All managers have to make decisions based on limited information. They have neither the time nor luxury of weighing all data. It's their business to make a decision when the decision needs to be made, not when all data analysis has been finished.
Good manager know what to look for and what to discard. That may include the expertise of their people, but every case is different and just because one manager they admire once went against the expertise of the experts he employs and was right doesn't mean doing so is always a good idea. Good managers know when to listen and when to smile and ignore you.
Bad managers don't really understand what they're doing and are either winging it, or run the show by some mostly bullshit management principles. They listen always or never, they include too much and/or the wrong information in their decision-making, and they make the wrong decisions and then find someone to blame for it.
The important expertise of a manager is not technical. It's how to make decisions. Technical knowledge helps, but it's not the whole story.
How about demoting the incompetent boss and the fuckwit who promoted them that one step too far together?
You can only discourage risk-taking to a certain extend before your machine comes to a stop because nobody dares to move anymore.
Promoting people to management positions who have no management experience is always a risky move. Sometimes they turn out to be brilliant, sometimes not. But it's almost impossible to find out beforehand, so you just have to take the risk. The problem is that due to pay scales and perception, it's largely a one-way street and that's a huge problem.
It helps to work in an environment where there are no formalized payscales that are affected by the mgmt/IC choice
This is probably the biggest contributor. Largely, for completely irrational reasons, management is he higher-paying job and that's why people want to be there, even if it's not for them.
It's also the reason you end up not just with the incompetent, but also with the even worse: The purely ambition driven eat-my-dust assholes who'll gladly sacrifice your happiness, career, success and first born son if it helps them score the next raise or the next step up their personal career ladder.
Well, it certainly wasn't Reagan, who famously called the Soviet Union "evil empire" and was one of the last western leaders to acknowledge that Gorbatschov was indeed changing things. Reagan had a dialogue with Gorbachov, but opened? You got any evidence for that claim?
In particular, even though the official American narrative is that Ronald Reagan personally tore it down with his death-ray eyes
Interestingly, here in Germany the narrative is pretty much that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall whatsoever. The politician we consider to have had the most influence on events is Gorbatschov. Who, meanwhile, my russian friends think was weak and didn't have much influence...
it was developed purely as a way to ensure that publicly traded corporations weren't reporting fictional financial statements
Frankly speaking, I always thought SOX was developed as a way to ensure IT consulting companies had a continuous source of income.
The whole thing is basically one big "please interpret me however you see fit" paper, so I'm a little but not very surprised to see it applied to fish.
TFA has no clue and appears to be a 12 year old blogger who just discovered a few things about the Internet that suck.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with shaping traffic based on service and everything to do with shaping traffic based on commercial contracts, i.e. who sent it. It's not the equivalent of the mail service having 1st and 2nd class post and telegrams, but about whether or not the mail service can deliver your (same class) mail slower than mine because they like me more.
Never, because you insist on solving a problem that's not technical with technology.
Counting paper ballot votes manually is not difficult, and almost all of the civilized world does it, because they understand that adding complexity to the process does little in solving the challenges involved, but it does add a lot of potential failures.
Dispite the sensationalistic headline, he's actually spot on:
"'However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us."
True. He's not saying social media is aiding terrorists. He says that terrorists use the same tools that normal people use, too.
Bullshit. Even if you attribute malice to the system, you shouldn't attribute stupidity as well. If they just went after the first convenient suspect, cases would be blowing up in their face left, right and center and people would lose trust in the system.
Even if you assume the worst, the system has to work most of the time, because faking it at this scale is impossible. You can cover up some mistakes and some false convictions, but not if, say, half of all the cases were bullshit.
Cops will (and should) use everything they have against you if they are reasonably sure you're guilty. Their job is to bring suspects in front of a judge.
You happen to be the unlucky guy in the wrong place at the wrong time? Too bad. "We got him guys, it's all good!".
I posted statistics and links to a study done on this somewhere else. The actual false conviction rate is somewhere between 3.3 and 5%. That's considerably too high, but it is well within the margin of error of a system run with the best intentions. Your theory doesn't hold up to evidence.
And I forgot to mention that three weeks later, half the world will stop using the Internet because they can't find the cat videos they're here for anymore.
boosting the profile of copyright and trademark holders' websites.
Which means reviews, fan pages and everything else that's actually interesting about something will be pushed down in favor of the 200 landing pages the copyright owner scattered all over the 'net.
Of course, it also means the new Disney movie, successor to Cars! and Planes! will be smash hit and absolutely everyone in the world has heard about it. I'm talking about Cats!, of course.
I was stopped because I was on a bike on a sidewalk at 4 AM, (...) they found a Swiss army knife on me
You consented to the search why?
Don't mistake me defending the system for not knowing my rights and defending them. If the cops were at my door with the usual "can we come inside?" question, I'd ask "what for?", not let them in.
I completely agree that you should always check if the police is on your side or not. At the same time I realize the vast majority of cops do their job well and they do it so I can live in peace and without having to defend myself all the time.
Frankly speaking I like the GPL more, but that's a personal preference.
People who whine about it not being corporation friendly are either lying or they've never worked in a corporation. The licence management for all the commercial licenses is a much bigger hassle than the GPL, except for a few borderline case software development houses.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
20+ years of real economy show that "trickle down" doesn't work. 15+ years of micro-lending experience show that giving small loans to people to start a small business is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy.
And actually please let Richard play with his billions of dollars and live his dream because this stimulates economy
That's the most persuasive neo-conservatie lie, but it still is a lie. Those billions of dollars didn't appear out of nowhere. They would have stimulated the economy a lot more had they been spent by normal people.
The problem is that the exact kind of people who make these DIY spreadsheets and then use them for their business decisions are also the kind that don't understand the concept of a software prototype.
It's exactly the same situation in every industry,
Actually, it's not. Many luxury industries stay exactly that for very, very long periods of time, and when their products finally become available to the masses it's not because they made it happen, but because someone outside the industry figured out how to do it and disrupted the market.
And it's not an accident. One of the reasons the rich buy luxury goods is exactly because non-rich people can't afford it. It's a status symbol.
It has a properly managed release cycle. For corporate installations, that's a real bonus. You can put it on a machine and schedule the update in your calendar, because you already know when it's going to be. And between those two dates, you can largely forget about it.
Firstly, small companies can easily lure talent if what they offer is interesting and their culture is appealing. I would much rather work a 100k job that is interesting in a good company than a 120k job that's boring in a faceless corporation with MBA culture. They'd have to offer maybe 150k and even then I won't be as motivated. Lots of geeks are motivated by interest more than by money.
Secondly, yes we need to make a difference between software architects and programmers.
I don't actually need it for anything, that's probably one reason for my dislike. I just had to learn it for a project I'm involved in.
There are no actual technical arguments, because I haven't dug in that deep. But from the very beginning the fact that you can do the same simple thing in three different ways, one of them for historical reasons and one simple because shows weak language design. The fact that you need to simply know so many idiosyncrasies (like if requiring an else but failing silently if you leave it out, or that any term that's not #f always evaluates to true, unlike in basically every other programming language ever) drives me crazy and also hints and unfinished design. And finally the strange mixture of being strict but not really, like runtime type-checking on strictly typed variables, or the fact that they have defined inexact-integer as a datatype, which is just completely bollocks, just drives me crazy. Especially because while their language is anal retentive about exact and inexact, their documentation doesn't give a fuck and will tell you that, for example, you get an integer back from round, but only by knowing or experimenting you can figure out that it's an inexact integer, which you can't use to get an entry from a list because you need an exact integer for that. All put together, these and a hundred other details tell me that the people who designed this language didn't mean for it to be actually useful, they were scratching some theoretical academic itch. To me, the fact that you can nicely calculate even abstruse series in three lines of code, but fetching a specific item from a list based on a calculation you've done requires two type changes is a good hint at where their minds were.
I think I started to rant somewhere in there, sorry.
So you want a full accounting of New York's stop-and-frisk program over its lifetime in order to be convinced?
No, I just want to understand if a) the USA has become a police state of such horrible dimensions that I can't imagine it or b) accounts here are exaggerated
I can't speak for those individuals but some refuse to be forced to leave what they consider their homes, even if there's better elsewhere.
I understand that. I'm just saying that with that attitude, the USA would be populated by native americans because none of your ancestors would've ever left Europe.
For over 20 yrs, we in North Am have been hearing stories about the racist resurgence in Europe.
I hear similar stories, but my personal experience doesn't verify them. Either I live in a different society or it's media exposure bias (i.e. you notice things only when they get reported, so when something that hasn't changed is reported on suddenly for whatever reason, you get the impression it has changed).
That said:
the current government appears to be VERY choosy towards certain kinds of immigrants.
This is the official and proper way of doing it. I've noticed that hatred against foreigners seems to be targeted largely to those who don't integrate into society and, for example, can't speak two simple sentences in german even after living in Germany for 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really simple:
All managers have to make decisions based on limited information. They have neither the time nor luxury of weighing all data. It's their business to make a decision when the decision needs to be made, not when all data analysis has been finished.
Good manager know what to look for and what to discard. That may include the expertise of their people, but every case is different and just because one manager they admire once went against the expertise of the experts he employs and was right doesn't mean doing so is always a good idea. Good managers know when to listen and when to smile and ignore you.
Bad managers don't really understand what they're doing and are either winging it, or run the show by some mostly bullshit management principles. They listen always or never, they include too much and/or the wrong information in their decision-making, and they make the wrong decisions and then find someone to blame for it.
The important expertise of a manager is not technical. It's how to make decisions. Technical knowledge helps, but it's not the whole story.
How about demoting the incompetent boss and the fuckwit who promoted them that one step too far together?
You can only discourage risk-taking to a certain extend before your machine comes to a stop because nobody dares to move anymore.
Promoting people to management positions who have no management experience is always a risky move. Sometimes they turn out to be brilliant, sometimes not. But it's almost impossible to find out beforehand, so you just have to take the risk. The problem is that due to pay scales and perception, it's largely a one-way street and that's a huge problem.
It helps to work in an environment where there are no formalized payscales that are affected by the mgmt/IC choice
This is probably the biggest contributor. Largely, for completely irrational reasons, management is he higher-paying job and that's why people want to be there, even if it's not for them.
It's also the reason you end up not just with the incompetent, but also with the even worse: The purely ambition driven eat-my-dust assholes who'll gladly sacrifice your happiness, career, success and first born son if it helps them score the next raise or the next step up their personal career ladder.
Those guys are worse than the incompetent.
Yes, it did. Because quite regularly, those things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not actually true.
We as humans are amazing at spotting some things and judging them correctly immediately. It's a survival trait, which is why it's so highly developed.
But it goes wrong in many cases, especially in those where false positives are harmless but false negatives deadly.
This one hundred times.
The company who can solve the issue of demotion without loss of face is going to go far.
Well, it certainly wasn't Reagan, who famously called the Soviet Union "evil empire" and was one of the last western leaders to acknowledge that Gorbatschov was indeed changing things. Reagan had a dialogue with Gorbachov, but opened? You got any evidence for that claim?
In particular, even though the official American narrative is that Ronald Reagan personally tore it down with his death-ray eyes
Interestingly, here in Germany the narrative is pretty much that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall whatsoever. The politician we consider to have had the most influence on events is Gorbatschov. Who, meanwhile, my russian friends think was weak and didn't have much influence...
it was developed purely as a way to ensure that publicly traded corporations weren't reporting fictional financial statements
Frankly speaking, I always thought SOX was developed as a way to ensure IT consulting companies had a continuous source of income.
The whole thing is basically one big "please interpret me however you see fit" paper, so I'm a little but not very surprised to see it applied to fish.
This makes sense to you?
Yes. Lawmakers are humans and if I had a dollar for every badly written law...
This 100 times.
TFA has no clue and appears to be a 12 year old blogger who just discovered a few things about the Internet that suck.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with shaping traffic based on service and everything to do with shaping traffic based on commercial contracts, i.e. who sent it. It's not the equivalent of the mail service having 1st and 2nd class post and telegrams, but about whether or not the mail service can deliver your (same class) mail slower than mine because they like me more.
When are we going to get this right?
Never, because you insist on solving a problem that's not technical with technology.
Counting paper ballot votes manually is not difficult, and almost all of the civilized world does it, because they understand that adding complexity to the process does little in solving the challenges involved, but it does add a lot of potential failures.
Dispite the sensationalistic headline, he's actually spot on:
"'However much they [tech companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us."
True. He's not saying social media is aiding terrorists. He says that terrorists use the same tools that normal people use, too.
Bullshit. Even if you attribute malice to the system, you shouldn't attribute stupidity as well. If they just went after the first convenient suspect, cases would be blowing up in their face left, right and center and people would lose trust in the system.
Even if you assume the worst, the system has to work most of the time, because faking it at this scale is impossible. You can cover up some mistakes and some false convictions, but not if, say, half of all the cases were bullshit.
Cops will (and should) use everything they have against you if they are reasonably sure you're guilty. Their job is to bring suspects in front of a judge.
You happen to be the unlucky guy in the wrong place at the wrong time? Too bad. "We got him guys, it's all good!".
I posted statistics and links to a study done on this somewhere else. The actual false conviction rate is somewhere between 3.3 and 5%. That's considerably too high, but it is well within the margin of error of a system run with the best intentions. Your theory doesn't hold up to evidence.
I'm talking about Cats!, of course.
And I forgot to mention that three weeks later, half the world will stop using the Internet because they can't find the cat videos they're here for anymore.
Can't imagine this ever taking off.
boosting the profile of copyright and trademark holders' websites.
Which means reviews, fan pages and everything else that's actually interesting about something will be pushed down in favor of the 200 landing pages the copyright owner scattered all over the 'net.
Of course, it also means the new Disney movie, successor to Cars! and Planes! will be smash hit and absolutely everyone in the world has heard about it. I'm talking about Cats!, of course.
I was stopped because I was on a bike on a sidewalk at 4 AM, (...) they found a Swiss army knife on me
You consented to the search why?
Don't mistake me defending the system for not knowing my rights and defending them. If the cops were at my door with the usual "can we come inside?" question, I'd ask "what for?", not let them in.
I completely agree that you should always check if the police is on your side or not. At the same time I realize the vast majority of cops do their job well and they do it so I can live in peace and without having to defend myself all the time.
Frankly speaking I like the GPL more, but that's a personal preference.
People who whine about it not being corporation friendly are either lying or they've never worked in a corporation. The licence management for all the commercial licenses is a much bigger hassle than the GPL, except for a few borderline case software development houses.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
20+ years of real economy show that "trickle down" doesn't work.
15+ years of micro-lending experience show that giving small loans to people to start a small business is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy.
And actually please let Richard play with his billions of dollars and live his dream because this stimulates economy
That's the most persuasive neo-conservatie lie, but it still is a lie. Those billions of dollars didn't appear out of nowhere. They would have stimulated the economy a lot more had they been spent by normal people.
The problem is that the exact kind of people who make these DIY spreadsheets and then use them for their business decisions are also the kind that don't understand the concept of a software prototype.
It's exactly the same situation in every industry,
Actually, it's not. Many luxury industries stay exactly that for very, very long periods of time, and when their products finally become available to the masses it's not because they made it happen, but because someone outside the industry figured out how to do it and disrupted the market.
And it's not an accident. One of the reasons the rich buy luxury goods is exactly because non-rich people can't afford it. It's a status symbol.
Perhaps someone else has something to add?
It has a properly managed release cycle. For corporate installations, that's a real bonus. You can put it on a machine and schedule the update in your calendar, because you already know when it's going to be. And between those two dates, you can largely forget about it.
Firstly, small companies can easily lure talent if what they offer is interesting and their culture is appealing. I would much rather work a 100k job that is interesting in a good company than a 120k job that's boring in a faceless corporation with MBA culture. They'd have to offer maybe 150k and even then I won't be as motivated. Lots of geeks are motivated by interest more than by money.
Secondly, yes we need to make a difference between software architects and programmers.
I don't actually need it for anything, that's probably one reason for my dislike. I just had to learn it for a project I'm involved in.
There are no actual technical arguments, because I haven't dug in that deep. But from the very beginning the fact that you can do the same simple thing in three different ways, one of them for historical reasons and one simple because shows weak language design. The fact that you need to simply know so many idiosyncrasies (like if requiring an else but failing silently if you leave it out, or that any term that's not #f always evaluates to true, unlike in basically every other programming language ever) drives me crazy and also hints and unfinished design. And finally the strange mixture of being strict but not really, like runtime type-checking on strictly typed variables, or the fact that they have defined inexact-integer as a datatype, which is just completely bollocks, just drives me crazy. Especially because while their language is anal retentive about exact and inexact, their documentation doesn't give a fuck and will tell you that, for example, you get an integer back from round, but only by knowing or experimenting you can figure out that it's an inexact integer, which you can't use to get an entry from a list because you need an exact integer for that. All put together, these and a hundred other details tell me that the people who designed this language didn't mean for it to be actually useful, they were scratching some theoretical academic itch. To me, the fact that you can nicely calculate even abstruse series in three lines of code, but fetching a specific item from a list based on a calculation you've done requires two type changes is a good hint at where their minds were.
I think I started to rant somewhere in there, sorry.
So you want a full accounting of New York's stop-and-frisk program over its lifetime in order to be convinced?
No, I just want to understand if
a) the USA has become a police state of such horrible dimensions that I can't imagine it or
b) accounts here are exaggerated
I can't speak for those individuals but some refuse to be forced to leave what they consider their homes, even if there's better elsewhere.
I understand that. I'm just saying that with that attitude, the USA would be populated by native americans because none of your ancestors would've ever left Europe.
For over 20 yrs, we in North Am have been hearing stories about the racist resurgence in Europe.
I hear similar stories, but my personal experience doesn't verify them. Either I live in a different society or it's media exposure bias (i.e. you notice things only when they get reported, so when something that hasn't changed is reported on suddenly for whatever reason, you get the impression it has changed).
That said:
the current government appears to be VERY choosy towards certain kinds of immigrants.
This is the official and proper way of doing it. I've noticed that hatred against foreigners seems to be targeted largely to those who don't integrate into society and, for example, can't speak two simple sentences in german even after living in Germany for 10 years.