Reading TFA (am I unwell?) then this appears really pretty differently. Hexus gave a system a thumbs down review, mostly on price and then solicited the marketing guy for another test system a bit later. He writes back and says that "executives" in the States had instructed him not to send any more kit to them and that in any event it should be pretty logical that they don't want to send the same test rig back for more of the same. Nothing else. The email is very short.
Then 'Head of Communication' for Hexus whales in and completely goes off on one and says that the marketing guy is a "moron" and that his email is purile (hello pot calling kettle, over??). He has put 2 and 2 together and made 22 and completely goes off the deep end. Its not even the marketing guy who has said that he is unwilling to send kit - he has been directly instructed by his bosses!
The marketing guy then goes back in what is clearly a private email (it even says it on the Alienware email disclaimer) which offers an apology if his email sent the Hexus bloke off on one and in a conversational way suggests they all calm down.
Next thing Hexus has published this seriously up itself moralistic mighty-pen-of-freedom piece now they have clearly worked themself up into an almighty tizz. I don't have any problem with someone writing a robust defense of editorial freedom (and it is something that all writers get worked up about) but if you read the blokes emails without the 3 pages of sermonising first its obvious Hexus got themselves in a state about the *idea* that they were being threatened but which is a massive over extension to an email which is "sorry my bosses says I can't send you any more kit" - a message he obviously had to impart somehow otherwise they'd be saying "why don't Alienware send us any systems anymore". The Hexus review uses words like 'corrupt' and 'illegal' and comes across like some hysterical internet rant. Its pretty clear they have libelled the guy and also breached copyright in publishing the emails. But most of all they've made themselves look pretty bloody silly. If that Head of Communications worked for any kind of serious commercial publication he would be sacked not the bloke following orders from his bosses.
I'm sorry, this is an outrageously flimsy proposition - that if a communication or interaction channel was in existence that "we would see it. Or at least some artifacts of "it"." For heaven's sake almost all the history of the advancement of the *validation* of sciencetific theory is the discovery of empirical i.e. measureable phenomena that was not previously detected.
Your argument that nothing could exist because it hasn't been observed now flies in the face of all observed validations in proof of scientific theory or even of the wackiest ideas. By this point, you don't need reminding that the most profound revolutions in scientific thought (Copernicus / Gallileo / Newton / Darwin / Eisntein) were those which were most radical in theory and "non-observable" at that time right and ridiculed for that reason? Only later were people able to observe the motions of the planets, the fundamental laws of physics and we're still mounting experiments to validate relativity with all its possible limitations and contradictions but nevertheless validated on, for instance, the relativity of time by orbiting atomic time pieces.
Who knows if this idea above has validity. Your disproof of "not observed therefore not valid" does not. What you actually argue is that there would be some observable phenomena. What you fail to acknowledge is that we might not be at the point where we are capable of validating it. History has you pretty stone cold on that one.
No doubt there's a motion sensor next to the 42 inch plasma that'll plot my course as I enter the house. If so I expect it'll be followed by a pissed off female voice...
"Drunk again I see....."
If she refuses me sex thereafter I think its time she won the Turing prize as well......
Actually I think the parent is right, in a modern usage. The franchise of a firm means its reputation in the eyes of its customers so the sorts of corporate lunatics who can be heard to use words like "leverage" and "synergize" in cold blood will also yell "protect the franchise" i.e. don't do anything to cock up our reputation. Therefore to be disenfranchised with a company is to have gotten a contempt for the way the business is conducting itself and therefore to view its reputation dimly.
In such a situation you are of course also disenchanted. So both are right and we all win. Pass the peace pipe charged with whatever Steve Jobs is smoking shortly before he gives one of those charge-all-around-the-stage-like-a-wilderbeast-wit h-a-tazer-on-its-balls speeches.
"I see the problem as having a great number of people who lack the ability to articulately communicate an idea. but I don't think that is anyway limited to this generation."
No I know you've hurt your left hand, but that didn't make you split the infinitive did it? It's "to communicate articulately" not "to articulately communicate". Hey Shat boldly went but if you're going to lecture people on usage of language and grammar it's de rigeur to get this shit right huh:)
"What people need to know is what part of the computer does what type of job and how to at least say where the problem is."
I drive my car every day (in fact 30,000 miles a year) but I know absolutely f$!% all about mechanical engineering. I use a microwave every day but I've no idea how them microwaves are generated or why they stopped when they stopped. The user-engineer is, unsurprisingly, a popular way of thinking for a slashdotee, but think about it - do you really believe the future (or even the correct present) of computing is dependent on people who can diagnose their own problems down to a particular part fault? It's not because joe-consumer doesn't work that way in any part of their life. The real surprise is just how long it's taking to get past this point.
First step is to distinguish between function and personnel. Everyone always wants to get paid more and the vast majority wouldn't mind a more senior job. First off decide with the CIO what structure you want in place and what functions you want present. Then fill it with bodies. Function = bodies. Preffered bodies does NOT = function. Sounds simple but is often ignored to the detriment of business.
Once the structure is envisaged, make sure that you communicate the structure as you see it. To the workforce state the obvious - that the structure of all businesses is pyramidical in terms of seniority. There are loads of "doers" at the base of the pyramid and then it narrows sharply to supervisors, managers, senior managers and the ultimate boss.
So, tritely, first step is to formally take on board that advancement and promotion is only for the best and into a narrowing structure. You decide the positions first then fill them with the right people. You do not f$!k around the structure because of individuals. Learn this lesson.
Step two is to create a promotion / advancement statement that i) explains the discriminating nature of promotion from the more common ranks and ii) clearly establishes the criteria for performance that will merit promotion. Create an annual evaluation process that encompasses a "360" senior / peer / junior anonymous evaluation process. Employee nominates up to 10 people from a mix of seniorities and their boss moderates it to weed out friends / include vital constituents. All evaluatees submit up to 3 strengths for the reviewee and up to 3 development points in text format on an anonymous basis to the boss. Boss synthesises the nearly-objective feedback and gives it to the evaluatee in a one on one session. We do this in our company. I cannot tell you just how effective it is in helping people develop careers and particularly catching out and preventing the "little hitlers" / "chicken shit" personnel you get at most places. This is a GENIUS process in terms of effect even tho it takes a fair bit of time.
Next commit to extraordinary training budgets and interesting courses. You want to make your place interesting and stimulating. Make it so! Give people a reason to say "the place that I work at rocks because....."
Lastly reward managers for good personnel handling skills. Detrimentally impact their remuneration if they are poor managers (see the feedback suggestion). Drive people to be good at developing your human capital and make it a key and known part of their remuneration. It's amazing what people will do once given the carrot and stick.....
I went to a City (think "The Street" but for the UK financial services industry) information security session with the head honcho for the government e-Office (try and hang on to your cookies and not hurl them over your keyboard but obviously you get the nature of the job).
The bloke was pretty savvy and the government obviously pay an enormous amount of attention to safeguarding the UK's financial institutions so the talk was professional and properly pitched. Anyway, after a couple of references to PGP during the presentation over coffee out of ear-shot I said to the bloke "come on seriously - are you really telling me PGP's still a problem?" to which he stirred his coffee and said "fair enough no not PGP that's all done but the points the same for what's coming next". So anyway, probably not news to any crypto-hounds but if the Feds know you're using PGP then the Feds know what you're saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading TFA (am I unwell?) then this appears really pretty differently. Hexus gave a system a thumbs down review, mostly on price and then solicited the marketing guy for another test system a bit later. He writes back and says that "executives" in the States had instructed him not to send any more kit to them and that in any event it should be pretty logical that they don't want to send the same test rig back for more of the same. Nothing else. The email is very short. Then 'Head of Communication' for Hexus whales in and completely goes off on one and says that the marketing guy is a "moron" and that his email is purile (hello pot calling kettle, over??). He has put 2 and 2 together and made 22 and completely goes off the deep end. Its not even the marketing guy who has said that he is unwilling to send kit - he has been directly instructed by his bosses! The marketing guy then goes back in what is clearly a private email (it even says it on the Alienware email disclaimer) which offers an apology if his email sent the Hexus bloke off on one and in a conversational way suggests they all calm down. Next thing Hexus has published this seriously up itself moralistic mighty-pen-of-freedom piece now they have clearly worked themself up into an almighty tizz. I don't have any problem with someone writing a robust defense of editorial freedom (and it is something that all writers get worked up about) but if you read the blokes emails without the 3 pages of sermonising first its obvious Hexus got themselves in a state about the *idea* that they were being threatened but which is a massive over extension to an email which is "sorry my bosses says I can't send you any more kit" - a message he obviously had to impart somehow otherwise they'd be saying "why don't Alienware send us any systems anymore". The Hexus review uses words like 'corrupt' and 'illegal' and comes across like some hysterical internet rant. Its pretty clear they have libelled the guy and also breached copyright in publishing the emails. But most of all they've made themselves look pretty bloody silly. If that Head of Communications worked for any kind of serious commercial publication he would be sacked not the bloke following orders from his bosses.
I'm sorry, this is an outrageously flimsy proposition - that if a communication or interaction channel was in existence that "we would see it. Or at least some artifacts of "it"." For heaven's sake almost all the history of the advancement of the *validation* of sciencetific theory is the discovery of empirical i.e. measureable phenomena that was not previously detected. Your argument that nothing could exist because it hasn't been observed now flies in the face of all observed validations in proof of scientific theory or even of the wackiest ideas. By this point, you don't need reminding that the most profound revolutions in scientific thought (Copernicus / Gallileo / Newton / Darwin / Eisntein) were those which were most radical in theory and "non-observable" at that time right and ridiculed for that reason? Only later were people able to observe the motions of the planets, the fundamental laws of physics and we're still mounting experiments to validate relativity with all its possible limitations and contradictions but nevertheless validated on, for instance, the relativity of time by orbiting atomic time pieces. Who knows if this idea above has validity. Your disproof of "not observed therefore not valid" does not. What you actually argue is that there would be some observable phenomena. What you fail to acknowledge is that we might not be at the point where we are capable of validating it. History has you pretty stone cold on that one.
In other news, the mission will be sponsered by Magic Knickers with the slogan "Feel inspired to miniaturize Uranus".....
So you should do. You're only a year off 50.....
No doubt there's a motion sensor next to the 42 inch plasma that'll plot my course as I enter the house. If so I expect it'll be followed by a pissed off female voice... "Drunk again I see....." If she refuses me sex thereafter I think its time she won the Turing prize as well......
Actually I think the parent is right, in a modern usage. The franchise of a firm means its reputation in the eyes of its customers so the sorts of corporate lunatics who can be heard to use words like "leverage" and "synergize" in cold blood will also yell "protect the franchise" i.e. don't do anything to cock up our reputation. Therefore to be disenfranchised with a company is to have gotten a contempt for the way the business is conducting itself and therefore to view its reputation dimly.
t h-a-tazer-on-its-balls speeches.
In such a situation you are of course also disenchanted. So both are right and we all win. Pass the peace pipe charged with whatever Steve Jobs is smoking shortly before he gives one of those charge-all-around-the-stage-like-a-wilderbeast-wi
Am
"I see the problem as having a great number of people who lack the ability to articulately communicate an idea. but I don't think that is anyway limited to this generation." No I know you've hurt your left hand, but that didn't make you split the infinitive did it? It's "to communicate articulately" not "to articulately communicate". Hey Shat boldly went but if you're going to lecture people on usage of language and grammar it's de rigeur to get this shit right huh :)
Mod this comment up! It doesn't have to be correct but it's analogy is entirely accurate so it deserves a lot more credit.....
I drive my car every day (in fact 30,000 miles a year) but I know absolutely f$!% all about mechanical engineering. I use a microwave every day but I've no idea how them microwaves are generated or why they stopped when they stopped. The user-engineer is, unsurprisingly, a popular way of thinking for a slashdotee, but think about it - do you really believe the future (or even the correct present) of computing is dependent on people who can diagnose their own problems down to a particular part fault? It's not because joe-consumer doesn't work that way in any part of their life. The real surprise is just how long it's taking to get past this point.
First step is to distinguish between function and personnel. Everyone always wants to get paid more and the vast majority wouldn't mind a more senior job. First off decide with the CIO what structure you want in place and what functions you want present. Then fill it with bodies. Function = bodies. Preffered bodies does NOT = function. Sounds simple but is often ignored to the detriment of business. Once the structure is envisaged, make sure that you communicate the structure as you see it. To the workforce state the obvious - that the structure of all businesses is pyramidical in terms of seniority. There are loads of "doers" at the base of the pyramid and then it narrows sharply to supervisors, managers, senior managers and the ultimate boss. So, tritely, first step is to formally take on board that advancement and promotion is only for the best and into a narrowing structure. You decide the positions first then fill them with the right people. You do not f$!k around the structure because of individuals. Learn this lesson. Step two is to create a promotion / advancement statement that i) explains the discriminating nature of promotion from the more common ranks and ii) clearly establishes the criteria for performance that will merit promotion. Create an annual evaluation process that encompasses a "360" senior / peer / junior anonymous evaluation process. Employee nominates up to 10 people from a mix of seniorities and their boss moderates it to weed out friends / include vital constituents. All evaluatees submit up to 3 strengths for the reviewee and up to 3 development points in text format on an anonymous basis to the boss. Boss synthesises the nearly-objective feedback and gives it to the evaluatee in a one on one session. We do this in our company. I cannot tell you just how effective it is in helping people develop careers and particularly catching out and preventing the "little hitlers" / "chicken shit" personnel you get at most places. This is a GENIUS process in terms of effect even tho it takes a fair bit of time. Next commit to extraordinary training budgets and interesting courses. You want to make your place interesting and stimulating. Make it so! Give people a reason to say "the place that I work at rocks because....." Lastly reward managers for good personnel handling skills. Detrimentally impact their remuneration if they are poor managers (see the feedback suggestion). Drive people to be good at developing your human capital and make it a key and known part of their remuneration. It's amazing what people will do once given the carrot and stick.....
I went to a City (think "The Street" but for the UK financial services industry) information security session with the head honcho for the government e-Office (try and hang on to your cookies and not hurl them over your keyboard but obviously you get the nature of the job). The bloke was pretty savvy and the government obviously pay an enormous amount of attention to safeguarding the UK's financial institutions so the talk was professional and properly pitched. Anyway, after a couple of references to PGP during the presentation over coffee out of ear-shot I said to the bloke "come on seriously - are you really telling me PGP's still a problem?" to which he stirred his coffee and said "fair enough no not PGP that's all done but the points the same for what's coming next". So anyway, probably not news to any crypto-hounds but if the Feds know you're using PGP then the Feds know what you're saying.