Well, my argument would be that a boss that would make such a decision probably wouldn't be worth working for long term. It's my job as a boss to see that work gets done efficiently and that quality standards are met. It's my job to organize people, make sure appropriate information is routed to the right people, and that internal politics are removed from the work environment for my core producers so they can do what they do best.
It's not my job to exert my authority and make snap firing decisions of key (or even minor) resources over a debate. Doing so is harmful to the company and does no good other than to bolster my own ego. It's exactly the problem with employers in the US today. They think because they write a check they own you. Short term this probably works, especially in a financial crisis, but long term I'm not convinced it makes for a strong company or an empowered employee.
You were fired for having a dissenting opinion, and then you gladly accepted to be rehired once your boss came to his senses? Do you really want to work with someone who would fire you over a technical debate?
Most of the people on my team debate with me about the odds and ends of all sorts of technologies. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. I'd never fire someone for disagreeing over terminology. That just seems like it'd lead to me never getting the advice I really need when I really need it due to employee fear.
Do you really believe that Bing will be any different once it can drive targeted traffic? Shady internet sites are here to stay, sadly. They're the late night infomercial of the Internet. You can thank Clickbank.com for that.
I think you may misunderstand the Peter Principle, to some degree. At least to the degree that I've seen it implemented. The Peter Principle says that people are promoted to the level of their incompetence. This means as long as you're competent, you are continually promoted until suddenly you are no longer competent or can maintain a "baseline". Most organizations aren't run by complete idiots, if they were they wouldn't be multi-billion dollar enterprises.
That said, once someone gets promoted into a job that's over their head it's still pretty rare that they get demoted. They may be laid off, and then they leave to look for another job at another company having the credentials of being in that position. This is the Peter Principle at work. It has nothing to do with scum rising to the top, just with incapable people being allowed to stand in place once they're no longer running.
that the salary offered was intentionally low? Maybe, just maybe, they're looking for people willing to serve their country regardless of wages. $33,000/year to start is horribly low for a degreed job, I'll agree. That said, it is a livable wage especially if you love what you're doing and you make liberal use of the office cafeteria for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Long hours worked, sure, but I think that's par for the course at that place.
Innovation
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device
The fact that you don't find it interesting, or you can think of vaguely similar concepts in unrelated mediums does not discount this idea and implementation from being innovative. Shaking the phone is relatively innovative and the whole package is somewhat interesting.
That said, the device itself seems unlikely to really solve his problem of making cell phones easier to use without looking at them. I get the feeling that the system he's got outlined will take a lot of time to get used to and still require the occasional glance at the phone. In any case it's liable to require more thought processing than just looking at the phone and the disrupted concentration is one of the main points against cellphone use whilst driving.
What you're referring to is known as the "Overjustification Effect". Essentially, when you offer a reward or payment for something that a person was originally willing to do for free, you shift their motivations completely.
Rather than sticking with the intrinsic reasons such as providing knowledge for the good of mankind, making sure everything is up to date and correct, or imparting wisdom upon their "lessers", you've now forced them to focus their motivations on the extrinsic reason which is the reward. This has two very fatal flaws:
1) Quality - Laugh if you will, but there are reputable people still contributing to Wikipedia. Doctors, Lawyers, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. These people are highly paid within their field and donating time because they find it interesting or noble. Start offering them money and it'll just be a pathetically miniscule sum compared to their salaries and likely turn them off from the whole deal.
2) Quantity - If you think NPOV is bad enough as it is, just wait until Wikipedia actually has to PAY for each article addition. Suddenly every single article choice will be scrutinized. "What's this 'Naruto', why would anyone care about it?" This sort of scrutinization and heavy handed interference is likely to kill off plenty of good articles before they even get started and the obscure wealth of articles on Wikipedia are what make it valuable.
Honestly, I think you're spot on. Occam's Razor is often used in current debate to negate ignorance and allow people to apply situational considerations with their current datasets rather than researching other possibilities. It is at best a tool for forming a disprovable hypothesis.
Unfortunately, it's often used as a tool for forming a finished assumption about a situation. I think the world of debate would be far more enlightening without muddying the waters with Occam's Razor. The real problem I see with Occam's Razor is how a relatively large majority (as per my own internally biased dataset) of people use it to prove or disprove a particular situation or idea.
I just want to take the time to thank Fantastic Lad for the enlightening post as I hadn't considered my own distaste with Occam's Razor until he brought it up. Thank you Fantastic Lad, please keep posting;).
Well then it's a good thing Brain Workshop lets you extend it as far back as you want. One of the major challenges on the forums seems to be reaching dual9back matching both positions and letters/sounds. You can also choose morse code or specific piano keys for your sounds if you want an even more cerebral experience.
Taxes. Canadian Business Taxes are really pretty bad. Don't think that Microsoft and Google haven't already crunched the numbers. In all likelihood the cooling and electricity savings are outweighed by increased regulation and taxation.
Drop me a line and let's discuss this idea in more detail. I'd be down for helping, and I may have the resources to get it out there in front of the actual kids.
Do you believe lied to and mislead by the recruiter is "willingly"? I checked with a Navy recruiter some years back and was lied to on several occasions in regards to internet access, how jobs are selected, whether you had a choice between land/ship assignments and a few other things. A friend of mine recently joined the Navy and cleared all of this up for me as far as what he's learned inside.
There is a slight chance that the rules have changed since then, but I'm personally rather doubtful. Recruiters will lie through their teeth to try to get you to join.
You also can't bitch when said website users cut off your access to their site based on leeching content without paying. I understand you don't want to see obtrusive (or in this case extremely resource heavy) ads. However, you must keep in mind that the reason such content is free is because the ads are seen by people and that their funding helps bootstrap the site and keep it alive.
In a lot of cases with smaller to medium sized websites the ads are what are keeping the site alive. When the adblockers is limited to just zealot nerds who have a hatred to sales there's little impact. When it passes on to our friends, family and all sorts of other people it's going to lead to new models to keep content running that you may not like.
Product Placement, Affiliate Marketing, AdBlockBlocking, or just decent but small sources of content shutting down altogether. Is this really what you want?
You also can't bitch when said website users cut off your access to their site based on leeching content without paying. I understand you don't want to see obtrusive (or in this case extremely resource heavy) ads. However, you must keep in mind that the reason such content is free is because the ads are seen by people and that their funding helps bootstrap the site and keep it alive.
In a lot of cases with smaller to medium sized websites the ads are what are keeping the site alive. When the adblockers is limited to just zealot nerds who have a hatred to sales there's little impact. When it passes on to our friends, family and all sorts of other people it's going to lead to new models to keep content running that you may not like.
Product Placement, Affiliate Marketing, AdBlockBlocking, or just decent but small sources of content shutting down altogether. Is this really what you want?
I'd agree with this, definitely. In my consulting business the majority of my clients are startups, but they're also older people. People in their 30s or 40s and sometimes even 60s who are looking to create a business, have a sound idea, very well designed business plan, and considerable investment ready. In my experience, the younger startups typically don't have as much planning done and usually pull through with funding by the skin of their teeth.
This doesn't mean that the budding entrepreuner should just rule out creating a startup altogether, but replace "startup" with business when talking about it. Take away the sexiness of it and focus on the core goals. What will your product be? How will you make money? Is there a market for it? If not, can you create a market for it easily? What sort of funding sources do you have available? What's the estimated profit margin on your product? Take away 50% on that estimation for random costs and can you still survive?
This is just the start of the things that the younger companies tend to not really cover, but the older more experienced people have down pat. It's understandable that someone without experience isn't going to be as good at judging a lot of these things. In that case, I recommend hiring a consultant to do some of the work for you. Personally I do starter business analysis like this for $500 - $2000 but you may find cheaper consultants elsewhere.
Whatever you do, make sure you have at least some idea of a plan and some concept of how much money you're going to be making. If you're dealing with a market that's traditionally low volume you need considerable markup. Don't fall into the trap of "we're unique and gonna change the industry!". It's not that you can't change the industry, it's just that every business has basics that are absolutely required to succeed and if you forego them then you're just leading yourself towards failure.
I'd say you're more inane and attention whoring than juvenile. I've been considering foeing you because I'm tired of seeing your crap on my friend of a friend modifier, but you're not really annoying enough for me to do so. I suppose asking you to not post so much pointless crap wouldn't really affect much, would it?
Having never seen a Uwe Boll movie, can someone tell me what's so bad about him? He's got some serious hate going on on the internet, and I'm just a bit curious as to why?
Well, I think what you're really arguing for isn't so much the removal of intellectual monopoly but for mandatory licensing fees. In my opinion something like this would actually be great. If you could print your own version of the Da Vinci Code, or Britney Spears, or whatever media for a certain compulsory fee to the content creator they'd be rewarded for their work and there could be distribution competition.
If Google wants to create a completely free set of music that's totally Ad Supported with the compulsory fees soaked up by them then they'd be able to do so. Google Books would be a viable business model if monetized properly. Currently you have to get permission from every single vendor which really just makes this sort of thing inane and creates too high of a barrier of entry.
Too bad this post is probably coming a few hours too late for anyone to really read it. I hate Slashdot for that sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, my argument would be that a boss that would make such a decision probably wouldn't be worth working for long term. It's my job as a boss to see that work gets done efficiently and that quality standards are met. It's my job to organize people, make sure appropriate information is routed to the right people, and that internal politics are removed from the work environment for my core producers so they can do what they do best.
It's not my job to exert my authority and make snap firing decisions of key (or even minor) resources over a debate. Doing so is harmful to the company and does no good other than to bolster my own ego. It's exactly the problem with employers in the US today. They think because they write a check they own you. Short term this probably works, especially in a financial crisis, but long term I'm not convinced it makes for a strong company or an empowered employee.
So let me get this straight:
You were fired for having a dissenting opinion, and then you gladly accepted to be rehired once your boss came to his senses? Do you really want to work with someone who would fire you over a technical debate?
Most of the people on my team debate with me about the odds and ends of all sorts of technologies. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. I'd never fire someone for disagreeing over terminology. That just seems like it'd lead to me never getting the advice I really need when I really need it due to employee fear.
Twitter.
Do you really believe that Bing will be any different once it can drive targeted traffic? Shady internet sites are here to stay, sadly. They're the late night infomercial of the Internet. You can thank Clickbank.com for that.
I think you may misunderstand the Peter Principle, to some degree. At least to the degree that I've seen it implemented. The Peter Principle says that people are promoted to the level of their incompetence. This means as long as you're competent, you are continually promoted until suddenly you are no longer competent or can maintain a "baseline". Most organizations aren't run by complete idiots, if they were they wouldn't be multi-billion dollar enterprises.
That said, once someone gets promoted into a job that's over their head it's still pretty rare that they get demoted. They may be laid off, and then they leave to look for another job at another company having the credentials of being in that position. This is the Peter Principle at work. It has nothing to do with scum rising to the top, just with incapable people being allowed to stand in place once they're no longer running.
that the salary offered was intentionally low? Maybe, just maybe, they're looking for people willing to serve their country regardless of wages. $33,000/year to start is horribly low for a degreed job, I'll agree. That said, it is a livable wage especially if you love what you're doing and you make liberal use of the office cafeteria for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Long hours worked, sure, but I think that's par for the course at that place.
You should consider contracting for a while. Drop me a line if you need any help getting started.
Innovation
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device
The fact that you don't find it interesting, or you can think of vaguely similar concepts in unrelated mediums does not discount this idea and implementation from being innovative. Shaking the phone is relatively innovative and the whole package is somewhat interesting.
That said, the device itself seems unlikely to really solve his problem of making cell phones easier to use without looking at them. I get the feeling that the system he's got outlined will take a lot of time to get used to and still require the occasional glance at the phone. In any case it's liable to require more thought processing than just looking at the phone and the disrupted concentration is one of the main points against cellphone use whilst driving.
What you're referring to is known as the "Overjustification Effect". Essentially, when you offer a reward or payment for something that a person was originally willing to do for free, you shift their motivations completely.
Rather than sticking with the intrinsic reasons such as providing knowledge for the good of mankind, making sure everything is up to date and correct, or imparting wisdom upon their "lessers", you've now forced them to focus their motivations on the extrinsic reason which is the reward. This has two very fatal flaws:
1) Quality - Laugh if you will, but there are reputable people still contributing to Wikipedia. Doctors, Lawyers, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. These people are highly paid within their field and donating time because they find it interesting or noble. Start offering them money and it'll just be a pathetically miniscule sum compared to their salaries and likely turn them off from the whole deal.
2) Quantity - If you think NPOV is bad enough as it is, just wait until Wikipedia actually has to PAY for each article addition. Suddenly every single article choice will be scrutinized. "What's this 'Naruto', why would anyone care about it?" This sort of scrutinization and heavy handed interference is likely to kill off plenty of good articles before they even get started and the obscure wealth of articles on Wikipedia are what make it valuable.
tl;dr: OP is right.
Honestly, I think you're spot on. Occam's Razor is often used in current debate to negate ignorance and allow people to apply situational considerations with their current datasets rather than researching other possibilities. It is at best a tool for forming a disprovable hypothesis.
;).
Unfortunately, it's often used as a tool for forming a finished assumption about a situation. I think the world of debate would be far more enlightening without muddying the waters with Occam's Razor. The real problem I see with Occam's Razor is how a relatively large majority (as per my own internally biased dataset) of people use it to prove or disprove a particular situation or idea.
I just want to take the time to thank Fantastic Lad for the enlightening post as I hadn't considered my own distaste with Occam's Razor until he brought it up. Thank you Fantastic Lad, please keep posting
-Josh
Always been curious, why do you think Booth was a patriot?
Well then it's a good thing Brain Workshop lets you extend it as far back as you want. One of the major challenges on the forums seems to be reaching dual9back matching both positions and letters/sounds. You can also choose morse code or specific piano keys for your sounds if you want an even more cerebral experience.
Taxes. Canadian Business Taxes are really pretty bad. Don't think that Microsoft and Google haven't already crunched the numbers. In all likelihood the cooling and electricity savings are outweighed by increased regulation and taxation.
Drop me a line and let's discuss this idea in more detail. I'd be down for helping, and I may have the resources to get it out there in front of the actual kids.
Who will pay his legal fees?!
Well said. There's far too many in this community that would rather bitch and moan than help or provide support.
Hey, this is awesome. Do you consent to your list being used and expanded for a blog entry? Even if not, thanks a lot for compiling it.
I'm guessing the majority of the industry in Texas will just move to reformat, reinstall. In most cases users don't care about it anyway.
Do you believe lied to and mislead by the recruiter is "willingly"? I checked with a Navy recruiter some years back and was lied to on several occasions in regards to internet access, how jobs are selected, whether you had a choice between land/ship assignments and a few other things. A friend of mine recently joined the Navy and cleared all of this up for me as far as what he's learned inside. There is a slight chance that the rules have changed since then, but I'm personally rather doubtful. Recruiters will lie through their teeth to try to get you to join.
You also can't bitch when said website users cut off your access to their site based on leeching content without paying. I understand you don't want to see obtrusive (or in this case extremely resource heavy) ads. However, you must keep in mind that the reason such content is free is because the ads are seen by people and that their funding helps bootstrap the site and keep it alive.
In a lot of cases with smaller to medium sized websites the ads are what are keeping the site alive. When the adblockers is limited to just zealot nerds who have a hatred to sales there's little impact. When it passes on to our friends, family and all sorts of other people it's going to lead to new models to keep content running that you may not like.
Product Placement, Affiliate Marketing, AdBlockBlocking, or just decent but small sources of content shutting down altogether. Is this really what you want?
You also can't bitch when said website users cut off your access to their site based on leeching content without paying. I understand you don't want to see obtrusive (or in this case extremely resource heavy) ads. However, you must keep in mind that the reason such content is free is because the ads are seen by people and that their funding helps bootstrap the site and keep it alive. In a lot of cases with smaller to medium sized websites the ads are what are keeping the site alive. When the adblockers is limited to just zealot nerds who have a hatred to sales there's little impact. When it passes on to our friends, family and all sorts of other people it's going to lead to new models to keep content running that you may not like. Product Placement, Affiliate Marketing, AdBlockBlocking, or just decent but small sources of content shutting down altogether. Is this really what you want?
I'd agree with this, definitely. In my consulting business the majority of my clients are startups, but they're also older people. People in their 30s or 40s and sometimes even 60s who are looking to create a business, have a sound idea, very well designed business plan, and considerable investment ready. In my experience, the younger startups typically don't have as much planning done and usually pull through with funding by the skin of their teeth.
This doesn't mean that the budding entrepreuner should just rule out creating a startup altogether, but replace "startup" with business when talking about it. Take away the sexiness of it and focus on the core goals. What will your product be? How will you make money? Is there a market for it? If not, can you create a market for it easily? What sort of funding sources do you have available? What's the estimated profit margin on your product? Take away 50% on that estimation for random costs and can you still survive?
This is just the start of the things that the younger companies tend to not really cover, but the older more experienced people have down pat. It's understandable that someone without experience isn't going to be as good at judging a lot of these things. In that case, I recommend hiring a consultant to do some of the work for you. Personally I do starter business analysis like this for $500 - $2000 but you may find cheaper consultants elsewhere.
Whatever you do, make sure you have at least some idea of a plan and some concept of how much money you're going to be making. If you're dealing with a market that's traditionally low volume you need considerable markup. Don't fall into the trap of "we're unique and gonna change the industry!". It's not that you can't change the industry, it's just that every business has basics that are absolutely required to succeed and if you forego them then you're just leading yourself towards failure.
I'd say you're more inane and attention whoring than juvenile. I've been considering foeing you because I'm tired of seeing your crap on my friend of a friend modifier, but you're not really annoying enough for me to do so. I suppose asking you to not post so much pointless crap wouldn't really affect much, would it?
Having never seen a Uwe Boll movie, can someone tell me what's so bad about him? He's got some serious hate going on on the internet, and I'm just a bit curious as to why?
Well, I think what you're really arguing for isn't so much the removal of intellectual monopoly but for mandatory licensing fees. In my opinion something like this would actually be great. If you could print your own version of the Da Vinci Code, or Britney Spears, or whatever media for a certain compulsory fee to the content creator they'd be rewarded for their work and there could be distribution competition. If Google wants to create a completely free set of music that's totally Ad Supported with the compulsory fees soaked up by them then they'd be able to do so. Google Books would be a viable business model if monetized properly. Currently you have to get permission from every single vendor which really just makes this sort of thing inane and creates too high of a barrier of entry. Too bad this post is probably coming a few hours too late for anyone to really read it. I hate Slashdot for that sometimes.