockholder's profit margins.
Thanks to land lines, the Internet, Cell Phones, and Satellites, we have a completely robust communications network. No one will ever manage to cut out our ability to talk with each other. Which means the single biggest liability left in the country, infrastructure-wise, is the power grid.
Yet despite this rather vivid demonstration of how vulnerable it is, our government is doing virtually nothing to correct the problem.
Yay for Homeland Security.
Does this make sense?
And I would totally agree. The only reason drug prohibition exists is through a completely rediculous abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause - even more than its usual abuses.
But, just as the Constitution can be reexamined to discover it provides no case for restricting what two adults can do in their bedroom, perhaps one day people will realize there's no basis for restricting what one can personally ingest...
In contrast to your peeing example, I might point out that we ALSO do not have an ennumerated "Right to Breathe." Does that mean an "air tax" would be legal and reasonable? Under Scalia's definition of the Constitution it would be.
Stop listening to Scalia, and go reread the 9th Amendment. In fact, I'll go on cut and paste it, as it's very short and clear: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Any questions?
And I can't imagine any sort of aribtration system which wouldn't be abused.
The problem is that socialistic practices wreak havok with the money flow. A solution to the overall problem isn't JUST going to be moving away from Objectivist capitalism - which is making the problem worse every day - but finding some new way of handling "money" that allows for everyone to eat, but still encourages productivity and prevents rampant inflation.
And that's where it gets nasty. We may need another Smith or Marx or Keynes to wander along to work out the solution - I don't think it's going to happen through government committees.
Generally, to rule a technology or invention illegal, it must really be without any redeeming use. So the question really comes down to, just because the DVD is encrypted, does that mean the copyright owners have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with a DVD past the point of sale. (besides illegal copying and distribution, of course)
And that's gonna require a whole different legal battle...
The problem is, we already do that. A lot. We just call the hole diggers "middle management" and similar titles. At least a quarter of the workforce is employed at jobs that contribute nothing whatsoever to society.
Yet if they were to go away, the entire economy would collapse due to the resulting huge unemployment. We simply don't have enough "real" jobs to employ everyone in society.
It's a nasty problem.
IANAL, but couldn't this ruling be cited in defense of unauthorized DVD players / DeCSS? The basic principle is the same - I own a whole bunch of DVDs, if my current player breaks, I should be able to obtain a new player for them however I like. Even if it's for my Linux installation.
Nor does your post really touch on anything I said, since my entire point was that sort of information SHOULD be made public so that the corporations cannot entirely take over. That they're working in their own personal best interests does not negate the idea that they're working against the best interests of your system.
So, in short, did you in fact have A Point, or were you just looking for an excuse to drop Marx's name?
But anyway, my point wasn't that advertisers need to be gotten rid of - but that the Corporations have no business whatsoever trying to keep accurate and information information out of the media. Widespread proliferation of this sort of stuff (the FatWallet prices) can provide an effective counterbalance to the excesses of tricky advertising, and thus, hopefully bring the system back to a slightly more stable state.
However, should they ever succeed in quashing people who post information\opinions on their products that they don't approve of, then we're in SERIOUS trouble, because suddenly, the propaganda becomes the only truth that people know.
It's a matter of maintaining balance more than anything, which is why nothing even remotely like what Best Buy's pulling should be allowed, or even seriously considered.
It occurs to me, however, that Fat Wallet could reverse-DMCA them. Before you can get to their actual prices, you have to click through a screen that says something like, "The information contained on this site is licensed for use only by private individuals. Commercial use or access of these pages are strictly prohibited. This content is encrypted. If you certify you are a private individual who intends to use this information for non-commercial purposes, enter the decryption code below to enter the site." Then stick the rest of the content on HTTPS servers so it's sent out in encryped form.
At that point, if a Best Buy representative continued on to view the material, and admitted to doing so, you would have at least a marginal DMCA claim against them. Since prices have been ruled to be public information time and again, they couldn't really claim to have any justification. It would probably be shot down in court, but you might be able to at least pester them into leaving you alone.
Much of the reason the system seems so out of wack right now is that it's the company who has the most clever advertising that wins, NOT the one actually producing the best product. And that's very destructive in the long run.
Exactly.
Bad idea. Under post-9/11 laws, that could get you declared a terrorist and we know what happens then. I wouldn't trust our current government to understand the difference between civil disobedience and malicious tampering.
However, having a black box which can do anything with your vote it likes, provides no verification of vote cast, and is completely open to manipulation - THAT I have a problem with.
Yes, since obviously, allowing anyone besides major corporations to have intellectual property is a horrible thing and must be wiped out, lest the serfs begin to think they have power. Best to make sure they sign their lives over to you in the TOS, just to be safe.