Correct. Good management should replace bad techies long before the project fails. They rarely do, however, especially in big companies and government.
As a manager, I agree with the first part but disagree with the second.
It is indeed a failure of management when the IT project fails. However, it's usually because management has lost sight of what the original objective was and/or was unable to commmunicate it to the people doing the work.
The problem with these attitudes is that does not work. You cannot control people and expect efficiency.
Um, sorry, but no. The truth is exactly the opposite of what you claim. Accountability, at all levels of an organization, inevitably leads to higher efficiency and increased productivity. I've seen it with mine own eyes over and over again.
Another note: In both of your fictional cases, you assume that the driver is getting measured based on time spent working - that would be the wrong approach IMO - the "right" approach would be to measure the individual based on packages delivered, or time to deliver - in this case the GPS means nothing to management other than insuring that a) the driver isn't lost, and b)the good name of UPS isn't parked outside the local strip joint.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with your last point - humans are not robots, and there are often other circumstances - but that should not preclude giving managers the tools to they need to manage.
No. Providing low prices is not a public good, if by doing so they damage most of the customers (and nation) they ostensibly serve.
There's lots of stuff I could probably comment about in your post, but I think this is the most representative about your perspective.
If Wal-Mart had high-prices, you'd probably complain that they serve only the elite by oppressing the working class. Wal-Mart provides pretty good quality items at reasonable prices. That's not a bad thing. People living at the lower income levels can afford to purchase merchandise that makes their lives better. You seem to suggest more people are hurt by this than benefit - I disagree. With respect to China - working conditions there have always been harsh, and yet now, because of western capitalist commerce, the standard of living in China is rising dramatically. Is that bad too?
Suppose I have never paid a bill in my life due to bad choices, bad luck, or god-knows-what. Suppose you have have always paid your bills due to a rich family or perhaps by slogging through college and working hard. Suppose we are hit by the same car, have the same severe injuries, and are brought to the same hospital. Because of the high cost of malpractice insurance, there is only one doctor on duty. Who should he help first? Is helping the greater good helping you, who has contributed the most to society thru taxes, consuming services, etc? Or helping me, someone who consumes far more of societal resources and in fact, infringes upon the "greater good"?
Your second point (re: MS) is a classic fallacy... Oh great, I've always loved the classics. I hate all the neo-fallacy stuff you see everywheres these days.
Ahem. My point, generally, was just to express that corporations provide jobs, goods, and services, so they do serve the public interest. What is less clear is "which public" they serve.
With respect to the mass media: they provide entertainment for the masses and leave it up to the masses to decide if they wish to pay for it by purchasing products from their sponsors. This is about as public-friendly of a business model as can be constructed without giving it away for free. We can argue quality all day, but look at ratings of the public TV stations versus commericial ones. As I said in my original post - people vote with their dollars.
"The market will police itself" has a lot of classic problems. As does poorly conceived tax incentives, regulations and bureaucratic (sp?) tampering (see patent law for example).
What does that mean exactly? People trash Wal-Mart all the time because they sell non-American-made stuff and extort their suppliers, but they provide generally good merchandise at cheap prices. So do they serve the public good or not?
Microsoft has helped lure many a non-techie into the tech world, stoking broad markets that many software engineers and support people make their living on. Do they serve the public good?
And what about radio/TV? People (At least those without Tivo) complain about commercials and the corporations that sponsor them, but by and large, you have enjoyed years of essentially cheap/free entertainment. Isn't that in the public interest?
So what do you define as doing things for the public good? As far as I'm concerned, people vote every day with their dollars. They can use that vote more effectively than voting for any politician.
I would be looking at smaller companies and offering what you have to them. Most cannot afford security consultants and would probably welcome your expertise perhaps on a intern or consultant basis. The other obvious option is to talk to those companies that build security software for a living.
Well, try the Acela train service between DC and NY sometime. I listened to this guy in front of me lead a staff meeting via conference call for well over an hour. Other times I think some people call up everybody that they know so they won't get bored.
Fortunately, Amtrak has "quiet cars" where, if you're lucky enough to get a seat in that car, you don't have to listen to it. I doubt that idea will be work on the airlines though.
someone who is searching for geico website is obviously looking for geico and not likely to click on advertisements
I'm not sure I agree. I know some of our lesser-known competitors use my company's registered trademarks to get leads. The idea is that they make themselves known (by the value of our good name) to customers who may not have considered them before. In our case, I DON'T CARE CAUSE WE'LL CRUSH THE PARASITIC LITTLE BASTARDS ANYWAYS, so they can go right ahead with it. I do think its unethical though.
It's a big deal because you presume that ACS "owns" the term "scholar" when applied to a literature search service. ACS's term, I believe, is actually "SciScholar" and it's a desktop (vs web-based tool). IMO, that is plenty of difference to invalidate legal action.
What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hurt consumers (as well as legitimate, honest businesses).
From the ACS lawyer:..."But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."
Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.
These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace or "loss of goodwill".
Yes, but you don't understand, it's okay to applaud stupid patents as long as we're using them against big evil corporations. In that case, the patent isn't stupid, it's justifiable payback. in fact, as a general rule, it's okay to steal from somebody as long as we think they've wronged us somehow.
imagine the hilarity of passing gas to your buddy who's on an interview or maybe on a date - or perhaps the smell of really offensive B.O...Imagine the possibilities!
Great Britain has banned all references to the "United States" and insists that any software produced in "the colonies" or elsewhere reflect this view.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Good management should replace bad techies long before the project fails. They rarely do, however, especially in big companies and government.
As a manager, I agree with the first part but disagree with the second. It is indeed a failure of management when the IT project fails. However, it's usually because management has lost sight of what the original objective was and/or was unable to commmunicate it to the people doing the work.
Doesn't everybody?
This was interesting story....
about p2p, but after ITunes came on the scene, I'd just rather pay my $.99/song and not have to screwaround with crappy adware or god-knows-what-else.
The problem with these attitudes is that does not work. You cannot control people and expect efficiency.
Um, sorry, but no. The truth is exactly the opposite of what you claim. Accountability, at all levels of an organization, inevitably leads to higher efficiency and increased productivity. I've seen it with mine own eyes over and over again.
Another note: In both of your fictional cases, you assume that the driver is getting measured based on time spent working - that would be the wrong approach IMO - the "right" approach would be to measure the individual based on packages delivered, or time to deliver - in this case the GPS means nothing to management other than insuring that a) the driver isn't lost, and b)the good name of UPS isn't parked outside the local strip joint.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with your last point - humans are not robots, and there are often other circumstances - but that should not preclude giving managers the tools to they need to manage.
Probably none. Most employment agreements give the employer IP rights to things employees are paid to develop.
No apologies necessary. I get annoyed when people put words in my mouth or otherwise classify me, so I'm sorry that I did it to you.
:-)
I'm too tired to respond to your specific arguments now tho
No. Providing low prices is not a public good, if by doing so they damage most of the customers (and nation) they ostensibly serve.
There's lots of stuff I could probably comment about in your post, but I think this is the most representative about your perspective.
If Wal-Mart had high-prices, you'd probably complain that they serve only the elite by oppressing the working class. Wal-Mart provides pretty good quality items at reasonable prices. That's not a bad thing. People living at the lower income levels can afford to purchase merchandise that makes their lives better. You seem to suggest more people are hurt by this than benefit - I disagree. With respect to China - working conditions there have always been harsh, and yet now, because of western capitalist commerce, the standard of living in China is rising dramatically. Is that bad too?
Suppose I have never paid a bill in my life due to bad choices, bad luck, or god-knows-what. Suppose you have have always paid your bills due to a rich family or perhaps by slogging through college and working hard. Suppose we are hit by the same car, have the same severe injuries, and are brought to the same hospital. Because of the high cost of malpractice insurance, there is only one doctor on duty. Who should he help first? Is helping the greater good helping you, who has contributed the most to society thru taxes, consuming services, etc? Or helping me, someone who consumes far more of societal resources and in fact, infringes upon the "greater good"?
Your second point (re: MS) is a classic fallacy... Oh great, I've always loved the classics. I hate all the neo-fallacy stuff you see everywheres these days.
Ahem. My point, generally, was just to express that corporations provide jobs, goods, and services, so they do serve the public interest. What is less clear is "which public" they serve.
With respect to the mass media: they provide entertainment for the masses and leave it up to the masses to decide if they wish to pay for it by purchasing products from their sponsors. This is about as public-friendly of a business model as can be constructed without giving it away for free. We can argue quality all day, but look at ratings of the public TV stations versus commericial ones. As I said in my original post - people vote with their dollars.
"The market will police itself" has a lot of classic problems. As does poorly conceived tax incentives, regulations and bureaucratic (sp?) tampering (see patent law for example).
without regard of the greater public good.
What does that mean exactly? People trash Wal-Mart all the time because they sell non-American-made stuff and extort their suppliers, but they provide generally good merchandise at cheap prices. So do they serve the public good or not?
Microsoft has helped lure many a non-techie into the tech world, stoking broad markets that many software engineers and support people make their living on. Do they serve the public good?
And what about radio/TV? People (At least those without Tivo) complain about commercials and the corporations that sponsor them, but by and large, you have enjoyed years of essentially cheap/free entertainment. Isn't that in the public interest?
So what do you define as doing things for the public good? As far as I'm concerned, people vote every day with their dollars. They can use that vote more effectively than voting for any politician.
I would be looking at smaller companies and offering what you have to them. Most cannot afford security consultants and would probably welcome your expertise perhaps on a intern or consultant basis. The other obvious option is to talk to those companies that build security software for a living.
.02
My
Is there something else we're supposed to be doing?
I'll get Condi to read it to me (hmn, maybe I've said too much)
Well, try the Acela train service between DC and NY sometime. I listened to this guy in front of me lead a staff meeting via conference call for well over an hour. Other times I think some people call up everybody that they know so they won't get bored.
Fortunately, Amtrak has "quiet cars" where, if you're lucky enough to get a seat in that car, you don't have to listen to it. I doubt that idea will be work on the airlines though.
someone who is searching for geico website is obviously looking for geico and not likely to click on advertisements
I'm not sure I agree. I know some of our lesser-known competitors use my company's registered trademarks to get leads. The idea is that they make themselves known (by the value of our good name) to customers who may not have considered them before. In our case, I DON'T CARE CAUSE WE'LL CRUSH THE PARASITIC LITTLE BASTARDS ANYWAYS, so they can go right ahead with it. I do think its unethical though.
hahahahahahaha. I kill me.
It's a big deal because you presume that ACS "owns" the term "scholar" when applied to a literature search service. ACS's term, I believe, is actually "SciScholar" and it's a desktop (vs web-based tool). IMO, that is plenty of difference to invalidate legal action.
What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hurt consumers (as well as legitimate, honest businesses).
From the ACS lawyer: ..."But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."
Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.
These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace or "loss of goodwill".
Yes, but you don't understand, it's okay to applaud stupid patents as long as we're using them against big evil corporations. In that case, the patent isn't stupid, it's justifiable payback. in fact, as a general rule, it's okay to steal from somebody as long as we think they've wronged us somehow.
Please put the tab into the buckle, and pull snug across your waist. Your seat may be used as a flotation device. No smoking in the lavatory.
they could call it a "fartberry" hahahahahahahahahahaaha!
imagine the hilarity of passing gas to your buddy who's on an interview or maybe on a date - or perhaps the smell of really offensive B.O...Imagine the possibilities!
Great Britain has banned all references to the "United States" and insists that any software produced in "the colonies" or elsewhere reflect this view.
...there needs to be a campaign to identify and discredit the advertisers who use it. If there is no money, there is no malware.