"had a big job plopped in her lap with the Conpaq merger"
Well, she *asked* for that job. She rammed it thru, if the press I had read on the subject is to be believed.
"didn't come from a background that valued, or perhaps even respected, the previous lines of business that made HP so great"
Perhaps true. So then, why did the board of the company hire her? And once she was on board, why didnt she take a look at what worked *there* and start from there?
I agree with your post, in the main. Carly *was* very consumer focused. That focus was evident in their ad campaigns, in her public statements, etc, etc. I think she was the wrong CEO at the wrong time.
That assumes that virus/adware/spyware purveyors were doing it because they dislike/hate/have issues with Microsoft. I find it hard to believe that, I think they are simply opportunistic.
More like if one car brand were more easily broken into than another. ( Your counter argument ought probably be that "no, its not that they are more easily broken into, there are just many many more of them..." There is a debate there, the truth is probably part of both... )
Thieves would target that brand, as the return on investment would be higher. That and most customers dont know to buy/find/install the AntiSideSwipe cage that fits around the car and protects it from all others ( firewall ).
Maybe we should *make* a mountain! Invade some South American countries, so that we are *very* close to the equator, make a nice big mountain right there, with launch facilities on the top, lots of access roads, aircraft landing facilities, etc, etc. We'll pick someplace that isnt too good looking for the site.
What I find interesting is that Microsoft employees dont feel that they can purchase the music player they want without pressure. I mean, if they are pumped up and *want* to purchase a Microsoft based/backed product, more power to them. By the same token, if they prefer the Apple player, this should *not* be frowned upon.
I shant repeat what the sibling poster posted ( although I believe that that is true... ). I
Another consideration is that when using the Florida launch sites, the rockets go out over the Atlantic ocean. There are fewer people and things to destroy "downrange" this way, in case of failure.
Then Google will buy them back ( cheap! ) and give them to employees!
Now that the joke is out of the way. You may have a point. But, first, might this not be how they continue to drive those earnings? I mean that employees with something to incentivize them will likely do better going forward( since they will see their hard work earn them something additional ), and second, while I dont want to minimize the stockholders, what is wrong with rewarding employees for hard/good work?
It would probably be a good thing for Google to have announced this program so that stockholders would have an idea that this was going to happen beforehand, if they havent already.
"workers *and* investors make the economy work ). EA also would not exist without it's workers".
Note the "*and* investors" part?
*I'm sorry to have to break this to your, but the Real World(TM) doesn't work in terms of 'us' and 'them'*
Note the title. "Thought experiment". It was a semi-rhetorical way of pointing out that the workers in a company ( wouldnt it be great if the company were to lose the management/worker split ( us/them ) ) were important, and may well have deserved better than they got.
The cash can ( and should ) work itself out in revenues. Investors ought not be your path to profit, I think....:-) And I have seen employees taking voluntary pay breaks to help a company thru a bad spot ( with the expectation that they would be paid later ).
I think you have a good point, the above withstanding, but does that make it OK to treat ( presumably ) loyal employees poorly? I personally dont think it should. I think it has become too easy for the management of a company to lay people off ( not regulatory, but in terms of how easily they can justify the action to themselves ).
*Well, sure. But most workers won't work for free, and most companies can't start up (operations or payroll) without investment.*
The investors are not investing for free either. They own a portion of the company in return. With an expectation of dividends or the ability to sell the stock for a gain at some point.
Also, most companies cant start up without workers, either.
One has 100% "original and ongoing investors" and no workers.
The other has 100% workers and no "original and ongoing investors".
Which has a chance of succeeding?
I ask this question to point out that the workers are very important to a company's operations. Moreso than the investors. ( note, investment is good, yada yada, etc, etc. but put it in perspective, workers *and* investors make the economy work ). EA also would not exist without it's workers.
In tech stuff, I think there is more than just being a good manager.
There was an article, I think posted here, where a study was done, and the results were that low competence people in a given field didnt know what they didnt know, so they were more likely to rank themselves as knowledgeable in that field than someone who had more knowledge/competence.
I think the same thing goes for managers, if they havent walked the walk, they may think themselves competent where they are not.
You may be correct, if the manager knows that all they know is management, and they rely on and trust thier staff. I have yet to see one, as a programmer. And all my non-programmer ( and the ones that took course in school, graduated with the degree, but havent practiced the art ) bosses have been "less than great", shall we say.
Slashdot Mirror
It will auto-paralyze the code for you, however.
You will download ink from the iPrint website.
"had a big job plopped in her lap with the Conpaq merger"
Well, she *asked* for that job. She rammed it thru, if the press I had read on the subject is to be believed.
"didn't come from a background that valued, or perhaps even respected, the previous lines of business that made HP so great"
Perhaps true. So then, why did the board of the company hire her? And once she was on board, why didnt she take a look at what worked *there* and start from there?
I agree with your post, in the main. Carly *was* very consumer focused. That focus was evident in their ad campaigns, in her public statements, etc, etc. I think she was the wrong CEO at the wrong time.
Apple should aquire/merge w/HP, and Steve can head up the combined company?
They should implement a 128 bit file system instead. And get some water over there.
Probably in all the GIS DB's everyone was so enchanted with in the late 80's
It's about half what he got for selling the list in the first place.
The preceeding was a sarcastic comment. I do not actually know what he got for the list. Half a nice day.
That assumes that virus/adware/spyware purveyors were doing it because they dislike/hate/have issues with Microsoft. I find it hard to believe that, I think they are simply opportunistic.
More like if one car brand were more easily broken into than another. ( Your counter argument ought probably be that "no, its not that they are more easily broken into, there are just many many more of them..." There is a debate there, the truth is probably part of both... )
Thieves would target that brand, as the return on investment would be higher. That and most customers dont know to buy/find/install the AntiSideSwipe cage that fits around the car and protects it from all others ( firewall ).
For you, shouldnt that be VAXsuits?
I spent 3 months without a car ( sorta enforced, if you know what I mean ).
I got to school ( college, about 20 miles away ),
work ( another 5 ), and home again ( about 25 ).
I feel their pain. But is it worth a life?
Maybe we should *make* a mountain!
Invade some South American countries, so that we are *very* close to the equator, make a nice big mountain right there, with launch facilities on the top, lots of access roads, aircraft landing facilities, etc, etc. We'll pick someplace that isnt too good looking for the site.
Should any of the above matter?
What I find interesting is that Microsoft employees dont feel that they can purchase the music player they want without pressure. I mean, if they are pumped up and *want* to purchase a Microsoft based/backed product, more power to them. By the same token, if they prefer the Apple player, this should *not* be frowned upon.
I shant repeat what the sibling poster posted ( although I believe that that is true... ). I
Another consideration is that when using the Florida launch sites, the rockets go out over the Atlantic ocean. There are fewer people and things to destroy "downrange" this way, in case of failure.
Maybe they ( google ) are trying to make the average work out? :-)
That would be about the only real way to bring new voices to the political scene.
Then Google will buy them back ( cheap! ) and give them to employees!
Now that the joke is out of the way. You may have a point. But, first, might this not be how they continue to drive those earnings? I mean that employees with something to incentivize them will likely do better going forward( since they will see their hard work earn them something additional ), and second, while I dont want to minimize the stockholders, what is wrong with rewarding employees for hard/good work?
It would probably be a good thing for Google to have announced this program so that stockholders would have an idea that this was going to happen beforehand, if they havent already.
EE Times article
*It also wouldn't survive without investors. *
I believe I made that point.
"workers *and* investors make the economy work ). EA also would not exist without it's workers".
Note the "*and* investors" part?
*I'm sorry to have to break this to your, but the Real World(TM) doesn't work in terms of 'us' and 'them'*
Note the title. "Thought experiment". It was a semi-rhetorical way of pointing out that the workers in a company ( wouldnt it be great if the company were to lose the management/worker split ( us/them ) ) were important, and may well have deserved better than they got.
The cash can ( and should ) work itself out in revenues. Investors ought not be your path to profit, I think....
I think you have a good point, the above withstanding, but does that make it OK to treat ( presumably ) loyal employees poorly? I personally dont think it should. I think it has become too easy for the management of a company to lay people off ( not regulatory, but in terms of how easily they can justify the action to themselves ).
*Well, sure. But most workers won't work for free, and most companies can't start up (operations or payroll) without investment.*
The investors are not investing for free either. They own a portion of the company in return. With an expectation of dividends or the ability to sell the stock for a gain at some point.
Also, most companies cant start up without workers, either.
You can have one of two companies:
One has 100% "original and ongoing investors" and no workers.
The other has 100% workers and no "original and ongoing investors".
Which has a chance of succeeding?
I ask this question to point out that the workers are very important to a company's operations. Moreso than the investors. ( note, investment is good, yada yada, etc, etc. but put it in perspective, workers *and* investors make the economy work ). EA also would not exist without it's workers.
In tech stuff, I think there is more than just being a good manager.
There was an article, I think posted here, where a study was done, and the results were that low competence people in a given field didnt know what they didnt know, so they were more likely to rank themselves as knowledgeable in that field than someone who had more knowledge/competence.
I think the same thing goes for managers, if they havent walked the walk, they may think themselves competent where they are not.
You may be correct, if the manager knows that all they know is management, and they rely on and trust thier staff. I have yet to see one, as a programmer. And all my non-programmer ( and the ones that took course in school, graduated with the degree, but havent practiced the art ) bosses have been "less than great", shall we say.
can the very first post be redundant?
Yeah, so use this as an encouragement to move to Firefox.
Rather than Microsoft and I.E., Mozilla and Firefox.