Re:Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
I use contractors all the time, and that's not how they do it. They have a client manager who is the only person I will usually deal with, unless he's away. He will assign out my task to someone else within the business, usually someone I've worked with before unless no one I'm familiar with is available. Granted, I work mostly with construction contractors or laboratories, but it works quite well nonetheless.
Re:Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't make sense to include a division within your business that does not deal with your core business. You will end up introducing a set of competing priorities. Your staff needs to work together as a team. The last thing you need is the us vs. them mentality that the poster was talking about.
And for your information I would not become a manager because I hate hierarchal business organization, and authority structures in general.
Re:Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
It can't possibly be worse than what we have now.
Re:Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
engineer
Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Wouldn't it be simpler and better to contract that out? Here are the benefits:
Cost. There's no need to hire and maintain unnecessary staff. If there's an emergency, the contractor can bring in more people to handle it, but most of the time they won't need to dedicate even one full-time staffer to your office.
Versatility. The contractor will work with many clients and many environments. That means that they will have a diversity of experience that will allow them to deal with problems quickly. They will also have the experience to point out better solutions.
Employee satisfaction. The contractors personnel will need to be respectful and courteous to your staffers, or else you will find a different contractor. They will work to find solutions (and charge you more money) rather than making excuses about why your problem can't be solved so they can stay in their budget.
Come to think of it, maybe I should start a business doing this for people.
My complaint is that by trying to argue for the adoption of a different definition you aren't accomplishing anything. You are basically trying to say that I said something that I didn't mean, then arguing against an argument that I never intended to make. It's pointless.
Oh, I've met people who say they believe these things with certainty. But in my experience, the more radically someone defends their belief, the more doubts they have about it themselves.
Why fight about the definitions of words? I obviously define atheist to mean someone who believes there is no god. My post doesn't make a whole lot of sense otherwise, does it?
No one ever believes with complete certainty that something is true. Everyone has doubts. If you want to say that makes everyone agnostic, go ahead. It doesn't mean anything if it applies to everyone.
The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.
I believe this should be modded "funny" as it is clearly a joke. If you have modded this informative in earnest, please contact me because I have a bridge to sell you. . .
But it would be stupid to patent something you can't build, because you can't make any money off of it. Better to wait until you have an actual product, or at least you're in spittin' distance of having one. Patents don't last forever.
You are crazy. This is a such a small amount of money, and could alleviate fallout from global warming. If it works, it would be money well-spent. It makes no sense to turn up you nose at this kind of technology as part of the solution to global warming.
This is one of those things people don't understand about contract law. If one of the parties does not understand the contract, they can not legally be held to it. ATT loves to brag about their international roaming, but then they won't tell you that it costs you $5 every time you view the main page of slashdot. No reasonable person would use a service that expensive.
"Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism [google.com] enough for a Slashdot reader?"
Since it won't be up to her, because the Federal government doesn't have that authority, I don't think it's important.
Obama has said that he will raise taxes and increase government spending. He will have some (limited) authority to do that if he is elected president. Shouldn't that be enough for the Slashdot reader?
Slashdot Mirror
I use contractors all the time, and that's not how they do it. They have a client manager who is the only person I will usually deal with, unless he's away. He will assign out my task to someone else within the business, usually someone I've worked with before unless no one I'm familiar with is available. Granted, I work mostly with construction contractors or laboratories, but it works quite well nonetheless.
It doesn't make sense to include a division within your business that does not deal with your core business. You will end up introducing a set of competing priorities. Your staff needs to work together as a team. The last thing you need is the us vs. them mentality that the poster was talking about.
And for your information I would not become a manager because I hate hierarchal business organization, and authority structures in general.
It can't possibly be worse than what we have now.
engineer
Wouldn't it be simpler and better to contract that out? Here are the benefits:
Cost. There's no need to hire and maintain unnecessary staff. If there's an emergency, the contractor can bring in more people to handle it, but most of the time they won't need to dedicate even one full-time staffer to your office.
Versatility. The contractor will work with many clients and many environments. That means that they will have a diversity of experience that will allow them to deal with problems quickly. They will also have the experience to point out better solutions.
Employee satisfaction. The contractors personnel will need to be respectful and courteous to your staffers, or else you will find a different contractor. They will work to find solutions (and charge you more money) rather than making excuses about why your problem can't be solved so they can stay in their budget.
Come to think of it, maybe I should start a business doing this for people.
They already bought the damn sneakers! WTF? Am I missing something?
Oh, and I've got all those other religious fanatics beat. I'm so serious about my faith that I won't even lie about it.
My complaint is that by trying to argue for the adoption of a different definition you aren't accomplishing anything. You are basically trying to say that I said something that I didn't mean, then arguing against an argument that I never intended to make. It's pointless.
Oh, I've met people who say they believe these things with certainty. But in my experience, the more radically someone defends their belief, the more doubts they have about it themselves.
Why fight about the definitions of words? I obviously define atheist to mean someone who believes there is no god. My post doesn't make a whole lot of sense otherwise, does it?
It's analogy time:
An atheist would say: I don't believe there's life on mars.
A theist would say: I do believe there's life on mars.
An agnostic would say: I don't believe one way or the other.
This is not a semantic argument, nor are these narrow definitions.
No one ever believes with complete certainty that something is true. Everyone has doubts. If you want to say that makes everyone agnostic, go ahead. It doesn't mean anything if it applies to everyone.
The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.
The law also permits them to demand a Unicorn, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable demand.
I believe this should be modded "funny" as it is clearly a joke. If you have modded this informative in earnest, please contact me because I have a bridge to sell you. . .
Somehow he seems to have missed water, which is crucial to all life processes as we know them.
But it would be stupid to patent something you can't build, because you can't make any money off of it. Better to wait until you have an actual product, or at least you're in spittin' distance of having one. Patents don't last forever.
You are crazy. This is a such a small amount of money, and could alleviate fallout from global warming. If it works, it would be money well-spent. It makes no sense to turn up you nose at this kind of technology as part of the solution to global warming.
This is one of those things people don't understand about contract law. If one of the parties does not understand the contract, they can not legally be held to it. ATT loves to brag about their international roaming, but then they won't tell you that it costs you $5 every time you view the main page of slashdot. No reasonable person would use a service that expensive.
"Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism [google.com] enough for a Slashdot reader?"
Since it won't be up to her, because the Federal government doesn't have that authority, I don't think it's important.
Obama has said that he will raise taxes and increase government spending. He will have some (limited) authority to do that if he is elected president. Shouldn't that be enough for the Slashdot reader?
This doesn't say much. Maybe they should repost it later when they have more information.
How about no system?
I think it's broken, and I have excellent karma. On the other hand I am an anarchist, so I think every authoritarian system is "broken".
It's big enough to catch herpes though.
"How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?"
And when can we start drilling for oil up there?