Why laptops for every child? Less time in class teaching them the mechanics of writing (handwriting skills).
When I was in school [I know, I know, it sounds like I'm going to talk about walking uphill, barefoot, in a blizzard, but hear me out...], we spent a lot of time on handwriting (or penmanship). Now, having kids of my own in school, I was very surprised that there is no class time dedicated to this skill. They do adress the fundamentals in Kindergarten and First grade, but beyond that there is no formal training in how to write (block print or script). I've asked teachers about it. Half of my kids' handwriting is horrendous, and that's even after I've worked with them for hours on end and weeks at a time. I see the same in the hallways from the others kids, so mine aren't the only ones (bad penmanship used to be the exception, but now it seems to be the rule). Most of the teachers have told me not to worry about it, since everyone will be typing everything soon anyway. One went so far as to completely write off my first-grader's handwriting: she told us to buy Mavis Beacon and have him type all his work.
While I understand what they are saying--that keyboarding skills are absolutely necessary, they miss the point that there will be some times when you simply won't be able to use a keyboard/keypad. Just think of a disaster like Katrina--once the laptop batteries died, you would have to rely on handwriting if you need to record information. In retail, when the power drops, you still may need to write something down to record a sale (unless you want to let people walk out the door without their merchandise). I take my laptop everywhere (until last week--anyone have a spare motherboard for a Dell Inspiron 600m lying around?), but I've even been in some meetings where I was barred from using my laptop for note-taking because the other participants thought I either was a) writing a letter to grandma the whole time or b) capturing every word they spoke because I planned to use their words against them in the future.
So, yes, I can see benefit to all the kids having laptops, but to be successful, the laptop technologies will need to be integrated into every area of the classroom and schoolday (except, perhaps, for during floor hockey in phys. ed.;). I think this is primarily a PR move on the behalf of the school board. It creates the impression that they are really doing something about education. Not living in that state, I can't speak for the quality of the schools, but I would venture a guess that there are other ways to support the promotion of academics that would benefit from these funds.
Actually, Dell does not drop old machines from the stolen list (based on my experience), and they don't go directly to the cops.
A laptop stolen from the vehicle of a fellow employee was assumed lost forever, until, four years later, we were contacted by Dell and asked about the system. They had a caller who asked Dell tech support for help to get rid of a BIOS password. When they referenced the system's service tag, it was flagged as having been reported stolen, and they tried to contact my former peer who made the initial report (he had since left the company). Here's where it got interesting.
Dell wanted us to provide proof that we had actually purchased the system in the first place. We were by no means their largest customer, but we were purchasing hundreds of units a year (for a workforce of over 1,100 with machines on either a two or three year replacement cycle). We cross-referenced the system service tag number against our records, and determined that it had been purchased nearly seven years earlier. Needless to say, we did not retain detailed packing slips that reflected the service tag and/or serial number that long after a purchase (especially after the decommissioning of the rest of the machines in that lot). I had an internal inventory log that reflected the presence of the machine, but that was not good enough for Dell. They would not disclose the identity of the caller (fair enough), so our only option was to seek legal action on our own. I passed the issue on to senior management and our legal team, but they decided not to pursue the recovery or charges (in my state, possession of stolen goods is a crime, even if there would be no reasonable way for the current owner to know whether or not the item was stolen). What about proprietary or confidential data that was more than likely to be on the machine (including customer data)? The legal/management team decided the data was too old to pose any real risk (something I disagree with completely--there was a good chance that the machine had records containing our customers' customer data, including all the details that would be necessary to fill out a loan application--I worked supporting the guy who lost the machine).
Subsequently, we have moved to a disk encryption product, but it still shows that Dell does track those numbers for quite a while. At the time, it really ticked me off that Dell wanted us to prove that we bought it, especially since we reported the theft through our regular channels and since they had record (at the time of the report) that this was one of our machines.
My theory as to why it was so long before someone tried to use it (someone who obviously didn't know enough to crack open the case and reset the BIOS settings)? The thief probably put it to the side because he couldn't sell it with the password on, thinking he'd either figure out a way to bypass it. As time passed (I have so many old machines I've gotten from various sources that I intend to play around with, so I know how it is), the thief was either out of the picture (evicted, moved, arrested, etc.), or the laptop was simply passed on to someone else. Eventually, someone who really wanted to use it (who knows--maybe they found it at a rummage sale) decided to call Dell to get some help. It would have sucked to cause legal troubles for someone in that scenario, but I was really hoping they would have pursued recovery. I just wanted to see what was on the box in the first place!
I'll have to ask my doc about this one. I've not had frequent urination issues since my first year as a diabetic, but my blood sugars are still higher than they should be.
I'm glad your future father-in-law lost weight and is doing well managing his sugar, but you should be aware of one thing: while his symptoms have gone away due to his reduced weight (and the associated fat), he has not been "cured" of diabetes. He still has the underlying factors which, in all likelihood, will reappear again when he is older or when his insulin-resistance increases. I lost 70 pounds after my diagnosis. Now, six years later, my sugar levels are climbing again.
While obesity is a huge factor for diabetes, such an oversimplification discounts other contributing factors (things that promote the increase in obesity as well). Diabetes was largely unknown among the indigenous inhabitants of North America until introduced to the colonists'/settlers' richer foodstuffs. The increased consumption of increasingly refined (as time progressed) starches and sugars was a huge factor in influencing the increase of diabetes and obesity among indigenous peoples. The astonishing thing was the rate at which indigenous peoples developed diabetes. Although their eating and activity patterns mirrored those of the rest of the population, far more indigenous individuals developed diabetes. This same result has happened among numerous people groups across the globe, suggesting that other metabolic factors play a role as well.
While not playing the blame game and going so far as to say that simple sugars are the reason diabetes is so prevalent, it is a major factor. Were our diets still largely composed of less-refined foods (particularly various grains and sugars), the sugars would not so easily be absorbed into our systems, leading to imbalances in insulin levels and production, excess fat, and possible insulin resistance. Physical exertion levels, as you also noted, are also important. In pre-industrial revolution agricultural communities (and, I might add, in indigenous subsistance cultures), food was gathered at the cost of great physical exertion. How much effort must we now expend to gather and prepare food? Drive to a store, place items on a wheeled cart, drive home, unload the groceries, grab an item from the shelf, and (for many these days) just heat and serve. Even meals people claim to "prepare" these days are usually just a gathering and assembly of partially prepared items (a can of this, a pound of that). The closest most people in the United States get to making meals from scratch is around the holidays, when one or more members of the family might make fresh baked goods, roast a turkey, and prepare fresh mashed potatoes--and even then they have not done most of the preparations like killing and plucking the bird, digging up and washing the potatoes, and making the pie crust from scratch. My family and I do still do a lot of "scratch" cooking, but we don't plant, cultivate, and harvest most of our vegetables. We don't raise and butcher our own meats.
Yes, losing weight and exercising more are key to staying healthy, avoiding things like diabetes, and counteracting the impact of such a condition, but it is not all by personal choice that such large portions of our society are moving toward obesity. We have a mindset of comfort and being entertained, rather than one of hard work and rigorous recreation. You may be one of the soon-to-be minority who is trim and healthy, but think about the overall culture that has developed--it does not reward those who go and do as much as it rewards those who sit and watch.
Wow, thanks for the compliment. I, too, tend to get very verbose--it can be a struggle to be concise when conveying my own thoughts, but it always is easier to summarize the thoughts of others.
For those looking for the Cliff's Notes version of the parent:
The article got the types of diabetes wrong. Type 2 diabetes means the body can't use the insulin it has, not that it doesn't produce enough. For those who have Type 2 diabetes a long time, they may eventually need to inject insulin, and this discovery could prevent that from becoming necessray.
Perhaps a better term would be "diabetic spectrum disorder."
Clinically, high blood sugar levels are one of the results of (symptoms of) diabetes. The underlying condition is either the body's inability to produce and regulate insulin, or the body's inability to utilize insulin. They are classifying Alzheimer's in this broad spectrum, because it appears to have a component of insulin resistance.
I've been with my company almost nine years; not one promotion (though the job did evolve slightly)--that led me to take an internal posting in another area. Annual review time is coming up--I'll have to see how I fare here.
I'm an information security analyst, earning less than $60k per year (and hoping to break that point if the salary adminsitration fairy is kind to me) even though I was training information systems auditors in my former position. The bennies are very good (including both a 401K and a real retirement plan), and those factors alone make it very hard to consider jumping ship. They gut-hooked me. I should have recognized it: we have tons of people with under five years of experience, and a huge cadre of long-timers (20-30 years of service--across all areas, not just IT--is surprisingly common). They (assuming HR/senior management) know that they've given me enough annual increases to price me out of a lateral job change to most other companies. The saving grace: tuition reimbursement. I took the job without a degree, earned a bachelor's and am currently enrolled in a master's program. They've seen a minor exodus of staff who earn advanced degress, so I'm finishing mine before the program goes away. Hopefully, between experience and the degree, I should be able to make a jump to another enterprise without taking too much of a compensation hit.
It's hard to switch jobs with so much time vested, but I'm looking. When the right opportunity presents itself, I'll wade in and see how the water feels...
As someone who worked the management end of retail books for a while, I can say that the store's argument contains more crap than a BWCA latrine. If customers wanted to special order books, we always asked if they knew the ISBN, to make sure we ordered the right edition. It's a product tracking number, not intellectual property for a retailer, author, or publisher.
It's just another case where Einstein's take on genius and stupidity is shown true [paraphrased]: the only difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
And you probably would have ridiculed Benjamin Franklin had he received an enormous electric shock while experimenting with electricity.
Most real innovations in the course of this (U.S.A.) country's history have been made by amateurs and hobbyists. Such "citizen scientists" have had a tremendous impact on most areas of science and industry and have only been supplanted (in their rate of discovery) in the past few decades by corporations and research labs associated with educational institutions. Instead of deriding the man for his lack of skill as a motorcyclist, why not laud his achievement in mechanical and electrical engineering?
Had the Wright brothers and other pioneers of early flight listened to the detractors who called them foolish or unwise, modern flight may yet be a pipe dream. Had Dean Kamen left innovation to the "experts" when his uncle struggled to manage his insulin intake, he would not have invented the automatic insulin infusion pump while he (Kamen) was yet a teen.
Since you're ridiculing this inventor, what are you doing to advance the science he promotes? What are you doing to extend battery life, create a more powerful electric motor, or develop more energy-efficient vehicles? There's an old saying that fits here [imo--and it goes for all the naysayers out there on all the threads]:
While I would not agree that all corporations should be prohibited, I do believe they are extended far too many rights and privileges under law. In its most basic form, a corporation should facilitate a group of stakeholders to enter business transactions as a single entity. Most of modern corporate law trends toward extending corporate rights to the point where they are more privileged (under law) than a typical citizen. While corporations are "artificial persons" under law, such status should be limited for the most immediate and practical needs of conducting business.
Don't think there will be any regulation for a while? Think again.
When cars came on the scene, there wasn't already a web of laws covering existing roadways and established driving routes. Air travel already has well established flyways and no-fly zones. Don't think for a minute that the FAA will simply let Jane and John Doe go out, buy flying vehicles, and take them wherever they want to go. In addition, do you think they'll allow people to use them without a license? We're talking about vehicles far more powerful than ultralight aircraft, which earned an exemption (there were many efforts to require ultralight hobbyists to have pilots licenses).
More spots to park them will come available? Unless you're thinking that traditional surface parking will go away, this won't happen for a very, very long time. In most urban areas in the US, large amounts of parking is accommodated via parking ramps. Can you imaging using a VTOL craft to navigate such spaces? Yet without parking ramps, most cities would not have enough availalble parking for current development. Unless someone designs high-capacity parking for aircars (and the automated navigation systems required to navigate them), they will never reach the usage density of the automobile.
Thinking you can simply add parking to rooftops? Think again. Rooftops were designed to keep the weather out (or, less frequently, to facilitate upward expansion). They were not designed to support the weight of flying cars. If you expect to see parking spaces come available for these craft on rooftops, you're talking about re-engineering most structures.
Thinking about parking on the street? How large would the stalls need to be to prevent impacts with neighboring cars. Ask any pilot about what a devil the wind can be. All you need is one gust to move you where you don't want to be. And what about the engine wash's impact on the pedestrian walkways (sidewalks) that border the streets? And noise? Ever been near a VTOL craft in operation? There's a reason staff at even small airports wear hearing protection.
Until aircar technology can (1) generate lift without excessive noise, (2) provide automated stability control to counter the effects of near-the-ground wind, and (3) gain FAA approval, these cars will remain nothing more than a child's dream and a rich man's toy.
That is a group of producers joining together to advertise a common product. It is not a court case wherein an assumption is made that any infringing content constitutes a violation of the collective group's copyrights (since copyright is owned by one party of the association, not the association itself).
There likely are duly noted delegated authority and limited power of attorney statements in play, however. I think the defendant's approach has merit, but it remains to be seen how the bench will interpret the law.
The simple presence of a pager does not necessarily mean 24/7 availability. My current position requires a pager, but it stays at the office unless I am on call. Our on-call rotation is such that I cover one week 24/7 about four times a year. For me, that was a reasonable share of the on-call load. Far better than many jobs for which I've interviewed, where the expectation is that you are available 24/7/365.
I guess I'm just cautioning you not to pre-exclude an opportunity just because you see people wearing pagers, or because the job description lists "on-call." Ask questions and make an informed decision.
Allow us to digress from the primary topic a moment. You hit a hot-button topic with me.
My father was a union tin-knocker (i.e., sheet-metal worker) all of his adult life. It was frustrating to see new hires come in, under new contracts, making money it took him 10-20 years to earn (with increases under the contracts that beat inflation--they started at inflation-adjusted wages far higher than earned by my father). To top it off, my father was a dilligent worker who regularly gave 110% every day (if he ever had off days [not "days off"], none of his co-workers knew about them!). He worked in a union shop.
Now, before any of you pro-union types go ballistic on me, just hear me out. Unions have served an important place in our history. I just believe they should be temporary, not perpetual entities. They should rise when they are needed and then fade away unless they are needed again. Unions have become self-perpetuating enterprises that, like it or not, have negatively impacted productivity. I know I may never convince you.
My father had a reputation for working like a pack mule. If assigned a job, he would get it done as quickly as he could. When he was in his 50s, his boss set up a little wager in the shop. They would send a team of three (or was it four?) newer union workers out to rough-out houses (prepare the ductwork for heating and air conditioning installation) in a new subdivision. They were told to simply start on one end of the street and work on each house on the block. Then, they told my father, alone, to do the same on the other side of the street (or on the next block--can't remember which it was). My father's workday was usually 6 AM to 3PM, so he had time for his long commute home. The regular union crew showed up later, took regular breaks and a fixed lunch. My father took breaks when he needed them, and always took a lunch, too, but they were shorter--just what he needed. These other guys took theirs like clockwork and they seemed to milk them. I don't know what time the other crew went home, other than that it was after my dad went home. At the end of the week, the regular union crew had completed two houses and was preparing to start a third. My father, during the same time period (and unaware of the competition), completed five houses by himself! The other crew apparently did work within the accepted minimums (based on estimated time required to do the jobs), but they showed how inefficient such artificial standards were (and are). They also got razzed pretty bad for a long time. Maybe that difference in work ethic relates to the fact that my father was an immigrant who would not take the blessings of a good job for granted, or maybe it was just that he was against a lazy crew, but time and again I've seen unions take away incentives for being productive. My father wasn't paid any more for that week of work than he was for any other. Neither were the members of the other crew paid any less for their work. That's where unions break down. While often highly competitive at the point of entry, the stability provided by a union contract can tempt many into simply coasting by with minimal effort.
I won't go into some of the benefits issues my father had to deal with, or the whole issue of strikes and crossing picket lines, or prohibitions on doing side jobs (any non-union work) on his own time. Unions used my dad. The retirement benefits aren't so good as to make up for it. When you're young and starting out, unions may look really attractive, but when looking at the bigger picture, they are often not the boon you thought they would be.
I'll put my soapbox away now. Thanks for tolerating my little tirade.
Dickens' comes to mind here. You're at the door of a tremendous opportunity, but there's an equally unpleasant chance for failure. Number one, you've recognized that you're not feeling ready for the management role. To me, this is a great indicator that I think you'll surprise even yourself in the months ahead. The fact that you're worried about it shows you're not an ego-centric moron who thinks he's God's gift to project development. That said, I'll offer a few bits of advice for you to consider.
If the position is already settled, then go to HR and get connected with one of their senior specialists who works in training, development, or mentoring. Let him/her know that you're willing to step up to the plate, but that you are looking for some additional insight and help as you make the transition. Make it clear that you're looking for support, not some remedial "How to manage in 30 days or less" type material. S/he may be able to hook you up with another, more experienced manager in your firm who can help you during your first few months. My second point really depends on WHO you will be managing. Will this be your current peer group, or a completely new set of faces? If your current peer group, I'd want to know what your relationships are like right now. Do they respect you? Do they come to you for help? If so, you'll probably fare better than some. If your peers don't think kindly of you, a malestrom could be ahead of you. If a completely fresh set of faces, only time will tell. Remember that your empoyees are going to want to feel you out as much as you are going to need to feel them out. My advice? Sit down with your new team on day one (or before). Give them your background and let them know what strengths you bring to the table (in some ways, this is like a final, non-binding interview). I would tell them that this is your first foray into management, and that you expect you'll make some mistakes along the way, but that you trust them to be open with you so that you may improve. Then (if feasible), announce that you'll meet with each individual briefly to get to know them better (this can be out of the "norm" for most men, but believe me that it goes a long way to establishing a good relationship). Keep those meetings short and light. Talk about the employee's interests and strengths. Many employees long for management changes with the hope that a fresh set of ears may be willing to listen to their dreams and aspirations. Try to learn the employee's preferred communications and learning styles (either by asking, or through observation). Ask them what was best about their last manager, or what they believe makes a good manager. Take note of what they say (mentally, or on paper)! You may not be prepared to provide the type of management they want, but having that list of expectations will give you a good starting point for your mentor discussions, or your time with your HR rep.
Okay. Enough from me. Best of luck to you in your new position. I would love to see an update from you in a year, to tell us what worked and what didn't.
The people (i.e. managers/officers) who have the hardest time with this are those who were raised in "old school" business, where face time was everything, and where it was assumed that there was a simple direct correllation between employee work and productivity. While the correlation between work and productivity remains the base for the equation (zero work still yields zero productivity), workplace and behavioral studies have determined that numerous other factors (like employee morale) influence productivity. Perhaps these old school managers feel threatened by a workforce that is really focused on outcomes rather than processes, or perhaps they feel that they should oppose moves to greater workplace flexibility since they were denied such freedoms. While I'm not willing to completely blur the line between my work and personal lives (i.e., I want time when everyone will know I'm simply not available for work), I acknowledge that members of my time each handle their responsibilities differently, and my manager sees that, too.
Managers and executives need to realize that they are managing individuals, not commodity workers. Not all will have the same needs.
I shudder to think of the productivity loss at your employer's place of business.
People are not cookies, and one size does not fit all. If some employee has a problem surfing so much that the work doesn't get done, then, by all means, implement such a system FOR THAT EMPLOYEE. Punnishing the rest will simply reduce morale, which leads, in turn, to a productivity loss.
The big problem with systems like the one you describe is that most of the productivity calculations are based on estimated losses, and have no real basis in fact. The executives that push these methods will print reports that say they saved the company $xxx,xxx in recovered productivity, when they may simply have shifted employees from one non-productive habit to another.
Were it I working at your company, I know my productivity would actually drop. I've developed my own rhythm for my workday, and it likely would not correspond to your employer's designated 15-minute web breaks. You would also lose me as an employee as soon as the first promising gig materializes. Whatever the company gains in "productivity increases" could easily be wiped out by needing to re-train for two or three positions should employees decide to leave.
This was what I was up against in my old position. When I asked for more work, I was told to make some. Then, when I came up with projects that would have had a real, positive impact on our work environment (not to mention, provide me with some interesting work in the long term), the ideas were shot down--time after time.
I've been in my new position (under different management) for almost a year now. It was a great change. Update your resume and get looking! A better position is waiting for you!
LOL. There's some truth to it. For me, the time spent looking at news, headlines, etc. (albeit not 4/5 of my time) is often the fuel that gets me through the rest of the day.
Block access to the web, and people will go back to other topics (as if they don't already)--who's on Dancing with the Stars, LOST, some YouTube video, their pets, beading hobby, weekend at the lake, et. al. ad infinitum.
Let's face it. People are not going to be 100% productive 100% of the time while they are at work. As other posters have noted, there are different dynamics depending on the type of job, but I won't go so far as to suggesting that similar slacking does not exist for those in the lower-end wage brackets. The biggest way slacking occurs there is through productivity slowdowns.
Sure, it might only take an enthusiastic new employee 15 minutes to clean the breakroom, but it becomes clear very quickly that doing so makes the rest of the employees look bad, since they are allocated 30 minutes to do the job. I knew a guy who went to work (with his buddy) at a silo manufacturing facility many years ago. They got the hang of it soon enough and were soon completing nearly two structures a night. The pace was fair, and they were able to hold some great discussions while they were working. After a couple of weeks, they wondered how many silos they could make if they shut up and focused on the work. First night that way, they made five. The next night, they made seven. After about a week like that, the union steward showed up and told my friend and his buddy that, "it is physically impossible to build more than 2.5 silos per night." Excitedly, they told him what they did, but the guy just repeated his line. For the rest of the summer, they built 2.5 silos a night. Neither opted for full time jobs with that place.
It's not a union thing--it's an establishment thing. Once people have an accepted "norm" for how something is done, it's hard to break away. That's one reason why "face time" is still valued (in some offices) more than productivity. Viva la revolution!
Slashdot Mirror
Why laptops for every child? Less time in class teaching them the mechanics of writing (handwriting skills).
When I was in school [I know, I know, it sounds like I'm going to talk about walking uphill, barefoot, in a blizzard, but hear me out...], we spent a lot of time on handwriting (or penmanship). Now, having kids of my own in school, I was very surprised that there is no class time dedicated to this skill. They do adress the fundamentals in Kindergarten and First grade, but beyond that there is no formal training in how to write (block print or script). I've asked teachers about it. Half of my kids' handwriting is horrendous, and that's even after I've worked with them for hours on end and weeks at a time. I see the same in the hallways from the others kids, so mine aren't the only ones (bad penmanship used to be the exception, but now it seems to be the rule). Most of the teachers have told me not to worry about it, since everyone will be typing everything soon anyway. One went so far as to completely write off my first-grader's handwriting: she told us to buy Mavis Beacon and have him type all his work.
While I understand what they are saying--that keyboarding skills are absolutely necessary, they miss the point that there will be some times when you simply won't be able to use a keyboard/keypad. Just think of a disaster like Katrina--once the laptop batteries died, you would have to rely on handwriting if you need to record information. In retail, when the power drops, you still may need to write something down to record a sale (unless you want to let people walk out the door without their merchandise). I take my laptop everywhere (until last week--anyone have a spare motherboard for a Dell Inspiron 600m lying around?), but I've even been in some meetings where I was barred from using my laptop for note-taking because the other participants thought I either was a) writing a letter to grandma the whole time or b) capturing every word they spoke because I planned to use their words against them in the future.
So, yes, I can see benefit to all the kids having laptops, but to be successful, the laptop technologies will need to be integrated into every area of the classroom and schoolday (except, perhaps, for during floor hockey in phys. ed.;). I think this is primarily a PR move on the behalf of the school board. It creates the impression that they are really doing something about education. Not living in that state, I can't speak for the quality of the schools, but I would venture a guess that there are other ways to support the promotion of academics that would benefit from these funds.
Actually, Dell does not drop old machines from the stolen list (based on my experience), and they don't go directly to the cops.
A laptop stolen from the vehicle of a fellow employee was assumed lost forever, until, four years later, we were contacted by Dell and asked about the system. They had a caller who asked Dell tech support for help to get rid of a BIOS password. When they referenced the system's service tag, it was flagged as having been reported stolen, and they tried to contact my former peer who made the initial report (he had since left the company). Here's where it got interesting.
Dell wanted us to provide proof that we had actually purchased the system in the first place. We were by no means their largest customer, but we were purchasing hundreds of units a year (for a workforce of over 1,100 with machines on either a two or three year replacement cycle). We cross-referenced the system service tag number against our records, and determined that it had been purchased nearly seven years earlier. Needless to say, we did not retain detailed packing slips that reflected the service tag and/or serial number that long after a purchase (especially after the decommissioning of the rest of the machines in that lot). I had an internal inventory log that reflected the presence of the machine, but that was not good enough for Dell. They would not disclose the identity of the caller (fair enough), so our only option was to seek legal action on our own. I passed the issue on to senior management and our legal team, but they decided not to pursue the recovery or charges (in my state, possession of stolen goods is a crime, even if there would be no reasonable way for the current owner to know whether or not the item was stolen). What about proprietary or confidential data that was more than likely to be on the machine (including customer data)? The legal/management team decided the data was too old to pose any real risk (something I disagree with completely--there was a good chance that the machine had records containing our customers' customer data, including all the details that would be necessary to fill out a loan application--I worked supporting the guy who lost the machine).
Subsequently, we have moved to a disk encryption product, but it still shows that Dell does track those numbers for quite a while. At the time, it really ticked me off that Dell wanted us to prove that we bought it, especially since we reported the theft through our regular channels and since they had record (at the time of the report) that this was one of our machines.
My theory as to why it was so long before someone tried to use it (someone who obviously didn't know enough to crack open the case and reset the BIOS settings)? The thief probably put it to the side because he couldn't sell it with the password on, thinking he'd either figure out a way to bypass it. As time passed (I have so many old machines I've gotten from various sources that I intend to play around with, so I know how it is), the thief was either out of the picture (evicted, moved, arrested, etc.), or the laptop was simply passed on to someone else. Eventually, someone who really wanted to use it (who knows--maybe they found it at a rummage sale) decided to call Dell to get some help. It would have sucked to cause legal troubles for someone in that scenario, but I was really hoping they would have pursued recovery. I just wanted to see what was on the box in the first place!
I'll have to ask my doc about this one. I've not had frequent urination issues since my first year as a diabetic, but my blood sugars are still higher than they should be.
I'm glad your future father-in-law lost weight and is doing well managing his sugar, but you should be aware of one thing: while his symptoms have gone away due to his reduced weight (and the associated fat), he has not been "cured" of diabetes. He still has the underlying factors which, in all likelihood, will reappear again when he is older or when his insulin-resistance increases. I lost 70 pounds after my diagnosis. Now, six years later, my sugar levels are climbing again.
While obesity is a huge factor for diabetes, such an oversimplification discounts other contributing factors (things that promote the increase in obesity as well). Diabetes was largely unknown among the indigenous inhabitants of North America until introduced to the colonists'/settlers' richer foodstuffs. The increased consumption of increasingly refined (as time progressed) starches and sugars was a huge factor in influencing the increase of diabetes and obesity among indigenous peoples. The astonishing thing was the rate at which indigenous peoples developed diabetes. Although their eating and activity patterns mirrored those of the rest of the population, far more indigenous individuals developed diabetes. This same result has happened among numerous people groups across the globe, suggesting that other metabolic factors play a role as well.
While not playing the blame game and going so far as to say that simple sugars are the reason diabetes is so prevalent, it is a major factor. Were our diets still largely composed of less-refined foods (particularly various grains and sugars), the sugars would not so easily be absorbed into our systems, leading to imbalances in insulin levels and production, excess fat, and possible insulin resistance. Physical exertion levels, as you also noted, are also important. In pre-industrial revolution agricultural communities (and, I might add, in indigenous subsistance cultures), food was gathered at the cost of great physical exertion. How much effort must we now expend to gather and prepare food? Drive to a store, place items on a wheeled cart, drive home, unload the groceries, grab an item from the shelf, and (for many these days) just heat and serve. Even meals people claim to "prepare" these days are usually just a gathering and assembly of partially prepared items (a can of this, a pound of that). The closest most people in the United States get to making meals from scratch is around the holidays, when one or more members of the family might make fresh baked goods, roast a turkey, and prepare fresh mashed potatoes--and even then they have not done most of the preparations like killing and plucking the bird, digging up and washing the potatoes, and making the pie crust from scratch. My family and I do still do a lot of "scratch" cooking, but we don't plant, cultivate, and harvest most of our vegetables. We don't raise and butcher our own meats.
Yes, losing weight and exercising more are key to staying healthy, avoiding things like diabetes, and counteracting the impact of such a condition, but it is not all by personal choice that such large portions of our society are moving toward obesity. We have a mindset of comfort and being entertained, rather than one of hard work and rigorous recreation. You may be one of the soon-to-be minority who is trim and healthy, but think about the overall culture that has developed--it does not reward those who go and do as much as it rewards those who sit and watch.
Just food for thought.
Wow, thanks for the compliment. I, too, tend to get very verbose--it can be a struggle to be concise when conveying my own thoughts, but it always is easier to summarize the thoughts of others.
For those looking for the Cliff's Notes version of the parent:
The article got the types of diabetes wrong. Type 2 diabetes means the body can't use the insulin it has, not that it doesn't produce enough. For those who have Type 2 diabetes a long time, they may eventually need to inject insulin, and this discovery could prevent that from becoming necessray.
[Summarized by a Type 2]
So could someone craft a trojan or a bit of malware code that would flip the switch if they find a user running one of these products?
Perhaps a better term would be "diabetic spectrum disorder."
Clinically, high blood sugar levels are one of the results of (symptoms of) diabetes. The underlying condition is either the body's inability to produce and regulate insulin, or the body's inability to utilize insulin. They are classifying Alzheimer's in this broad spectrum, because it appears to have a component of insulin resistance.
[Written by a Type II for 6 years]
Actually, the FED does not print money. The US Bureau of Printing and Engraving prints money. The Federal Reserve DISTRIBUTES money--BIG DIFFERENCE.
I have yet to hit the midpoint for my range.
I've been with my company almost nine years; not one promotion (though the job did evolve slightly)--that led me to take an internal posting in another area. Annual review time is coming up--I'll have to see how I fare here.
I'm an information security analyst, earning less than $60k per year (and hoping to break that point if the salary adminsitration fairy is kind to me) even though I was training information systems auditors in my former position. The bennies are very good (including both a 401K and a real retirement plan), and those factors alone make it very hard to consider jumping ship. They gut-hooked me. I should have recognized it: we have tons of people with under five years of experience, and a huge cadre of long-timers (20-30 years of service--across all areas, not just IT--is surprisingly common). They (assuming HR/senior management) know that they've given me enough annual increases to price me out of a lateral job change to most other companies. The saving grace: tuition reimbursement. I took the job without a degree, earned a bachelor's and am currently enrolled in a master's program. They've seen a minor exodus of staff who earn advanced degress, so I'm finishing mine before the program goes away. Hopefully, between experience and the degree, I should be able to make a jump to another enterprise without taking too much of a compensation hit.
It's hard to switch jobs with so much time vested, but I'm looking. When the right opportunity presents itself, I'll wade in and see how the water feels...
As someone who worked the management end of retail books for a while, I can say that the store's argument contains more crap than a BWCA latrine. If customers wanted to special order books, we always asked if they knew the ISBN, to make sure we ordered the right edition. It's a product tracking number, not intellectual property for a retailer, author, or publisher.
It's just another case where Einstein's take on genius and stupidity is shown true [paraphrased]: the only difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
And you probably would have ridiculed Benjamin Franklin had he received an enormous electric shock while experimenting with electricity.
Most real innovations in the course of this (U.S.A.) country's history have been made by amateurs and hobbyists. Such "citizen scientists" have had a tremendous impact on most areas of science and industry and have only been supplanted (in their rate of discovery) in the past few decades by corporations and research labs associated with educational institutions. Instead of deriding the man for his lack of skill as a motorcyclist, why not laud his achievement in mechanical and electrical engineering?
Had the Wright brothers and other pioneers of early flight listened to the detractors who called them foolish or unwise, modern flight may yet be a pipe dream. Had Dean Kamen left innovation to the "experts" when his uncle struggled to manage his insulin intake, he would not have invented the automatic insulin infusion pump while he (Kamen) was yet a teen.
Since you're ridiculing this inventor, what are you doing to advance the science he promotes? What are you doing to extend battery life, create a more powerful electric motor, or develop more energy-efficient vehicles? There's an old saying that fits here [imo--and it goes for all the naysayers out there on all the threads]:
PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!
revenue != value
While I would not agree that all corporations should be prohibited, I do believe they are extended far too many rights and privileges under law. In its most basic form, a corporation should facilitate a group of stakeholders to enter business transactions as a single entity. Most of modern corporate law trends toward extending corporate rights to the point where they are more privileged (under law) than a typical citizen. While corporations are "artificial persons" under law, such status should be limited for the most immediate and practical needs of conducting business.
Absolutely. Much easier, but far less relevant to the work that is to be performed.
Don't think there will be any regulation for a while? Think again.
When cars came on the scene, there wasn't already a web of laws covering existing roadways and established driving routes. Air travel already has well established flyways and no-fly zones. Don't think for a minute that the FAA will simply let Jane and John Doe go out, buy flying vehicles, and take them wherever they want to go. In addition, do you think they'll allow people to use them without a license? We're talking about vehicles far more powerful than ultralight aircraft, which earned an exemption (there were many efforts to require ultralight hobbyists to have pilots licenses).
More spots to park them will come available? Unless you're thinking that traditional surface parking will go away, this won't happen for a very, very long time. In most urban areas in the US, large amounts of parking is accommodated via parking ramps. Can you imaging using a VTOL craft to navigate such spaces? Yet without parking ramps, most cities would not have enough availalble parking for current development. Unless someone designs high-capacity parking for aircars (and the automated navigation systems required to navigate them), they will never reach the usage density of the automobile.
Thinking you can simply add parking to rooftops? Think again. Rooftops were designed to keep the weather out (or, less frequently, to facilitate upward expansion). They were not designed to support the weight of flying cars. If you expect to see parking spaces come available for these craft on rooftops, you're talking about re-engineering most structures.
Thinking about parking on the street? How large would the stalls need to be to prevent impacts with neighboring cars. Ask any pilot about what a devil the wind can be. All you need is one gust to move you where you don't want to be. And what about the engine wash's impact on the pedestrian walkways (sidewalks) that border the streets? And noise? Ever been near a VTOL craft in operation? There's a reason staff at even small airports wear hearing protection.
Until aircar technology can (1) generate lift without excessive noise, (2) provide automated stability control to counter the effects of near-the-ground wind, and (3) gain FAA approval, these cars will remain nothing more than a child's dream and a rich man's toy.
That is a group of producers joining together to advertise a common product. It is not a court case wherein an assumption is made that any infringing content constitutes a violation of the collective group's copyrights (since copyright is owned by one party of the association, not the association itself).
There likely are duly noted delegated authority and limited power of attorney statements in play, however. I think the defendant's approach has merit, but it remains to be seen how the bench will interpret the law.
The simple presence of a pager does not necessarily mean 24/7 availability. My current position requires a pager, but it stays at the office unless I am on call. Our on-call rotation is such that I cover one week 24/7 about four times a year. For me, that was a reasonable share of the on-call load. Far better than many jobs for which I've interviewed, where the expectation is that you are available 24/7/365.
I guess I'm just cautioning you not to pre-exclude an opportunity just because you see people wearing pagers, or because the job description lists "on-call." Ask questions and make an informed decision.
Allow us to digress from the primary topic a moment. You hit a hot-button topic with me.
My father was a union tin-knocker (i.e., sheet-metal worker) all of his adult life. It was frustrating to see new hires come in, under new contracts, making money it took him 10-20 years to earn (with increases under the contracts that beat inflation--they started at inflation-adjusted wages far higher than earned by my father). To top it off, my father was a dilligent worker who regularly gave 110% every day (if he ever had off days [not "days off"], none of his co-workers knew about them!). He worked in a union shop.
Now, before any of you pro-union types go ballistic on me, just hear me out. Unions have served an important place in our history. I just believe they should be temporary, not perpetual entities. They should rise when they are needed and then fade away unless they are needed again. Unions have become self-perpetuating enterprises that, like it or not, have negatively impacted productivity. I know I may never convince you.
My father had a reputation for working like a pack mule. If assigned a job, he would get it done as quickly as he could. When he was in his 50s, his boss set up a little wager in the shop. They would send a team of three (or was it four?) newer union workers out to rough-out houses (prepare the ductwork for heating and air conditioning installation) in a new subdivision. They were told to simply start on one end of the street and work on each house on the block. Then, they told my father, alone, to do the same on the other side of the street (or on the next block--can't remember which it was). My father's workday was usually 6 AM to 3PM, so he had time for his long commute home. The regular union crew showed up later, took regular breaks and a fixed lunch. My father took breaks when he needed them, and always took a lunch, too, but they were shorter--just what he needed. These other guys took theirs like clockwork and they seemed to milk them. I don't know what time the other crew went home, other than that it was after my dad went home. At the end of the week, the regular union crew had completed two houses and was preparing to start a third. My father, during the same time period (and unaware of the competition), completed five houses by himself! The other crew apparently did work within the accepted minimums (based on estimated time required to do the jobs), but they showed how inefficient such artificial standards were (and are). They also got razzed pretty bad for a long time. Maybe that difference in work ethic relates to the fact that my father was an immigrant who would not take the blessings of a good job for granted, or maybe it was just that he was against a lazy crew, but time and again I've seen unions take away incentives for being productive. My father wasn't paid any more for that week of work than he was for any other. Neither were the members of the other crew paid any less for their work. That's where unions break down. While often highly competitive at the point of entry, the stability provided by a union contract can tempt many into simply coasting by with minimal effort.
I won't go into some of the benefits issues my father had to deal with, or the whole issue of strikes and crossing picket lines, or prohibitions on doing side jobs (any non-union work) on his own time. Unions used my dad. The retirement benefits aren't so good as to make up for it. When you're young and starting out, unions may look really attractive, but when looking at the bigger picture, they are often not the boon you thought they would be.
I'll put my soapbox away now. Thanks for tolerating my little tirade.
Dickens' comes to mind here. You're at the door of a tremendous opportunity, but there's an equally unpleasant chance for failure. Number one, you've recognized that you're not feeling ready for the management role. To me, this is a great indicator that I think you'll surprise even yourself in the months ahead. The fact that you're worried about it shows you're not an ego-centric moron who thinks he's God's gift to project development. That said, I'll offer a few bits of advice for you to consider.
If the position is already settled, then go to HR and get connected with one of their senior specialists who works in training, development, or mentoring. Let him/her know that you're willing to step up to the plate, but that you are looking for some additional insight and help as you make the transition. Make it clear that you're looking for support, not some remedial "How to manage in 30 days or less" type material. S/he may be able to hook you up with another, more experienced manager in your firm who can help you during your first few months.
My second point really depends on WHO you will be managing. Will this be your current peer group, or a completely new set of faces? If your current peer group, I'd want to know what your relationships are like right now. Do they respect you? Do they come to you for help? If so, you'll probably fare better than some. If your peers don't think kindly of you, a malestrom could be ahead of you. If a completely fresh set of faces, only time will tell. Remember that your empoyees are going to want to feel you out as much as you are going to need to feel them out. My advice? Sit down with your new team on day one (or before). Give them your background and let them know what strengths you bring to the table (in some ways, this is like a final, non-binding interview). I would tell them that this is your first foray into management, and that you expect you'll make some mistakes along the way, but that you trust them to be open with you so that you may improve. Then (if feasible), announce that you'll meet with each individual briefly to get to know them better (this can be out of the "norm" for most men, but believe me that it goes a long way to establishing a good relationship). Keep those meetings short and light. Talk about the employee's interests and strengths. Many employees long for management changes with the hope that a fresh set of ears may be willing to listen to their dreams and aspirations. Try to learn the employee's preferred communications and learning styles (either by asking, or through observation). Ask them what was best about their last manager, or what they believe makes a good manager. Take note of what they say (mentally, or on paper)! You may not be prepared to provide the type of management they want, but having that list of expectations will give you a good starting point for your mentor discussions, or your time with your HR rep.
Okay. Enough from me. Best of luck to you in your new position. I would love to see an update from you in a year, to tell us what worked and what didn't.
The people (i.e. managers/officers) who have the hardest time with this are those who were raised in "old school" business, where face time was everything, and where it was assumed that there was a simple direct correllation between employee work and productivity. While the correlation between work and productivity remains the base for the equation (zero work still yields zero productivity), workplace and behavioral studies have determined that numerous other factors (like employee morale) influence productivity. Perhaps these old school managers feel threatened by a workforce that is really focused on outcomes rather than processes, or perhaps they feel that they should oppose moves to greater workplace flexibility since they were denied such freedoms. While I'm not willing to completely blur the line between my work and personal lives (i.e., I want time when everyone will know I'm simply not available for work), I acknowledge that members of my time each handle their responsibilities differently, and my manager sees that, too.
Managers and executives need to realize that they are managing individuals, not commodity workers. Not all will have the same needs.
I shudder to think of the productivity loss at your employer's place of business.
People are not cookies, and one size does not fit all. If some employee has a problem surfing so much that the work doesn't get done, then, by all means, implement such a system FOR THAT EMPLOYEE. Punnishing the rest will simply reduce morale, which leads, in turn, to a productivity loss.
The big problem with systems like the one you describe is that most of the productivity calculations are based on estimated losses, and have no real basis in fact. The executives that push these methods will print reports that say they saved the company $xxx,xxx in recovered productivity, when they may simply have shifted employees from one non-productive habit to another.
Were it I working at your company, I know my productivity would actually drop. I've developed my own rhythm for my workday, and it likely would not correspond to your employer's designated 15-minute web breaks. You would also lose me as an employee as soon as the first promising gig materializes. Whatever the company gains in "productivity increases" could easily be wiped out by needing to re-train for two or three positions should employees decide to leave.
This was what I was up against in my old position. When I asked for more work, I was told to make some. Then, when I came up with projects that would have had a real, positive impact on our work environment (not to mention, provide me with some interesting work in the long term), the ideas were shot down--time after time.
I've been in my new position (under different management) for almost a year now. It was a great change. Update your resume and get looking! A better position is waiting for you!
LOL. There's some truth to it. For me, the time spent looking at news, headlines, etc. (albeit not 4/5 of my time) is often the fuel that gets me through the rest of the day.
Block access to the web, and people will go back to other topics (as if they don't already)--who's on Dancing with the Stars, LOST, some YouTube video, their pets, beading hobby, weekend at the lake, et. al. ad infinitum.
Let's face it. People are not going to be 100% productive 100% of the time while they are at work. As other posters have noted, there are different dynamics depending on the type of job, but I won't go so far as to suggesting that similar slacking does not exist for those in the lower-end wage brackets. The biggest way slacking occurs there is through productivity slowdowns.
Sure, it might only take an enthusiastic new employee 15 minutes to clean the breakroom, but it becomes clear very quickly that doing so makes the rest of the employees look bad, since they are allocated 30 minutes to do the job. I knew a guy who went to work (with his buddy) at a silo manufacturing facility many years ago. They got the hang of it soon enough and were soon completing nearly two structures a night. The pace was fair, and they were able to hold some great discussions while they were working. After a couple of weeks, they wondered how many silos they could make if they shut up and focused on the work. First night that way, they made five. The next night, they made seven. After about a week like that, the union steward showed up and told my friend and his buddy that, "it is physically impossible to build more than 2.5 silos per night." Excitedly, they told him what they did, but the guy just repeated his line. For the rest of the summer, they built 2.5 silos a night. Neither opted for full time jobs with that place.
It's not a union thing--it's an establishment thing. Once people have an accepted "norm" for how something is done, it's hard to break away. That's one reason why "face time" is still valued (in some offices) more than productivity. Viva la revolution!