Simulation, Understanding the phone and how it acts Trials in limited areas with limited numbers of customers, so they could get an idea what the averages in the wild might be. Watching the system usage as they added more devices.
It also makes it easier for that home, wherever it is, to produce those high tech items themselves, reducing demand for usa stuff, and reducing the pricing for such items, further reducing the ability for usa companies to compete in the more global market, because the home, wherever it is, can now start exporting rather than importing.
I agree that it is not a zero sum game, but that does not make it a quid pro quo to both's advantage, either.
Fusing to ignite the main explosive charge, whatever linkages were needed to make the various settings. Early naval shells had some time delay, so that the explosion happened after the shell had had time to penetrate the armour of the other ship. WWII anti air craft shells had some combination of mechanical and electric/electronic control to detect the proximity of an aircraft, and explode near the aircraft, rather than the older time delay fusing ( which itself would have required some mechanical method of setting the delay either just before loading, or after ). IIRC, some land artillery of the WWII era had an "airburst" option, where it was set off up in the air, causing more damage.
What I always wondered was if the aircraft carrier had not come along, would we have seen some terminal guidance systems for naval and land artillery?
I have to agree with you. I like known space works, but MiGE &c, FootFall, Lucifer's Hammer, struck me as more imaginative/better works.
I always saw MiGE ( and footfall ) as a response of sorts to the notion "Why would aliens come to Humanity/Earth, why would there be conflict, they could get everything they wanted in the outer parts of the solar system/ elsewhere without a fight". Both books motivate why they might.
Nope. You will start seeing disposable shower heads. Cause we don't throw enough in landfill now. And it will be "cheaper" to just make more shower heads and throw them away.
It seems to me that this outlook is short sighted. If you manage to keep wages low, you have the advantage that you can sell your product cheaper. But cheaper to whom? The people who are earning a low wage? There are fewer goods and services that low wage people can buy. And when everyone is doing it, it seems to me that you are reducing the market you can sell into. I see that the cheaper products means more can afford, but then, the cost of living falls, so that gives you more leverage to lower wages, pricing yourself out of the market again.
Isn't that exactly why our economy is not doing so hot now? People are not spending, because they are not confident in conditions. And isnt the reverse why the economy heated up and was apparently doing so well before? Because people felt like they had money, and spent it on goods and services ( more than they should have, to be quite sure... )
"An employer's ability to fire a shitty employee is not a "baseball bat" that "the man" can use to beat someone down"
No, but using the ability to fire anyone because you are the only one with power in the relationship *is*.
"To expound on what the GP's point, which you seem to have totally missed: employment percentages shift the balance of power between employee (low unemployment) and business (high unemployment."
I did not miss that point. I totally got that point.
"Obviously neither extreme is really desirable"
According to the GP, the extreme that gives power to employers ( high unemployment ) *is* desirable.
"Just like most anything else in life, a good balance between employer and employee power is what's needed and what works best for everyone."
Too true, but that was not what the GP saw as best.
I would suggest that I have not twisted the post at all, just put it in it's rawest, and truest terms.
"And what if the manager sets bad goals, and the employee knows they are bad goals, and the employee doesn't tell the manager?"
Of course the employee has a duty to communicate that.
"Is that still the manager's fault?"
Insofar as they should be setting good goals and not bad ones, sure. Now, if the goal is bad, and what makes it bad is entirely something "within" the employee, then, yes, the employee would be at fault there.
"How about if in the time allotted for the goals there was spare time for the employee, and they, without direct knowledge of the manager, make improvements to make things run smoother?"
That would be as good as how much the employee really did make things run better.
"How is the manager supposed to know that the employee has excessive downtime unless they are micromanaging or the employee tells them? And if the employee does extra work in that time, how is the manager supposed to know?"
Yes, the employee would have to communicate that. The other post made it sound to me like the the employee was 100% responsible for communications, and the manager was 0% responsible. It is not 100/0, nor is it 0/100. But the manager should shoulder the larger responsibility, in my opinion ( and I manage a staff of 3.2 )
"Sure. They are responsible in that they start the conversation. "I would like you to XXX." The employee then responds. Tells them whether that's reasonable, unreasonable, gives them progress, lets them know hurdles, lets them know if there are resources they need, etc. The manager usually can't do the job themselves, and so they need some guidance from the employee. If they don't get it, then they will be a bad manager."
They start the conversation, and manage that conversation.
"In my experience, the manager is there to prevent distractions. Let the employee do their job. The manager handles the budget, handles future requests, filters immediate requests, sets goals and stays out of the way. In my experience, the worst managed places are the places where the employees weren't comfortable with their managers. If they can't talk to them for the little things, then the little things will pile up. Whether that's the fault of the employee or manager is a separate discussion, but I've never seen a manager fail in the manner you describe."
Neither have I, but again, if one did, it would be the manager at fault ( mostly ), not the employees. Definately not 100% the employee's fault.
"Managers don't hide in their office and tell you to do your own thing (well, sometimes they do, "
In a way, I am. I make it work in the absence of direction.
"but only if you are like one place I worked where there was one person in charge of IT, HR and PR, and he only liked PR, so the other departments were unmanaged completely, but that massive failure is rare and he only kept his job because he was friend of the owner for 50+ years). The problems are almost always the employees wanting something and not feeling comfortable asking for it, or discovering something they know to be a problem and not feeling comfortable sharing it"
Sure. As I see it, management needs to stop stepping on their and enable that communication. And if the employees dont step up to that ( assuming management has made a real effort ), then it is on them.
"Without you talking to them? Without you telling them what you've been doing?"
What is the point of being a manager of someone if you don't know what they are doing? Don't you, as manager have to speak with them, to give them the direction they need? And don't you, as manager, need to be aware of their progress in meeting the goals you have set?
Yes, the employee needs to communicate also, but the larger responsibility is on the manager.
"I think if you're not communicating you can expect to sit in your corner for as long as you're prepared to"
I think if you are a manager, and you have an employee sitting in a corner, you are not doing your job. And the companies' money is being wasted by you.
Note, if the employee fails to respond to the manager's guidance and queries, the employee is at fault there. And it is a great employee who can see the need and push it up to the manager, but managers are there to manage, not sit around drinking lattes.
NK *currently* has no viable deployment for their nuclear weapons. They have shown advancing capability in this arena. So, their future abilities may include being able to strike at north america.
They can strike Japan and SK now, nuclear or conventional.
They also are nestled right up against China, who have shown a good deal of willingness to shelter them.
You will recall that the Korean war was going *very* poorly for NK until MacArthur got too close to the Chinese border, and the Chinese decided to get involved.
So, while America has shown a surprising ability to project power at a distance ( Iraq ), the calculus of knowing when the Chinese would decide to get involved makes the notion of wiping the floor with the NK army a dicey situation.
"Is your manager supposed to just figure out that everything is running so much better because you're here?"
Yes, I think he/she/it is supposed to be 'managing' you and the work you do. ( not micromanaging ) Certainly being aware of what you are doing to move the company agenda forward should be a requirement of a manager.
So, higher unemployment rates are good, because they enable management to keep a firm grip on the baseball bat they use on labor to keep them in line, fearful, docile and paid as little as possible. And low unemployment is bad, because labor would have some power in the relationship.
A; It may not be illegal, but that doesnt make it right.
B: How can you know up front how long you have rented it for? Would you rent a movie from blockbuster if you didnt know the return date up front? Only if you are stupid or deceived.
It is my opinion that they should be allowed to do this. But, they should have to put a disclaimer, prominently, on the device/media stating the terms, or a guaranteed 'good till' date.
Not only that, but if you leave a 3 second gap, it will get filled by one of those "jerk" drivers seeking an advantage for themselves. So, you either have to slow down more to get the 3 seconds back ( and you slow down everyone behind you in that lane ).
The biggest thing is get over the jam is for each lane to take turns, keep speed up, and not try to push forward to the last inch.
Slashdot Mirror
Simulation,
Understanding the phone and how it acts
Trials in limited areas with limited numbers of customers, so they could get an idea what the averages in the wild might be.
Watching the system usage as they added more devices.
Laptop fires on planes.
Not quite as catchy as "Snakes on planes", but scarier, really.
It also makes it easier for that home, wherever it is, to produce those high tech items themselves, reducing demand for usa stuff, and reducing the pricing for such items, further reducing the ability for usa companies to compete in the more global market, because the home, wherever it is, can now start exporting rather than importing.
I agree that it is not a zero sum game, but that does not make it a quid pro quo to both's advantage, either.
"We did. The US Army had artillery shells with terminal guidance in the 1970s."
I never heard of it. What did it home on? ( or can you say? )
Fusing to ignite the main explosive charge, whatever linkages were needed to make the various settings. Early naval shells had some time delay, so that the explosion happened after the shell had had time to penetrate the armour of the other ship. WWII anti air craft shells had some combination of mechanical and electric/electronic control to detect the proximity of an aircraft, and explode near the aircraft, rather than the older time delay fusing ( which itself would have required some mechanical method of setting the delay either just before loading, or after ).
IIRC, some land artillery of the WWII era had an "airburst" option, where it was set off up in the air, causing more damage.
What I always wondered was if the aircraft carrier had not come along, would we have seen some terminal guidance systems for naval and land artillery?
April 13th, is that Hot Fudge Tuesdae?
I have to agree with you. I like known space works, but MiGE &c, FootFall, Lucifer's Hammer, struck me as more imaginative/better works.
I always saw MiGE ( and footfall ) as a response of sorts to the notion "Why would aliens come to Humanity/Earth, why would there be conflict, they could get everything they wanted in the outer parts of the solar system/ elsewhere without a fight". Both books motivate why they might.
My surprise is that no one has mentioned Dune &c.
Nope. You will start seeing disposable shower heads. Cause we don't throw enough in landfill now.
And it will be "cheaper" to just make more shower heads and throw them away.
"You are forgetting that code ages overtime."
That is why I don't pay my code overtime. That way it does not age.
It doesn't have to be a troll for a Microphile to mod it as such.
No problem. I wish I could do more.
If you don't find it offensive, I will pray for you and your grandfather.
I don't know, but I suspect he doesn't need a Wii, he needs you.
"But usually, a gamma ray burst,"
That will only feed Andromeda.
Another thing that occurs to me.
It seems to me that this outlook is short sighted. If you manage to keep wages low, you have the advantage that you can sell your product cheaper. But cheaper to whom? The people who are earning a low wage? There are fewer goods and services that low wage people can buy. And when everyone is doing it, it seems to me that you are reducing the market you can sell into. I see that the cheaper products means more can afford, but then, the cost of living falls, so that gives you more leverage to lower wages, pricing yourself out of the market again.
Isn't that exactly why our economy is not doing so hot now? People are not spending, because they are not confident in conditions. And isnt the reverse why the economy heated up and was apparently doing so well before? Because people felt like they had money, and spent it on goods and services ( more than they should have, to be quite sure... )
Yes, I had rather noticed.
"An employer's ability to fire a shitty employee is not a "baseball bat" that "the man" can use to beat someone down"
No, but using the ability to fire anyone because you are the only one with power in the relationship *is*.
"To expound on what the GP's point, which you seem to have totally missed: employment percentages shift the balance of power between employee (low unemployment) and business (high unemployment."
I did not miss that point. I totally got that point.
"Obviously neither extreme is really desirable"
According to the GP, the extreme that gives power to employers ( high unemployment ) *is* desirable.
"Just like most anything else in life, a good balance between employer and employee power is what's needed and what works best for everyone."
Too true, but that was not what the GP saw as best.
I would suggest that I have not twisted the post at all, just put it in it's rawest, and truest terms.
"And what if the manager sets bad goals, and the employee knows they are bad goals, and the employee doesn't tell the manager?"
Of course the employee has a duty to communicate that.
"Is that still the manager's fault?"
Insofar as they should be setting good goals and not bad ones, sure. Now, if the goal is bad, and what makes it bad is entirely something "within" the employee, then, yes, the employee would be at fault there.
"How about if in the time allotted for the goals there was spare time for the employee, and they, without direct knowledge of the manager, make improvements to make things run smoother?"
That would be as good as how much the employee really did make things run better.
"How is the manager supposed to know that the employee has excessive downtime unless they are micromanaging or the employee tells them? And if the employee does extra work in that time, how is the manager supposed to know?"
Yes, the employee would have to communicate that. The other post made it sound to me like the the employee was 100% responsible for communications, and the manager was 0% responsible. It is not 100/0, nor is it 0/100. But the manager should shoulder the larger responsibility, in my opinion ( and I manage a staff of 3.2 )
"Sure. They are responsible in that they start the conversation. "I would like you to XXX." The employee then responds. Tells them whether that's reasonable, unreasonable, gives them progress, lets them know hurdles, lets them know if there are resources they need, etc. The manager usually can't do the job themselves, and so they need some guidance from the employee. If they don't get it, then they will be a bad manager."
They start the conversation, and manage that conversation.
"In my experience, the manager is there to prevent distractions. Let the employee do their job. The manager handles the budget, handles future requests, filters immediate requests, sets goals and stays out of the way. In my experience, the worst managed places are the places where the employees weren't comfortable with their managers. If they can't talk to them for the little things, then the little things will pile up. Whether that's the fault of the employee or manager is a separate discussion, but I've never seen a manager fail in the manner you describe."
Neither have I, but again, if one did, it would be the manager at fault ( mostly ), not the employees. Definately not 100% the employee's fault.
"Managers don't hide in their office and tell you to do your own thing (well, sometimes they do, "
In a way, I am. I make it work in the absence of direction.
"but only if you are like one place I worked where there was one person in charge of IT, HR and PR, and he only liked PR, so the other departments were unmanaged completely, but that massive failure is rare and he only kept his job because he was friend of the owner for 50+ years). The problems are almost always the employees wanting something and not feeling comfortable asking for it, or discovering something they know to be a problem and not feeling comfortable sharing it"
Sure. As I see it, management needs to stop stepping on their and enable that communication. And if the employees dont step up to that ( assuming management has made a real effort ), then it is on them.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
"Without you talking to them? Without you telling them what you've been doing?"
What is the point of being a manager of someone if you don't know what they are doing? Don't you, as manager have to speak with them, to give them the direction they need? And don't you, as manager, need to be aware of their progress in meeting the goals you have set?
Yes, the employee needs to communicate also, but the larger responsibility is on the manager.
"I think if you're not communicating you can expect to sit in your corner for as long as you're prepared to"
I think if you are a manager, and you have an employee sitting in a corner, you are not doing your job. And the companies' money is being wasted by you.
Note, if the employee fails to respond to the manager's guidance and queries, the employee is at fault there. And it is a great employee who can see the need and push it up to the manager, but managers are there to manage, not sit around drinking lattes.
NK *currently* has no viable deployment for their nuclear weapons. They have shown advancing capability in this arena. So, their future abilities may include being able to strike at north america.
They can strike Japan and SK now, nuclear or conventional.
They also are nestled right up against China, who have shown a good deal of willingness to shelter them.
You will recall that the Korean war was going *very* poorly for NK until MacArthur got too close to the Chinese border, and the Chinese decided to get involved.
So, while America has shown a surprising ability to project power at a distance ( Iraq ), the calculus of knowing when the Chinese would decide to get involved makes the notion of wiping the floor with the NK army a dicey situation.
"Is your manager supposed to just figure out that everything is running so much better because you're here?"
Yes, I think he/she/it is supposed to be 'managing' you and the work you do. ( not micromanaging ) Certainly being aware of what you are doing to move the company agenda forward should be a requirement of a manager.
Wow.
So, higher unemployment rates are good, because they enable management to keep a firm grip on the baseball bat they use on labor to keep them in line, fearful, docile and paid as little as possible. And low unemployment is bad, because labor would have some power in the relationship.
Boy, that sounds like utopia, sign me up. Not.
A; It may not be illegal, but that doesnt make it right.
B: How can you know up front how long you have rented it for? Would you rent a movie from blockbuster if you didnt know the return date up front? Only if you are stupid or deceived.
It is my opinion that they should be allowed to do this. But, they should have to put a disclaimer, prominently, on the device/media stating the terms, or a guaranteed 'good till' date.
Not only that, but if you leave a 3 second gap, it will get filled by one of those "jerk" drivers seeking an advantage for themselves. So, you either have to slow down more to get the 3 seconds back ( and you slow down everyone behind you in that lane ).
The biggest thing is get over the jam is for each lane to take turns, keep speed up, and not try to push forward to the last inch.