You give it free reign over the method. Being an extremely intelligent robot, it subcontracts the labor to a sweat shop in China while it figures out where to build a mechanized plant
Overall you made good points, but I took umbrage with this one statement. First it added no value to your analogy. Take that one sentence out and you still make your point.
You programed this robot with one goal, for coffee tables to be made. You give it free reign over the method. You equipped this robot with the knowledge to reprogram itself, and right away it does just that, optimizing its mind for the task of building coffee tables. But it won't deprogram the goal of making coffee tables, because that wouldn't further its goal of making coffee tables.
Secondly you make an assumption that sub-contracting to a sweat shop is an intelligent decision. Based on what foundation of fact? Because its cheaper in China (though the quality may be so bad no one buys the product). I realize that this may seem a minor nitpick, but it really stood out for me as a spurious commentary on labor that had nothing to do with your point. I will make the assumption that the robot, being intelligent hires local craftsman to begin designing and building coffee tables that are sold to high end markets. Now that sounds much more rewarding even if it still does not matter to your base point that the robot has no reason to change its programming because it can't.
By the way, you broke an default rule here in/. land. You needed at least one car analogy in the mix and you had nary a one. Shame.
I have to say the comment about the constitution brought me back to this topic. Were I to hold a protest in the middle of a public field outside of town would I need permission. Even better, were this held on private land. If private land I need the permission from the land owner. If he says no bad for me because the USC does not factor in private actions. So I try public lands, but ah, that is owned by the government thus I still need to ask permission to hold a protest. Now if a local, state, or federal government said I cannot hold my peaceful protest then I agree, that is an abuse of power and I could challenge it in court. If they say yes, but with conditions, are they violating the USC? Are they abusing power? Seems fuzzier.
Bottom line to me is that while we (in the US) has a right to assemble, that assembly needs to be held somewhere and these days, somewhere belongs to someone; be it private or public thus I need to ask. Perhaps a fine line, but it is not permission to protest, it is permission to hold it in a certain place. These days protests are held in large cities. Most cities need time to manage a large group of people focused on one thing. Civil services Police, Fire, Ambulances still need to get around, goods need to move, people still want to get from place to place in reasonable time. Does your right to protest trump my right to get from A to B without reasonable delay? My need for police help, or to put out a fire in my flat?
I agree that a government can (and has) twisted the permission process, but then it becomes a question of location. The powers that be say "go ahead and assemble, but do it here" which is five miles away. Protesters now protest the location and miss the point that they can still make their voices heard. Is the point to throw eggs at the King or let the King know how you feel about his policies. In todays instant media world a massive protest held in the middle of country can have more impact upon Washington then if held in the city where tensions are raised, violence is more apt to occur. As I said in another post, it takes multiple moments to effect change, moments dictated by the protesters to keep awareness in the forefront. Violence is flash, but no substance most definitely after the second or third time.
So if there is abuse in the sense that any group is not allowed to assemble, then it ultimately becomes a case for SCOTUS. If if becomes you can protest here, but not here...then the right is there, make the best of it.
I can understand the frustration, but violence by a handful against a government not only is a losing idea, but tends to be treated as terrorism thus losing its purpose, to stop greater aggression. Those million people that came to protest went home and did nothing. That's why the aggression continued. If your playing loud music and I knock on the door to complain you might ignore me the first time, but the second, the third, I bring more neighbors, you will have to take notice. Change comes not from one act of protest, but continued acts until change occurs. Sadly the American population feels they have too much to lose, and not enough to gain by continued pressure so they do a feel good moment then go home and say "what else could I do". Perhaps that handful of violent thinkers could instead figure away to keep interest focused using non-violent means.
Hold on, the Government did not set out to kill people at Kent. I was a teenager myself at the time, it was a horrific act, but based on stupidity, not government orders ("Kill all the hippies" does not seem plausible.)
The basic point I make is that violence is generally met with violence. When untrained kids come armed with weapons to a protest then the potential for bullets flying get raised. When tensions are high it is bound to result in a more ugly release of that tension. Almost every effective protest was found and acted upon with non-violence. In couterpoint, riots around would meetings tend to turn people away from the message because that sight of burning cars and running people give better news feed then rational/reasoned actions.
I'll confess, I've never been oppressed, subjugated, or limited in my life. I cannot fathom the courage it takes to stand in the front line of a march on Birmingham, the salt mines of India, or the streets of Burma. What I see is those that stood, and stood against the violence, stoof in non-violence, even to the point of pain or death made more difference then any riot. The riots in Chicago didn't change the conditions there, same with Watts, same with Bangkok today. It only showed the world that people in chaos can bring about destruction, not construction.
I think the point you missed was the splinter groups that use a uncontrolled "peaceful" protest to spark conflict. I am all for assembly to protest. In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority, peacefully.
Today it seems that peaceful turns violent because of an agenda on the fringe to provoke attack. Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost. The King marches, sits down, those worked because when the violence came, it was so out of proportion to the protest it solidified support. Want to make a statement, get 10,000 people to go to Washington and protest with a sit in at the capitol. Make the police drag them away and as one leaves, one enters. There is a point when those in charge will listen much more so then if violence was used. Violent riots are worthless and tend to do more harm than good.
My God, how did we ever survive, much less built some amazing technology before this great mind discovered we are not "making leaders" today. We are not making leaders, or are the leaders focused in the wrong direction. IBM, HP, Wang, Dec, Microsoft, Apple, yes even Google started small and grew because their "leaders" did not focus on the next month, the next quarter, but on a long term vision of what they wanted their company to be in the market. In my thirty years in this IT industry I know of only two managers that understand that if you manage the people, they will manage the project. The rest managed the budget, the project and never took time to understand the resources they had. Whet these new classes should re-teach is the art of managing people so they become a positive, motived work force and not indentured labor.
India is a democracy, ah...So all those wonderfully democratic people who get their Blackberry cut off because RIM took a stand and said, "No, we are not going to allow government access to our servers" will rise up and vote leaders out of office?
Right.
Governments, even those labeled democratic, have understood that the masses will not really do anything to stop these steps to limit freedoms. RIM's in it for the money, I get that. But had they took a stand (and why now are governments asking for this, RIM been around for a while) in the UAE, SA, and India then perhaps enough people would have not only become active in checking the overreach of government, but it might have driven customers to RIM. They would be known for not bending to government control of legitimate communications.
This action will not stop bad people from committing bad acts. The best tools for reducing (if not stopping terrorism) is balanced economic growth for all people, the removal of repressive actions that foster hate, and then the practical and open use of law to bring criminals to justice. Blowing up people in a store, on the street is not terrorism, it is just murder. We should treat it as such.
I'll just change out a few words a see how it sounds.."
"While I certainly don't agree with it, this article tries to make the case that environmental control may actually be bad for America. From the article: 'If the government regulates environmental control, policies for environmental impact are set by one entity: the EPA. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don’t like the EPA's policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don’t like your oil/chemical/waste/paper mill/ environmental impact, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?'"
See for me, a purpose for government is to stop (or slow) the wanton behavior of business since its goal is profit, not societal responsibility. Until everyone in this country had multiple choices for internet access we absolutely need a power that can step in between the consumer and business and say to business "you need to play nice now".
Before I moved I had two providers, Charter or DSL via AT&T for home broadband. Now because I went more rural I only have one (dsl and satellite for TV). In no way does that provide me the power to speak with my pocket book unless I turn off tune out and read books. The Government is not evil or incompetent in most ways and overall the FCC has performed a good balancing act between public interest and private interest. The last entity I want deciding access to what I consider a utility today is a corporate CEO who's focus is on his pocket, not mine. Try this with water or electric and people would scream bloody murder.
For fun, if NN is removed, I'd like to see taxes adjusted such that providers that throttle or tier access pay a higher tax vs providers that keep one tier, no limits, but adjust package costs by bandwidth (like now).
I have seen this from time to time, a statement "companies are required to maximize profit", but I cannot find any specific law that spells out how 'maximize' is measured. I looked into wiki and found this reference, but nothing stated measureable requirements. In fact, the only "requirement" is that they make a profit, how ever that profit is measured.
I may be quite comfortable making 6% profit while someone else may choose 10% profit. The rationalization that corporations have to "maximize" by law is a fallacy used to justify actions that tend to have negative impact on societies as a whole, but do wonders for a small set of individuals pocket. Robin Hood was created because greed so impacted Sherwood, the suffering of the people overcame the rule of law. Robin took from the rich because they basically were taking from the poor (land, wages, people). Don't like redistribution of wealth, don't want to take from the rich, then rich should become more aware of the effects of the imbalance of greed and correct them. Job creation locally on up to start. Fair trade practices (not free), and getting back to setting long term profit goals to smooth out the up and downs of the market.
Out of over 1000+ comments, this was the most rational view I read, and one that mirrored my own. I too try to live, more aware of my impact, as a consumer, in the world. As a citizen in the United States who has traveled abroad I am astounded at the disconnect we have between perception and reality.
Without revamping any industry, I thought about two ways in which this country co immediately reduce energy consumption; Smaller potions, less driving.
I go out to eat. I order a meal and almost always the portions are way to much for a reasonable meal. If restaurants cut portions by a third they would have potentially less food waste and by keeping the same price, more profit. That we serve 12/14/16 oz steaks is beyond me, but the salad size bowl of pasta, the 1/2 lb of hamburger, the oversize potato is just as wasteful. "I'll take it home" is said to appease guilt, but I would guess much of that food is ultimately tossed out. It has been a rare moment when I would be able to eat dessert at the end of a meal, because the proportions of main dishes allowed room and calories for a slight indulgence.
For four years I worked at home. I went from a 35 min commute (one way) to none. Gas consumption dropped dramatically. During this time I received a promotion, two raises and hit every target on my projects. If business looked at how how much they truly spend on energy consumption for bringing employees into the office I think they would strongly consider more work from home policies; real estate costs, lighting, heat/cooling along with having to provide network connectivity for many, not few. Granted, this cannot apply to jobs that require physical assembly (large manufacturing for example), but in today's more connected world, We could start to push some jobs back to the house. By working from home I support my local economy, I reduce my carbon foot print, I also have time to deal with family/life issues better and in general find a better balance between work and life. Some argue that this effects "teamwork", that face to face adds value not found in WAH situations. Why? I ran a project having never seen the face of three of my team. We got along great, we communicated well, and the work got done. Out of 130 million workers, if even 10% were sent home to work it would have more positive impact on reducing consumption then trying to force reduction through taxes.
Yet, you are correct. Government apathy (or arrogance), big business interested in the short term gain even as the ship sinks...not much will change until powerful people are effected. By then the general populus will have either drowned, starved, or driven into indentured servitude to survive. I'll continue to do what I can to reduce my impact, I'll always advocate work from home ideas,l but it's like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the wall as a tidal wave looms over head.
This is not so much a case of more of less efficient, it is a case of more or less wage vs productivity. Two workers, one in the USA, one else where. Both perform similar roles, produce similar products with similar efficiency. However, Elsewhere does it at a tenth the cost. Why so cheap? Who knows. developing country, fascist/communist government controlling wages,desparate people willing to do anything to geta finger out of a gutter. Any reasonable people would accept that the worker in Else Where should have a chance at a better life, but at what cost.
I've watch the US begin a slow economic collapse over the past 15 years as the concept of golbalization has taken hold and shifted corporate decision making. Of course the CEO and shareholders want to maximize profit. Even the janitor would like the company to groew, but while the janitor (or programmer) will work that little bit harder to improve the bottom line, the CEO and crons will outsource jobs to Else Where, lower expenses, increase profit, and say "what good job we did". Short term, perhaps.
However, the worker in the US now sees his income drop because he/she lost a job, even in getting a new one it may be lower. Yeah for CEOs and labor, but that worker no longer wants to buy things. They don't want to travel, they don;t want to take chances, because of the next layoff, the next downsize, the next reduction in pay. That workin in Elsewhere is not buying goods in the US, not paying taxes in the US, this contributes nothing to the US economy, but a part of a product that US workers may not be able to afford any more.
I think Mr Grove is a day late and a dollar short on his statement, but I welcome it if he does more then blow air through his mouth. Does he believe in this idea, take it to Congress and push HARD. Talk with the President and get him on board. have meetings with other CEOs and get them to see a future more then the next quarter (or month). To use a car analogy, I can run an engine at 100% RPM and watch it burn out quick, or I can run that engine at lower RPMs and have it run a long time, more efficiently.
Holy crap, are you serious? First of, who really wants to work a 60 hr week? For that matter why forty or even a flippin' 8 hr day. programming is not assembly work, it is craftsman work, more art then anything else. Since I started in this industry over 29 years ago I found that the idea of turning on creativity at 9 and turning it off at 5 was laughable. For accounting purposes I appreciate the need for some set time frame of measurement for payment of services, but if it takes you 60 hours to accomplish tasks in a week then either you cannot do your job well, you are way over worked thus abused in your job, or a workaholic that cannot comment on how normal people approach their job. I do not want to spend 60+ hours a week working because at 49, I have a life.
As to understanding new technology? How frickin' pretentious can you get? Define "new" technology? Show me a language that is radically different from most other languages that only "young" technicians understand. Are machines that more sophisticated today then five, ten, fifteen years ago or have they just improved in speed, storage space, and simplicity. I don't use an Iphone so am I just an old geezer or a person who does not want to toss his well earned salary on Apple/AT&T for a bunch of toy apps. Ipad, slates, notebooks, these are not "new" technology, just repackaged current technology. New would be along the lines of neural links, bio-integrated technology that free me completely from carrying around some plastic, silicon and wire.
Grow up, think for a moment. One day you will be me, a 49 year old, active, knowledgeable IT professional with the potential to work, add value to a company while enjoying a life. Step away from the narcissistic attitude and consider your future when you say things like "do the old-timers" and then don't say it unless your purpose is to sound stupid in public.
Sit on my lawn all you want because (1) I bought it with my salary (2) I can enjoy it because I work to enjoy it and (3) because it seems you need a place to remind you that life is more then work.
28 years in the field....best quote I've read on the topic. Now if hiring managers would understand the same idea.
"How many years experience you have in c#?" "28 years" "In c#?" "No in programming, its all the same under the hood" "I don't get it, but you don't get the job, NEXT!"
there was a time when it was about critical thinking, the ability to adapt, now its about the banality of do I know the difference between {} and BEGIN END or ; vs . or ' vs// or [] versus () for x number of years.
Yes, I'm a product of downsizing...Yes I'm looking for a job, and yes, I'm a little jaded about an industry I've loved for 28 years.
Somebody wrote a bad program that crashed and somebody else wrote a better program at another company and it didn't crash. What more evidence does one need that bad code is crap?
There, fixed it for you. Why do we need to specify language when talking about about bad coding practices. From COBOL to.net I've seen my share of crash and burn applications and in almost every instance (including my own abends) it was not the "crappy" language, but the creator.
This is one of the best description I've read on cXo positions. Thank you. Scares the hell out of me in regards to long term solvency of most corporate business, but at least I better understand the approach.
I langiush to low in the pond to have much affect on how a CIO or CFO may make decisions. Even as a lead I understand I am mere cannon fodder for the battle of project development. Sadly, Were they less answerable to share holders and more so to profitable projects, not only would the employees be better off, but the share holders could see better returns in longer terms. Yes, today they see value in the qtr report, or even the monthly. You cannot steer a car by just looking five feet in front of the hood.
Cold, overdressed men discussing Freud in a drawing room?
I was not just blaming mgmt, I indicated that both parts need to work and listen better to create a quality product. The higher up the corporate food chain, the more (it seems to me) employees begin to be viewed as chattel, objects not people. When that mentality becomes perversive to the company decision process then quality suffers, because there is little motivation to perform other then the basic requirement. A motivated local work force may cost mroe in the short term, but actually save money long term by producing a quality product the first time out. Outsourced vendors may show better short term costs savings, but the product may have so many issues that back end corrections will end up costing it more before release. Most often, outsource work takes longer to complete, and requires more corrections, because those providing the work effort have no connection or concern of the company, they just produce code.
The amount of time / effort / money I've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering
The amount of time / effort / money lost over the years due to poor management, bad analysis, and improbable times lines is staggering.
There, fixed it for you. You do see that your own statement is about as arrogant and condescending as the programmers you want to insult. Buggy code, crashing software is not just the responsibility of the programmer, it is the responsibility of the leadership as well. Why was it buggy? Bad design specs, no code reviews, tight time lines with large interruptions? Why did it crash? Poor QA and review by business owners? ridiculous deadlines, poor working conditions, low morale?
There is more there then just "bad programming" as if programming exists in some bubble. Developing is not assembly line work, it is a complex art and yet over decades management has viewed it from an industrial age mentality. Work from x to y, produce x lines of code, stop what you are doing and look at something else no matter where you are at. Certainly there are arrogant programmers, just like there are arrogant managers. I challenge you though to see that both need each other to reduce the number of bugs, the minimizing of crashes (really "crashing computer software? Not Abending or exception failures?) When a positive work environment is set that people tend to work better, with less error. That is the job of management and yes, even leads. For the record, I have been in lead and oversight positions. The best role I played was to get out of the way and let my people do their job. Along the way I would just ensure that we maintained a high quality of effort and we kept on focus to the requirements provided.
What nonsense. One of the foundations of project falure is built from the top down. Executive leaderships say "make this work" what ever "this" may be. Top leadership runs around then looking for a solution. Many times they go to a vendor and of course the vendor says "Why yes, our product will solve "this" problem". So instead of so good due diligence on the part of analysts to truly see what the specific needs are, the company purchases this cost saving solution; perhaps it is a service, perhaps it is a soup to nuts enterprise system, perhaps it is off the shelf, out of the box software.
Soon into implementation or pilot the upper levels managers finally begin to see what their own IT staff and their customers were trying to tell them 1 - We don't need "this" 2 - "This" does not fit our needs 3 - "We have to use "this?", the current system works.
Even worse, while the company has a qualified in house staff that understands the specific needs, they will hire consultants to tell them how "this" can work for them. It could be that certain decision makers were favored by the vendor to "try it out" only to find later that the trail cost more in lost time, money, effort while the vendor pockets the dough.
Cynical? Not really. Over my long time in the business I have seen this time and time again. Even though there is a good staff structure in place to handle company IT needs top corporate leaders will buy from a vendor because the perception is that the goal will come quicker. Never mind that the product may not fit, IT will make it fit. Never mind the internal customers that need retraining, we'll hire new people...and on and on. All to try and save time. The bottom line is that any failure of an IT project begins with the top leadership not doing their job. The first question they should ask and answer before dropping a dime is "Do we really really need "this". The second, "Is it an emergency?". The third, "Do we have staff to create "this"?, the fourth "how will this effect our internal customers?. In a world where the attitude is "We need it yesterday" there will be more failure, but do not fault just IT, fault corporate leadership.
(yes I rtfa and it was fluff, stupid and providing no insight to why)
Slashdot Mirror
He got elected?
My God, they've been reading E.E. Doc Smith Galactic Patrol Series. If they do this with inertia-less drives we are doomed.
You give it free reign over the method. Being an extremely intelligent robot, it subcontracts the labor to a sweat shop in China while it figures out where to build a mechanized plant
Overall you made good points, but I took umbrage with this one statement. First it added no value to your analogy. Take that one sentence out and you still make your point.
You programed this robot with one goal, for coffee tables to be made. You give it free reign over the method. You equipped this robot with the knowledge to reprogram itself, and right away it does just that, optimizing its mind for the task of building coffee tables. But it won't deprogram the goal of making coffee tables, because that wouldn't further its goal of making coffee tables.
Secondly you make an assumption that sub-contracting to a sweat shop is an intelligent decision. Based on what foundation of fact? Because its cheaper in China (though the quality may be so bad no one buys the product). I realize that this may seem a minor nitpick, but it really stood out for me as a spurious commentary on labor that had nothing to do with your point. I will make the assumption that the robot, being intelligent hires local craftsman to begin designing and building coffee tables that are sold to high end markets. Now that sounds much more rewarding even if it still does not matter to your base point that the robot has no reason to change its programming because it can't.
By the way, you broke an default rule here in /. land. You needed at least one car analogy in the mix and you had nary a one. Shame.
I have to say the comment about the constitution brought me back to this topic. Were I to hold a protest in the middle of a public field outside of town would I need permission. Even better, were this held on private land. If private land I need the permission from the land owner. If he says no bad for me because the USC does not factor in private actions. So I try public lands, but ah, that is owned by the government thus I still need to ask permission to hold a protest. Now if a local, state, or federal government said I cannot hold my peaceful protest then I agree, that is an abuse of power and I could challenge it in court. If they say yes, but with conditions, are they violating the USC? Are they abusing power? Seems fuzzier.
Bottom line to me is that while we (in the US) has a right to assemble, that assembly needs to be held somewhere and these days, somewhere belongs to someone; be it private or public thus I need to ask. Perhaps a fine line, but it is not permission to protest, it is permission to hold it in a certain place. These days protests are held in large cities. Most cities need time to manage a large group of people focused on one thing. Civil services Police, Fire, Ambulances still need to get around, goods need to move, people still want to get from place to place in reasonable time. Does your right to protest trump my right to get from A to B without reasonable delay? My need for police help, or to put out a fire in my flat?
I agree that a government can (and has) twisted the permission process, but then it becomes a question of location. The powers that be say "go ahead and assemble, but do it here" which is five miles away. Protesters now protest the location and miss the point that they can still make their voices heard. Is the point to throw eggs at the King or let the King know how you feel about his policies. In todays instant media world a massive protest held in the middle of country can have more impact upon Washington then if held in the city where tensions are raised, violence is more apt to occur. As I said in another post, it takes multiple moments to effect change, moments dictated by the protesters to keep awareness in the forefront. Violence is flash, but no substance most definitely after the second or third time.
So if there is abuse in the sense that any group is not allowed to assemble, then it ultimately becomes a case for SCOTUS. If if becomes you can protest here, but not here...then the right is there, make the best of it.
I can understand the frustration, but violence by a handful against a government not only is a losing idea, but tends to be treated as terrorism thus losing its purpose, to stop greater aggression. Those million people that came to protest went home and did nothing. That's why the aggression continued. If your playing loud music and I knock on the door to complain you might ignore me the first time, but the second, the third, I bring more neighbors, you will have to take notice. Change comes not from one act of protest, but continued acts until change occurs. Sadly the American population feels they have too much to lose, and not enough to gain by continued pressure so they do a feel good moment then go home and say "what else could I do". Perhaps that handful of violent thinkers could instead figure away to keep interest focused using non-violent means.
Hold on, the Government did not set out to kill people at Kent. I was a teenager myself at the time, it was a horrific act, but based on stupidity, not government orders ("Kill all the hippies" does not seem plausible.)
The basic point I make is that violence is generally met with violence. When untrained kids come armed with weapons to a protest then the potential for bullets flying get raised. When tensions are high it is bound to result in a more ugly release of that tension. Almost every effective protest was found and acted upon with non-violence. In couterpoint, riots around would meetings tend to turn people away from the message because that sight of burning cars and running people give better news feed then rational/reasoned actions.
I'll confess, I've never been oppressed, subjugated, or limited in my life. I cannot fathom the courage it takes to stand in the front line of a march on Birmingham, the salt mines of India, or the streets of Burma. What I see is those that stood, and stood against the violence, stoof in non-violence, even to the point of pain or death made more difference then any riot. The riots in Chicago didn't change the conditions there, same with Watts, same with Bangkok today. It only showed the world that people in chaos can bring about destruction, not construction.
I think the point you missed was the splinter groups that use a uncontrolled "peaceful" protest to spark conflict. I am all for assembly to protest. In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority, peacefully.
Today it seems that peaceful turns violent because of an agenda on the fringe to provoke attack. Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost. The King marches, sits down, those worked because when the violence came, it was so out of proportion to the protest it solidified support. Want to make a statement, get 10,000 people to go to Washington and protest with a sit in at the capitol. Make the police drag them away and as one leaves, one enters. There is a point when those in charge will listen much more so then if violence was used. Violent riots are worthless and tend to do more harm than good.
My God, how did we ever survive, much less built some amazing technology before this great mind discovered we are not "making leaders" today. We are not making leaders, or are the leaders focused in the wrong direction. IBM, HP, Wang, Dec, Microsoft, Apple, yes even Google started small and grew because their "leaders" did not focus on the next month, the next quarter, but on a long term vision of what they wanted their company to be in the market. In my thirty years in this IT industry I know of only two managers that understand that if you manage the people, they will manage the project. The rest managed the budget, the project and never took time to understand the resources they had. Whet these new classes should re-teach is the art of managing people so they become a positive, motived work force and not indentured labor.
With FrostyPiss as a nickname...good possibility. I thought the same thing.
India is a democracy, ah...So all those wonderfully democratic people who get their Blackberry cut off because RIM took a stand and said, "No, we are not going to allow government access to our servers" will rise up and vote leaders out of office?
Right.
Governments, even those labeled democratic, have understood that the masses will not really do anything to stop these steps to limit freedoms. RIM's in it for the money, I get that. But had they took a stand (and why now are governments asking for this, RIM been around for a while) in the UAE, SA, and India then perhaps enough people would have not only become active in checking the overreach of government, but it might have driven customers to RIM. They would be known for not bending to government control of legitimate communications.
This action will not stop bad people from committing bad acts. The best tools for reducing (if not stopping terrorism) is balanced economic growth for all people, the removal of repressive actions that foster hate, and then the practical and open use of law to bring criminals to justice. Blowing up people in a store, on the street is not terrorism, it is just murder. We should treat it as such.
I'll just change out a few words a see how it sounds.."
"While I certainly don't agree with it, this article tries to make the case that environmental control may actually be bad for America. From the article: 'If the government regulates environmental control, policies for environmental impact are set by one entity: the EPA. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don’t like the EPA's policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don’t like your oil/chemical/waste/paper mill/ environmental impact, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?'"
See for me, a purpose for government is to stop (or slow) the wanton behavior of business since its goal is profit, not societal responsibility. Until everyone in this country had multiple choices for internet access we absolutely need a power that can step in between the consumer and business and say to business "you need to play nice now".
Before I moved I had two providers, Charter or DSL via AT&T for home broadband. Now because I went more rural I only have one (dsl and satellite for TV). In no way does that provide me the power to speak with my pocket book unless I turn off tune out and read books. The Government is not evil or incompetent in most ways and overall the FCC has performed a good balancing act between public interest and private interest. The last entity I want deciding access to what I consider a utility today is a corporate CEO who's focus is on his pocket, not mine. Try this with water or electric and people would scream bloody murder.
For fun, if NN is removed, I'd like to see taxes adjusted such that providers that throttle or tier access pay a higher tax vs providers that keep one tier, no limits, but adjust package costs by bandwidth (like now).
I have seen this from time to time, a statement "companies are required to maximize profit", but I cannot find any specific law that spells out how 'maximize' is measured. I looked into wiki and found this reference, but nothing stated measureable requirements. In fact, the only "requirement" is that they make a profit, how ever that profit is measured.
I may be quite comfortable making 6% profit while someone else may choose 10% profit. The rationalization that corporations have to "maximize" by law is a fallacy used to justify actions that tend to have negative impact on societies as a whole, but do wonders for a small set of individuals pocket. Robin Hood was created because greed so impacted Sherwood, the suffering of the people overcame the rule of law. Robin took from the rich because they basically were taking from the poor (land, wages, people). Don't like redistribution of wealth, don't want to take from the rich, then rich should become more aware of the effects of the imbalance of greed and correct them. Job creation locally on up to start. Fair trade practices (not free), and getting back to setting long term profit goals to smooth out the up and downs of the market.
Out of over 1000+ comments, this was the most rational view I read, and one that mirrored my own. I too try to live, more aware of my impact, as a consumer, in the world. As a citizen in the United States who has traveled abroad I am astounded at the disconnect we have between perception and reality.
Without revamping any industry, I thought about two ways in which this country co immediately reduce energy consumption; Smaller potions, less driving.
I go out to eat. I order a meal and almost always the portions are way to much for a reasonable meal. If restaurants cut portions by a third they would have potentially less food waste and by keeping the same price, more profit. That we serve 12/14/16 oz steaks is beyond me, but the salad size bowl of pasta, the 1/2 lb of hamburger, the oversize potato is just as wasteful. "I'll take it home" is said to appease guilt, but I would guess much of that food is ultimately tossed out. It has been a rare moment when I would be able to eat dessert at the end of a meal, because the proportions of main dishes allowed room and calories for a slight indulgence.
For four years I worked at home. I went from a 35 min commute (one way) to none. Gas consumption dropped dramatically. During this time I received a promotion, two raises and hit every target on my projects. If business looked at how how much they truly spend on energy consumption for bringing employees into the office I think they would strongly consider more work from home policies; real estate costs, lighting, heat/cooling along with having to provide network connectivity for many, not few. Granted, this cannot apply to jobs that require physical assembly (large manufacturing for example), but in today's more connected world, We could start to push some jobs back to the house. By working from home I support my local economy, I reduce my carbon foot print, I also have time to deal with family/life issues better and in general find a better balance between work and life. Some argue that this effects "teamwork", that face to face adds value not found in WAH situations. Why? I ran a project having never seen the face of three of my team. We got along great, we communicated well, and the work got done. Out of 130 million workers, if even 10% were sent home to work it would have more positive impact on reducing consumption then trying to force reduction through taxes.
Yet, you are correct. Government apathy (or arrogance), big business interested in the short term gain even as the ship sinks...not much will change until powerful people are effected. By then the general populus will have either drowned, starved, or driven into indentured servitude to survive. I'll continue to do what I can to reduce my impact, I'll always advocate work from home ideas,l but it's like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the wall as a tidal wave looms over head.
Don't play that after a night of drinking, reopened the headache before I could stop...fun though
This is not so much a case of more of less efficient, it is a case of more or less wage vs productivity. Two workers, one in the USA, one else where. Both perform similar roles, produce similar products with similar efficiency. However, Elsewhere does it at a tenth the cost. Why so cheap? Who knows. developing country, fascist/communist government controlling wages,desparate people willing to do anything to geta finger out of a gutter. Any reasonable people would accept that the worker in Else Where should have a chance at a better life, but at what cost.
I've watch the US begin a slow economic collapse over the past 15 years as the concept of golbalization has taken hold and shifted corporate decision making. Of course the CEO and shareholders want to maximize profit. Even the janitor would like the company to groew, but while the janitor (or programmer) will work that little bit harder to improve the bottom line, the CEO and crons will outsource jobs to Else Where, lower expenses, increase profit, and say "what good job we did". Short term, perhaps.
However, the worker in the US now sees his income drop because he/she lost a job, even in getting a new one it may be lower. Yeah for CEOs and labor, but that worker no longer wants to buy things. They don't want to travel, they don;t want to take chances, because of the next layoff, the next downsize, the next reduction in pay. That workin in Elsewhere is not buying goods in the US, not paying taxes in the US, this contributes nothing to the US economy, but a part of a product that US workers may not be able to afford any more.
I think Mr Grove is a day late and a dollar short on his statement, but I welcome it if he does more then blow air through his mouth. Does he believe in this idea, take it to Congress and push HARD. Talk with the President and get him on board. have meetings with other CEOs and get them to see a future more then the next quarter (or month). To use a car analogy, I can run an engine at 100% RPM and watch it burn out quick, or I can run that engine at lower RPMs and have it run a long time, more efficiently.
Holy crap, are you serious? First of, who really wants to work a 60 hr week? For that matter why forty or even a flippin' 8 hr day. programming is not assembly work, it is craftsman work, more art then anything else. Since I started in this industry over 29 years ago I found that the idea of turning on creativity at 9 and turning it off at 5 was laughable. For accounting purposes I appreciate the need for some set time frame of measurement for payment of services, but if it takes you 60 hours to accomplish tasks in a week then either you cannot do your job well, you are way over worked thus abused in your job, or a workaholic that cannot comment on how normal people approach their job. I do not want to spend 60+ hours a week working because at 49, I have a life.
As to understanding new technology? How frickin' pretentious can you get? Define "new" technology? Show me a language that is radically different from most other languages that only "young" technicians understand. Are machines that more sophisticated today then five, ten, fifteen years ago or have they just improved in speed, storage space, and simplicity. I don't use an Iphone so am I just an old geezer or a person who does not want to toss his well earned salary on Apple/AT&T for a bunch of toy apps. Ipad, slates, notebooks, these are not "new" technology, just repackaged current technology. New would be along the lines of neural links, bio-integrated technology that free me completely from carrying around some plastic, silicon and wire.
Grow up, think for a moment. One day you will be me, a 49 year old, active, knowledgeable IT professional with the potential to work, add value to a company while enjoying a life. Step away from the narcissistic attitude and consider your future when you say things like "do the old-timers" and then don't say it unless your purpose is to sound stupid in public.
Sit on my lawn all you want because (1) I bought it with my salary (2) I can enjoy it because I work to enjoy it and (3) because it seems you need a place to remind you that life is more then work.
I think some folks at the SEC may be interested in this technology. Less obvious then boxes of CD/DVD labeled "Hot babes" lying around the office.
/. := Fox News
Its not just about entertainment, its all about entertainment and how to make money.
(I'm in a sarcastic mood today. /. tends to post a good balance of articles and I feel the editors are fair about their choices)
28 years in the field....best quote I've read on the topic. Now if hiring managers would understand the same idea.
"How many years experience you have in c#?"
"28 years"
"In c#?"
"No in programming, its all the same under the hood"
"I don't get it, but you don't get the job, NEXT!"
there was a time when it was about critical thinking, the ability to adapt, now its about the banality of do I know the difference between {} and BEGIN END or ; vs . or ' vs // or [] versus () for x number of years.
Yes, I'm a product of downsizing...Yes I'm looking for a job, and yes, I'm a little jaded about an industry I've loved for 28 years.
Somebody wrote a bad program that crashed and somebody else wrote a better program at another company and it didn't crash. What more evidence does one need that bad code is crap?
There, fixed it for you. Why do we need to specify language when talking about about bad coding practices. From COBOL to .net I've seen my share of crash and burn applications and in almost every instance (including my own abends) it was not the "crappy" language, but the creator.
imagine a beowolf cluster of them...I could rule an Army
This is one of the best description I've read on cXo positions. Thank you. Scares the hell out of me in regards to long term solvency of most corporate business, but at least I better understand the approach.
I langiush to low in the pond to have much affect on how a CIO or CFO may make decisions. Even as a lead I understand I am mere cannon fodder for the battle of project development. Sadly, Were they less answerable to share holders and more so to profitable projects, not only would the employees be better off, but the share holders could see better returns in longer terms. Yes, today they see value in the qtr report, or even the monthly. You cannot steer a car by just looking five feet in front of the hood.
Cold, overdressed men discussing Freud in a drawing room?
I was not just blaming mgmt, I indicated that both parts need to work and listen better to create a quality product. The higher up the corporate food chain, the more (it seems to me) employees begin to be viewed as chattel, objects not people. When that mentality becomes perversive to the company decision process then quality suffers, because there is little motivation to perform other then the basic requirement. A motivated local work force may cost mroe in the short term, but actually save money long term by producing a quality product the first time out. Outsourced vendors may show better short term costs savings, but the product may have so many issues that back end corrections will end up costing it more before release. Most often, outsource work takes longer to complete, and requires more corrections, because those providing the work effort have no connection or concern of the company, they just produce code.
The amount of time / effort / money I've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering
The amount of time / effort / money lost over the years due to poor management, bad analysis, and improbable times lines is staggering.
There, fixed it for you. You do see that your own statement is about as arrogant and condescending as the programmers you want to insult. Buggy code, crashing software is not just the responsibility of the programmer, it is the responsibility of the leadership as well. Why was it buggy? Bad design specs, no code reviews, tight time lines with large interruptions? Why did it crash? Poor QA and review by business owners? ridiculous deadlines, poor working conditions, low morale?
There is more there then just "bad programming" as if programming exists in some bubble. Developing is not assembly line work, it is a complex art and yet over decades management has viewed it from an industrial age mentality. Work from x to y, produce x lines of code, stop what you are doing and look at something else no matter where you are at. Certainly there are arrogant programmers, just like there are arrogant managers. I challenge you though to see that both need each other to reduce the number of bugs, the minimizing of crashes (really "crashing computer software? Not Abending or exception failures?) When a positive work environment is set that people tend to work better, with less error. That is the job of management and yes, even leads. For the record, I have been in lead and oversight positions. The best role I played was to get out of the way and let my people do their job. Along the way I would just ensure that we maintained a high quality of effort and we kept on focus to the requirements provided.
What nonsense. One of the foundations of project falure is built from the top down. Executive leaderships say "make this work" what ever "this" may be. Top leadership runs around then looking for a solution. Many times they go to a vendor and of course the vendor says "Why yes, our product will solve "this" problem". So instead of so good due diligence on the part of analysts to truly see what the specific needs are, the company purchases this cost saving solution; perhaps it is a service, perhaps it is a soup to nuts enterprise system, perhaps it is off the shelf, out of the box software.
Soon into implementation or pilot the upper levels managers finally begin to see what their own IT staff and their customers were trying to tell them
1 - We don't need "this"
2 - "This" does not fit our needs
3 - "We have to use "this?", the current system works.
Even worse, while the company has a qualified in house staff that understands the specific needs, they will hire consultants to tell them how "this" can work for them. It could be that certain decision makers were favored by the vendor to "try it out" only to find later that the trail cost more in lost time, money, effort while the vendor pockets the dough.
Cynical? Not really. Over my long time in the business I have seen this time and time again. Even though there is a good staff structure in place to handle company IT needs top corporate leaders will buy from a vendor because the perception is that the goal will come quicker. Never mind that the product may not fit, IT will make it fit. Never mind the internal customers that need retraining, we'll hire new people...and on and on. All to try and save time. The bottom line is that any failure of an IT project begins with the top leadership not doing their job. The first question they should ask and answer before dropping a dime is "Do we really really need "this". The second, "Is it an emergency?". The third, "Do we have staff to create "this"?, the fourth "how will this effect our internal customers?. In a world where the attitude is "We need it yesterday" there will be more failure, but do not fault just IT, fault corporate leadership.
(yes I rtfa and it was fluff, stupid and providing no insight to why)