I think this is due to the customer's perceived value of the meal and economies of scale (the incremental cost of putting more food on the plate diminishes as more is put on). People may be more likely to eat at your restaurant if they perceive you offer a better value than competitors (assuming that quality of food is the same).
Example of the economies of scale can be found in the Cheeburger Cheeburger menu (Sanibel Island, FL location): http://cheeburger.snappyorder.com/order/menu.asp?restaurant=146&categoryid=847
The one pound burger is $12.49 ($0.78 per oz), while the half-pound burger is $8.19 ($1.02 per oz). Assuming these are menu options from two different restaurants (Restaurant A serves the one pounder, while Restaurant B servers the half-pounder), which do you think will be perceived as the better value? Some customers would take advantage of this by splitting the one pounder at Restaurant A instead of ordering two half-pounders from Restaurant B. And some restaurants counteract this by charging to share plates.
I'm late to the party with this, but I think the reason it won't work on your Droid X is because you aren't running full ICS, and Chrome for Android requires the hardware acceleration feature provided by ICS.
Yes, you have an ICS ROM, but unfortunately, the boot loader on the DX is locked, so you're not running an ICS kernel (and able to take advantage of the hardware acceleration feature).
And that locked boot loader is why my next phone will be a Nexus.
After all, if the ratings agencies had done their jobs a few years ago, we wouldn't be in a lot of this mess.
Agreed.
I wonder if the agencies may be doing a little grandstading, in an attempt to make it seem like they know what they're doing. (Though, considering the dysfunctionality of Congress during the debt ceiling fiasco, the downgrade may not be totally inappropriate.)
In 2001, the Cheney-Rove regime's new FCC executed an about-face. They decided that the Bells were to be the winners, And their competitors were not to be. Furthermore, the Bells saw the Internet as the real enemy, not local telephone competitors per se, so they were allowed to execute their strategy to knock off the ISPs while replacing it with their own marginal substitutes. The last stage, which has not yet happened, is to remove "neutrality" from their networks, replacing Internet access with a set of "broadband services" of their own, like kickback-selected shopping, censored "news", and pay-per-view "media" access. That could never happen with real competition. The FCC's excuse is that there's cable, and a duopoly is "enough" competition, especially with the imaginary "third pipe" that never really appears in any useful way.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but do you have any links to sources that explain how this is due to the Cheney-Rove regime?
I think we're arguing different topics. Either that or I'm confused.
I can't speak for the other posters, but my "anti-business bias" is a result of personal experience and not just negativity for its own sake. Included in that experience is the fact that you have to be very careful around someone who writes (and presumably speaks) the way that you do; frequently the presence of these people foreshadows another "reorganization" or "paradigm" or some other bullshit euphemism for "we're going to make fewer people do more work for the same pay."
I can't argue that your negative experience is wrong or untrue, but...
Technical skills are what generates actual work and acheivement. Business skills (good or bad) are what makes the work and acheivement profitable. If a company's choice is between "good business skills" and unprofitability, or "bad business skills" (read: "screwing the bejeezus out of the people who do actual work because we're better than them") and profitability, what do you think happens nearly all of the time? (Especially in publicly traded companies, who must show the maximum profit possible at the expense of everything else, lest they get sued into oblivion?)
Here is where I think we're arguing different things, so I'll restate what perhaps I should've stated more clearly before: The sentiment that I perceived when I first read the comments was that companies were stupid for looking for IT people with more business skills. I disagree with this, as I think good business skills (along with technical skills) make an IT unit more productive, profitable, and most likely, a better place to work.
I think what you're arguing is that bad business skills adversely affect an IT unit. And I certainly agree with that. But I will argue that your options of good business skills and unprofitability or bad business skills and profitability do not hold over the long term. My opinion is that good buiness skills will increase performance and morale (leading to a better ROI), while bad business skills will ultimately reduce performance.
In my experience, in order for IT to be successful, both technical and business skills are needed.
99% of the time you get one or the other, and never the twain shall meet. The business people don't understand what the technical people do (therefore it can't be difficult or significant), and the technical people see the business people for what they are: mouth breathing parasites in cheap suits. (There are exceptions. Some can breathe through their noses.)
And this is my point: Those with BOTH skills are in demand (according to the article) because of how valuable they are. The article does NOT say CIOs are hiring people with business skills over those with technical skills.
In your attempt to demonstrate a workplace that "gets it" you've proven my hypothesis that 99% of the time management and IT are mortal enemies. When that programmer got a taste of what the real world was like, he ran screaming because it was so alien to him. I'm glad to hear he was taken back.
I think my attempt proves both of our points (since we're not quite seeing eye to eye): Yours, that incongruent management (which happens a lot in the real world) and IT is detrimental, and mine, that congruent provides a quality product and work environment, which is why technical people with business skills are in high demand.
As far promotion is concerned, promotions include more responsibilities and managerial type roles, where I think business skills become more important.
IMHO, nothing could be further from the truth. As an IT worker gains responsibility, their need for truly understanding the technical issues becomes paramount. When you get "business" types making technical decisions... well, you get Windo
Rather than promote her (even in title, maybe not with a raise), they decided to eliminate the position. That's how much they didn't want to promote her (or anyone else). Big Biz has raised the concept of "penny wise, pound foolish" to an art form.
How do you know that's the reason the position was eliminated? Was it in the memo? "Big Biz" has to be stupid, right? It couldn't be that they decided they actually didn't need the position, could it?
The anti-business bias in these comments is disturbing. At my current position (IT consultant basically), not only do our trainings include technical matters (Oracle ERP, Vulnerability Assessments), they also include the business aspect behind them which, in my opinion, helps to understand the bigger picture.
The opinion here seems to be that technical skills are all that matter; "business skills" ("lying," "back-stabbing", etc) are worthless, and that any company who looks for these "qualities" is dumb and will get dumber. As someone with an MIS degree, I think what most posters are calling business skills (lying, schmoozing, etc) is actually a demonstration of poor business skills (or lack thereof).
Business skills, as I've seen at school and work, include project management, leadership, and perhaps most importantly, negotiation. The colleagues whom I see as most successful excel in all these areas, honestly and creatively.
In my experience, in order for IT to be successful, both technical and business skills are needed. And a good example is the article posted here (in another thread) about the shuttle programming group. The article attributes the quality of the software to the competency of the programmers (technical skill), the rigorous process followed in creating the software (project management), and the friendly rivalry culture of the work environment (leadership skills). Heck, the article even mentions a programmer who left for another organization and returned because of the poor business skills.
As far promotion is concerned, promotions include more responsibilities and managerial type roles, where I think business skills become more important. I do agree that IT management, including CIO, should possess the technical experience to understand what they are managing. I've seen a case where a small IT shop brought in a school superintendent to act as IT director. With the director only demonstrating adequate (at best) project management skills, I doubt I have to explain in detail how the morale and proficiency of the department suffered.
Please read the article mentioned above; I believe it convincingly shows how both excellent technical and business skills complement each other.
I had the pleasure of meeting Joe at his brother Jack's birthday party back in 2001 (I worked with Jack for almost five years at IFAS while at school). Joe is a great guy, very friendly, and a great cook - he served a delicious bean soup with Piri Piri sauce at the party.
Unfortunately, Jack passed away shortly after; I still miss him terribly.
Remember you have to contrast the performance of the Engine. A 1987 (13B) Mazda RX7's fuel efficiency was better than a 6 Cylinder Nissan, yet the Mazda produced more horsepower.
I think you're wrong about the horsepower. A quick google search doesn't turn up the specs, but I remember that the rotary in a 1987 RX-7 produced 146hp, and the engine in a same year Nissan 300Z produced 160hp. From the manual for my old '86 RX-7 (RIP 198,722 miles), the EPA esimated mileage was 17/24mpg (city/highway), and I routinely got 17mpg city. Don't know the mileage for the Nissan.
Here think about it like this, a 1985 Corvette had 230hp, with the new tuned port V8, and yet the new Mazda RX8 has better horsepower and better fuel efficiency.
Isn't a bit unfair to compare an engine that's 20 years older? Why don't you compare the rotary in the 2006 RX-8, which produces 238 hp (according to Edmunds) to the 2006 base Corvette, which (according to Edmunds) produces 400hp. The RX-8 weighs 3029lbs and returns 18/24 mpg while the Corvette weighs 3179 lbs and returns 18/26 mpg.
Don't get me wrong; I miss my RX-7 and love the rotary, but it is not more fuel efficient (in terms of hp produced) than a piston engine, probably due to the inefficient shape of the combustion chamber. Also, if you spend any amount of time on an RX-7 group, you'll realize that passing smog tests is a major concern. In fact, according to early threads on RX-8 Club.com, the claimed hp of the RENESIS was reduced to 238 from 250 due to changes in the exhaust to make emissions meet US standards.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is due to the customer's perceived value of the meal and economies of scale (the incremental cost of putting more food on the plate diminishes as more is put on). People may be more likely to eat at your restaurant if they perceive you offer a better value than competitors (assuming that quality of food is the same). Example of the economies of scale can be found in the Cheeburger Cheeburger menu (Sanibel Island, FL location): http://cheeburger.snappyorder.com/order/menu.asp?restaurant=146&categoryid=847 The one pound burger is $12.49 ($0.78 per oz), while the half-pound burger is $8.19 ($1.02 per oz). Assuming these are menu options from two different restaurants (Restaurant A serves the one pounder, while Restaurant B servers the half-pounder), which do you think will be perceived as the better value? Some customers would take advantage of this by splitting the one pounder at Restaurant A instead of ordering two half-pounders from Restaurant B. And some restaurants counteract this by charging to share plates.
I'm late to the party with this, but I think the reason it won't work on your Droid X is because you aren't running full ICS, and Chrome for Android requires the hardware acceleration feature provided by ICS. Yes, you have an ICS ROM, but unfortunately, the boot loader on the DX is locked, so you're not running an ICS kernel (and able to take advantage of the hardware acceleration feature). And that locked boot loader is why my next phone will be a Nexus.
After all, if the ratings agencies had done their jobs a few years ago, we wouldn't be in a lot of this mess.
Agreed. I wonder if the agencies may be doing a little grandstading, in an attempt to make it seem like they know what they're doing. (Though, considering the dysfunctionality of Congress during the debt ceiling fiasco, the downgrade may not be totally inappropriate.)
Does anyone else find it interesting that the two external sources noted in the section removed in edit 1 no longer exist?
I can't argue that your negative experience is wrong or untrue, but ...
Here is where I think we're arguing different things, so I'll restate what perhaps I should've stated more clearly before: The sentiment that I perceived when I first read the comments was that companies were stupid for looking for IT people with more business skills. I disagree with this, as I think good business skills (along with technical skills) make an IT unit more productive, profitable, and most likely, a better place to work.
I think what you're arguing is that bad business skills adversely affect an IT unit. And I certainly agree with that. But I will argue that your options of good business skills and unprofitability or bad business skills and profitability do not hold over the long term. My opinion is that good buiness skills will increase performance and morale (leading to a better ROI), while bad business skills will ultimately reduce performance.
And this is my point: Those with BOTH skills are in demand (according to the article) because of how valuable they are. The article does NOT say CIOs are hiring people with business skills over those with technical skills.
I think my attempt proves both of our points (since we're not quite seeing eye to eye): Yours, that incongruent management (which happens a lot in the real world) and IT is detrimental, and mine, that congruent provides a quality product and work environment, which is why technical people with business skills are in high demand.
How do you know that's the reason the position was eliminated? Was it in the memo? "Big Biz" has to be stupid, right? It couldn't be that they decided they actually didn't need the position, could it?
The anti-business bias in these comments is disturbing. At my current position (IT consultant basically), not only do our trainings include technical matters (Oracle ERP, Vulnerability Assessments), they also include the business aspect behind them which, in my opinion, helps to understand the bigger picture.
The opinion here seems to be that technical skills are all that matter; "business skills" ("lying," "back-stabbing", etc) are worthless, and that any company who looks for these "qualities" is dumb and will get dumber. As someone with an MIS degree, I think what most posters are calling business skills (lying, schmoozing, etc) is actually a demonstration of poor business skills (or lack thereof).
Business skills, as I've seen at school and work, include project management, leadership, and perhaps most importantly, negotiation. The colleagues whom I see as most successful excel in all these areas, honestly and creatively.
In my experience, in order for IT to be successful, both technical and business skills are needed. And a good example is the article posted here (in another thread) about the shuttle programming group. The article attributes the quality of the software to the competency of the programmers (technical skill), the rigorous process followed in creating the software (project management), and the friendly rivalry culture of the work environment (leadership skills). Heck, the article even mentions a programmer who left for another organization and returned because of the poor business skills.
As far promotion is concerned, promotions include more responsibilities and managerial type roles, where I think business skills become more important. I do agree that IT management, including CIO, should possess the technical experience to understand what they are managing. I've seen a case where a small IT shop brought in a school superintendent to act as IT director. With the director only demonstrating adequate (at best) project management skills, I doubt I have to explain in detail how the morale and proficiency of the department suffered.
Please read the article mentioned above; I believe it convincingly shows how both excellent technical and business skills complement each other.
This is news to me. When I was in the Boy Scouts, we were purely an OS/2 Warp outfit.
I had the pleasure of meeting Joe at his brother Jack's birthday party back in 2001 (I worked with Jack for almost five years at IFAS while at school). Joe is a great guy, very friendly, and a great cook - he served a delicious bean soup with Piri Piri sauce at the party. Unfortunately, Jack passed away shortly after; I still miss him terribly.