I am curious. You say you've had "occasional dealings", but seem to paint all Harvard MBAs with a single stroke. I understand your dislike for the individuals you have met, but do you feel that the generalization is fair? Moreover, is the use of a single case in a single class actually an "indication" that they are attempting to do you wrong in some way (or as you say, "own us")?
It seems that most of what I read online on sites like Slashdot, people are complaining that business school students and managers don't know anything about IT. Having studied both computer science and business, I tend to agree. However, I would have expected some more positive postings on this topic.
I would expect you to be an exception to the rule. We had two kids doing CS when I was doing my undergrad who were both 16 in their 2nd year, both completely void of people skills. Also, success is defined differently by different people. Not everyone wants to be 21 and the major shareholder of a tech company (I wouldn't mind though:P).
On a side note, I would say that two things about your post strike me as a possible indication that you aren't "fine" (not meant as a flame, just an observation).
1) You posted anonymously. You seem to be passionate about this, but not enough so to put your name to it.
2) You have some kind of crazy conspiricy theory going on the teachers and department of education.
Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that a bunch of geeks (myself included) are the best subset of society to be discussing whether or not home schooling is good/bad/whatever. I'm seeing a lot of shit about getting beat up and picked on in these posts. I was a geek growing up (we used to talk about a mud we played all the time at school:P) but I didn't get beat up. As a result, it will alter my opinion on the matter. If you ask someone who had a completely shit time in school about this concept, they will tell you its a great idea to get kids outta the schools. If you ask the quarterback of the football team that tagged the whole cheerleading squad, he will likely disagree.
Oh, and to the general posting population, stop shitting on teachers. Anyone who has gone to a university or college and taken a class from a PhD should know that just because you are smart, doesn't mean you can teach. They are two different things. I commend teachers for shitty pay to "baby sit" people's kids and maybe try to teach them a thing or two.
GLONASS (GLObal NAvigation Satellite System) is being used now in the Survey Industry with fairly good results. Many new survey grade (1cm accuracy) receivers are making use of the corrections and they seem to be helping out with the quality of data.
The moderation of my original post and the moderation of the replies (not slamming the replies...well maybe Bastard's, but not the others) clearly indicate the mentality of the tech sector, which futhers my argument that there is an issue with how engineers view their role. This is a tech site, so I would certainly not expect most to view these things from a management point of view, but moderation on here continues to amaze me. Give me a 1 or a 2, fine I understand that I suppose, but flamebait? Because I choose to view it from a side other than the tech side? And some pathetic excuse of an insult involving a mathematical tool is modded higher? If it was funny that would be fine. If it was intelligent, that would also be fine. However, it was pathetic.
Perhaps next time I'll try with a management slamming, anti-Microsoft/Google/major corporation rant of some form.
The reason that there is a divide between managers and techies is because of this arrogance. The corporate strategy trumps your need to have a manager who nutures you at every turn. The fact that you code and create the product is irrelevant, they will find someone else to fill your chair if its deemed necessary.
The one person who actually reads this post will undoubtedly say that people like me are the reason there is a problem in management. Let me explain this as clearly as possible: business is about money. It is not about making people feel good, making up for your lack of self esteem, or saving the fucking dolphins. If you have a job, do one of two things: 1) be thankful you have the job and work your ass off to get ahead, or 2) shut the hell up and get another job you like more.
Thanks for that objective evaluation. I agree that a skill that an engineer or tech employee should have is project management. However, they are being hired for a tech skill, if the company wants a project manager, they will hire a project manager.
"Projects could work this way if they started with extremely... tables created around different projects."
Riiiight...like I said lots of crappy management going on. This is a project management issue.
"Most Engineers understand you need to have marketing sell products and... need A..Z."
1) I agree with your overall point that marketing departments can get in the way. 2) I wasn't referring to marketing as what is being misunderstood by engineers.
"IMO. The most efficient method of managing teck projects is to have teck people, working all other departments involved in the project, "
Not sure if I am understanding this or not. If you are implying that tech folk should be doing things other than some project management and actual technology-related tasks, I would have to disagree. There is no way that tech folk should have anything to do with the preparation of marketing or advertising, as one example.
"...create a detailed plain of action which is then vetted though upper management to align it with overall strategic planning. "
(which may change the plan/product/timeline entirely)
"Management then oversees this project to keep things going and keep Engineers focused on creating adequate if not perfect solutions to the problems at hand."
Agreed.
"...management is unable to determine how complex changing "small details" is..."
That's correct, managers dont understand. Because they are not working with techies who explain it to them. You have to communicate the issues to the manager without sounding like a 5 yr-old complaining about beans for the 80th time.
Good points, and like I said, there is a ton of garbage management going on out there. My "perfect world" examples are from a company that has its shit together (and yes, some actually DO).
Not sure what MBA program you have attended that teaches that, must have been one of those online banners I see everywhere...
As a fella with a CS degree and an MBA, here's the way I view the problem between management and techs:
Engineers and techs are hired to perform some technology-related task. They are responsible to complete these tasks.
Managers are responsible for overseeing the tasks mentioned. They are also responsible, however, to ensure that when these tasks are being implemented, that the company's corporate strategy is followed. I think this is where things get mucked up.
Managers are not always good at communicating what this strategy is to their engineers (and I'm not entirely convinced that they should do so to begin with). As a result, the manager is often considering factors that the engineer is not privy to. Moreover, any manager hired by a tech company should know his technology. If it's not a job requirement, then the company has more pressing issues. But, how many IT folk know anything about corporate strategy? How many techies (without any B-School background) know who Michael Porter is? While there is a TON of crappy management going on out there, I have a problem with the fact that the tech industry has a difficult time embracing the concept that there is more going on than: create product, get order, fill order, repeat. A company that has their shit together has a detailed corporate plan in place, and while I realize that you are an incredibly important asset, Mr. Engineer-with-5-years experience, please forgive management for not including you in their long term strategic planning and goal setting discussions.
But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.
Nah. Artists will continue to release material on a physical media. I know many of you people seem to think that this is not the case, but it will be. Musicians (which I am - and not computer generated beats either, actual guitar) love actual media. Of all the people I know who are involved in music in some way (myself included), they buy online, but still walk into the store and enjoy buying the physical disc.
Music has always allowed a place for people to speak their minds, and continues to be so. I believe (similar to another post) that independant labels will grow and artists will release materials online, cutting out the record company entirely, using the web as a tool for distribution to mass audiences, until they have had enough success to release it in a physical format on their own. There will undoubtedly still be the Britneys of that era, there always has been, but I think their business model will look much different from that of a musician.
Ok, so I do stand corrected, Disney has nothing to do with the stories. This was not my understand previous to the first 6 responses to my post. Let's see if I have the whole story straight now:
- Disney has nothing to do with the Pixar films, and has perhaps once or twice in it's existance made quality original films (which would lead to the conclusion that at best, there will be no change in the quality of Pixar's films, and at worst a decrease in quality).
- Disney is horribly evil because it has manipulated copyright law that is just plain "wrong" (even though the American courts don't seem to think so), and they have used older material, writen by others, which is also "wrong" (though they have never been successfully prosecuted for such a thing?)
I must be slow (I know, I'm opening myself up with that one, so take your shots:P).
Why is everyone slamming this? And since when the hell did Disney become evil? I for one think it's great. The minds from Disney and Pixar have given us some of the best animated work in years. The Toy Story movies, Monsters Inc., and recently, the Incredibles. They all rocked, and I was dismayed when I originally heard that the two companies had ended their contract together. I think the potential here is great. Disney has a system for writing good storys, and Pixar's people have a system for making them look really frickin cool.
The more posts I read on Slashdot slamming these major corporations for the sake of slamming them, the fewer times I update the page every day. It's getting quite ridiculous.
1) "Strawman. I never said that."
I noticed your homepage was not in English. Perhaps we have a translation issue here. It was sarcasm.
2) "But it's easier to resort to straw men and accusations, isn't it?"
Not sure how I am resorting to men made of straw, or Wizard of Oz characters, but again, I believe this to be a misunderstanding of sarcasm.
3) "What do you sell? Used cars?"
Yes, old rusty ones. I am sure this is meant to be some form of insult, since you followed it with the line "It also explains why you don't grasp..." which seems to be some form of assumption about my intelligence. Two things: first, I am in sales because I choose to be. I have programmed, I have been an analyst and I prefer to sell. And I make more money doing so. Secondly, my ability to comprehend is not an issue here, I will not partake in a pissing contest regarding intelligence and education, just say that I am more than intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand.
I feel that you have misunderstood me, and perhaps I have misunderstood you and I was too quick to jump (however, I truly dislike being talked down to, as constructive feedback, I would avoid that). My point is not that profit is the SOLE reason, but it is the MAIN reason. All other reasons are secondary to that of profit. I stand by the fact that if you are not focused on maximizing your profits, you will not do so, and thus will not have the capital to succeed in those other areas to achieve secondary goals.
Oh, and I would most definitely not piss your customers off. How I express myself on Slashdot has no bearing on how I speak with my customers. Moreover, I am confident that were you hiring for a sales position, the only reason you would not hire me is due to a more qualified candidate; every position I have ever interviewed for, I was offered.
Since you are not in business to make money, then I assume you donate all of your income to some form of charity once you have paid for your groceries, bus pass and small mortgage payment ($700-$800/month). Please cut the crap. If you are in business and you are not doing everything in your power to maximize your income then I certainly hope you are in the same industry as I am. If you are working 70 hours a week and not making huge money, then I recommend a career change. And those Wall Street analysts that are ruining your economy are also going to be helping it when they retire at 45 and buy that multimillion dollar house, sports car, and the products your company sells.
You pity me? Not to worry my friend, after I have been working for "a few decades" I will have either enough capital, or be in the right position to work far fewer than 70 hours a week. I pity you, because if you truly are working 70 hours a week (which may just be you blowing smoke), then you are not seeing your family, and that, no matter what anyone tells me, will always be my primary concern.
Finally, to address your first comment that I do not know what I am writing about, I know one thing: I work to live, not live to work. Any for profit organization that is not doing everything in their power to maximize income should become an NPO and go save the trees. Hire good people, pay them well, and everyone will prosper.
Oh, and in your spare time, it's fun to write stuff to piss people off on the internet, since everyone is an expert and everyone is a CEO and owner of a corporation...well except me, I'm just in sales.
Im not mixing up anything; public or private, unless a company/organization/group of people who do stuff for money are non-profit, they still have the same purpose. The only difference is how many people will profit; one (sole proprietorship) or many (public company).
While The Corporation is an interesting read, its' argument is that if a corporation were a person, it would be psychotic. But they are not people. Moreover, a corporation (excluding non-profits, of course) exists for one reason: to increase shareholder wealth. While there are many people who have a problem with the tactics that are used in some instances to achieve such a goal, it does not change reality. Google is a corporation and they exist to increase their shareholders' wealth.
This seems to be something that Slashdot readers miss sometimes with regards to the major companies (Google, Microsoft, Intel, etc). Futhermore, the readers here love to hate them for their success. I have no idea whether or not Bill Gates can program worth a damn, but I do know he is a business genius, and by God people hate him for it.
Someone recently posted here that people who work for "the man" are this generations' version of "slaves" and that people should start their own businesses. I agree to some extent that entrepreneurs should be commended, but they had better hope they do not experience huge success, because then they will be another Bill Gates/Michael Dell/Sergey Brin/Larry Page; idolized one minute, detested the next.
http://www.injustice.net.nz/ Injustice is a game just as you requested. You are in a world where gangsters (think 1950's/1960's, not fiddy cent) run wild through various cities. Fun for the first little while, but then gets old (IMO). Oh, did I mention that it was text based? Oh, did I mention it was filled with 13 year olds? But yeah, there's no numbers or statistics.
I would skip the Dual Major, Comp Sci/Business Admin undergrad & MBA combo I did and do an undergrad with a major in Math, minor in Finance, then a Masters in Financial Mathematics and be a broker right now, making millions (or at least hundreds of thousands). Thats what math could've done for me; I only wish someone had told me.
While I appreciate the story, I think your sub-contractor was pretty brutal, at the very least he should have had a theodolite (construction instrument) to turn his 90 degree angles for him. I sell construction equipment and there is no doubt that it is difficult to "teach an old dog new tricks", the technology available to those companies is mind boggling, but equally as amazing is the fact that they dont search it out to improve their effeciency.
For example, the layout contractors I speak to (should) use instruments that allow them to layout their forms with not only no string, but also no paper. Plans are transfered to ruggedized PDAs, attached to instruments that calculate locations based on distance and angles from given landmarks, and stakes are pounded. They can increase productivity by 30% with very little effort at all. Some land suveyors are doing layout with GPS systems with sub-centimeter accuracy and are seeing 50-70% increases in productivity.
I dont mean to flame the parent, he/she is correct, the users in that industry dont use enough technology, but it is available to them.
PS: I think, no matter how much frickin money they make, they ALL drive beat up pickups
Well I don't doubt that Apple would like more volume, they are not a low cost provider, they are a differentiated provider. Basic business strategy says that they are attempting (and succeding) to sell their product at a premium because it has certain features (read: sustainable competitive advantage) that the competitors do not. Dell is becoming a low cost provider and Microsoft has (for all intents and purposes) a monopoly and thus can effectively do what they want (which is why they do).
I think all three (Jobs, Dell and Gates) are realistically just three of the most interesting business stories of the computer "era". They've all done great things in business by attacking the market in different ways.
...Only semi-attractive women can ask and they need to allow me to fuck them in the ass in return...
It's comments like these that help to strengthen the argument that you are a sane, well-balanced individual, who should be listened to, due to your high level of intellect. Welcome to grade 4.
...The WMF idiocy showed that MS and its users still live in a dreamland...
This is a completely valid point and should certainly not have been modded down to 0 just because someone didn't agree with it, or because it was anonymous. The ads that we watch on television pay for the precious tv series that we love (whether we watch them on tv, or download them). If you don't like tv, dont pay for the service or the hardware. I can't wait for 30 years from now when there is a group of people who are ranting about the internet and computers dumb down society. The advent of television was one of the first steps in allowing people around the world to communicate. While it may not be innocent or nearly as beneficial today, I question as to whether or not the internet (for the average user) is as wonderful as many experienced users say it is. When my dad searches for a topic and gets random spam sites who just want him to click ads, its not helping him out the way it was designed...sorta like tv I guess.
Flame freely (oh wait...this wont get modded since its too late...pity).
Slashdot Mirror
I am curious. You say you've had "occasional dealings", but seem to paint all Harvard MBAs with a single stroke. I understand your dislike for the individuals you have met, but do you feel that the generalization is fair? Moreover, is the use of a single case in a single class actually an "indication" that they are attempting to do you wrong in some way (or as you say, "own us")?
It seems that most of what I read online on sites like Slashdot, people are complaining that business school students and managers don't know anything about IT. Having studied both computer science and business, I tend to agree. However, I would have expected some more positive postings on this topic.
a great disturbance in the Space, as if millions of camera-whoring teenagers suddnley cried out in terror...
I would expect you to be an exception to the rule. We had two kids doing CS when I was doing my undergrad who were both 16 in their 2nd year, both completely void of people skills. Also, success is defined differently by different people. Not everyone wants to be 21 and the major shareholder of a tech company (I wouldn't mind though :P).
:P) but I didn't get beat up. As a result, it will alter my opinion on the matter. If you ask someone who had a completely shit time in school about this concept, they will tell you its a great idea to get kids outta the schools. If you ask the quarterback of the football team that tagged the whole cheerleading squad, he will likely disagree.
On a side note, I would say that two things about your post strike me as a possible indication that you aren't "fine" (not meant as a flame, just an observation).
1) You posted anonymously. You seem to be passionate about this, but not enough so to put your name to it.
2) You have some kind of crazy conspiricy theory going on the teachers and department of education.
Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that a bunch of geeks (myself included) are the best subset of society to be discussing whether or not home schooling is good/bad/whatever. I'm seeing a lot of shit about getting beat up and picked on in these posts. I was a geek growing up (we used to talk about a mud we played all the time at school
Oh, and to the general posting population, stop shitting on teachers. Anyone who has gone to a university or college and taken a class from a PhD should know that just because you are smart, doesn't mean you can teach. They are two different things. I commend teachers for shitty pay to "baby sit" people's kids and maybe try to teach them a thing or two.
GLONASS (GLObal NAvigation Satellite System) is being used now in the Survey Industry with fairly good results. Many new survey grade (1cm accuracy) receivers are making use of the corrections and they seem to be helping out with the quality of data.
The moderation of my original post and the moderation of the replies (not slamming the replies...well maybe Bastard's, but not the others) clearly indicate the mentality of the tech sector, which futhers my argument that there is an issue with how engineers view their role. This is a tech site, so I would certainly not expect most to view these things from a management point of view, but moderation on here continues to amaze me. Give me a 1 or a 2, fine I understand that I suppose, but flamebait? Because I choose to view it from a side other than the tech side? And some pathetic excuse of an insult involving a mathematical tool is modded higher? If it was funny that would be fine. If it was intelligent, that would also be fine. However, it was pathetic.
/rant
Perhaps next time I'll try with a management slamming, anti-Microsoft/Google/major corporation rant of some form.
The reason that there is a divide between managers and techies is because of this arrogance. The corporate strategy trumps your need to have a manager who nutures you at every turn. The fact that you code and create the product is irrelevant, they will find someone else to fill your chair if its deemed necessary.
The one person who actually reads this post will undoubtedly say that people like me are the reason there is a problem in management. Let me explain this as clearly as possible: business is about money. It is not about making people feel good, making up for your lack of self esteem, or saving the fucking dolphins. If you have a job, do one of two things: 1) be thankful you have the job and work your ass off to get ahead, or 2) shut the hell up and get another job you like more.
No but...*sigh*
It's just easier to call you an idiot.
"False."
... tables created around different projects."
... need A..Z."
Thanks for that objective evaluation. I agree that a skill that an engineer or tech employee should have is project management. However, they are being hired for a tech skill, if the company wants a project manager, they will hire a project manager.
"Projects could work this way if they started with extremely
Riiiight...like I said lots of crappy management going on. This is a project management issue.
"Most Engineers understand you need to have marketing sell products and
1) I agree with your overall point that marketing departments can get in the way.
2) I wasn't referring to marketing as what is being misunderstood by engineers.
"IMO. The most efficient method of managing teck projects is to have teck people, working all other departments involved in the project, "
Not sure if I am understanding this or not. If you are implying that tech folk should be doing things other than some project management and actual technology-related tasks, I would have to disagree. There is no way that tech folk should have anything to do with the preparation of marketing or advertising, as one example.
"...create a detailed plain of action which is then vetted though upper management to align it with overall strategic planning. "
(which may change the plan/product/timeline entirely)
"Management then oversees this project to keep things going and keep Engineers focused on creating adequate if not perfect solutions to the problems at hand."
Agreed.
"...management is unable to determine how complex changing "small details" is..."
That's correct, managers dont understand. Because they are not working with techies who explain it to them. You have to communicate the issues to the manager without sounding like a 5 yr-old complaining about beans for the 80th time.
Good points, and like I said, there is a ton of garbage management going on out there. My "perfect world" examples are from a company that has its shit together (and yes, some actually DO).
Cheers
Not sure what MBA program you have attended that teaches that, must have been one of those online banners I see everywhere...
As a fella with a CS degree and an MBA, here's the way I view the problem between management and techs:
Engineers and techs are hired to perform some technology-related task. They are responsible to complete these tasks.
Managers are responsible for overseeing the tasks mentioned. They are also responsible, however, to ensure that when these tasks are being implemented, that the company's corporate strategy is followed. I think this is where things get mucked up.
Managers are not always good at communicating what this strategy is to their engineers (and I'm not entirely convinced that they should do so to begin with). As a result, the manager is often considering factors that the engineer is not privy to. Moreover, any manager hired by a tech company should know his technology. If it's not a job requirement, then the company has more pressing issues. But, how many IT folk know anything about corporate strategy? How many techies (without any B-School background) know who Michael Porter is? While there is a TON of crappy management going on out there, I have a problem with the fact that the tech industry has a difficult time embracing the concept that there is more going on than: create product, get order, fill order, repeat. A company that has their shit together has a detailed corporate plan in place, and while I realize that you are an incredibly important asset, Mr. Engineer-with-5-years experience, please forgive management for not including you in their long term strategic planning and goal setting discussions.
Cheers
But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.
Nah. Artists will continue to release material on a physical media. I know many of you people seem to think that this is not the case, but it will be. Musicians (which I am - and not computer generated beats either, actual guitar) love actual media. Of all the people I know who are involved in music in some way (myself included), they buy online, but still walk into the store and enjoy buying the physical disc.
Music has always allowed a place for people to speak their minds, and continues to be so. I believe (similar to another post) that independant labels will grow and artists will release materials online, cutting out the record company entirely, using the web as a tool for distribution to mass audiences, until they have had enough success to release it in a physical format on their own. There will undoubtedly still be the Britneys of that era, there always has been, but I think their business model will look much different from that of a musician.
Ok, so I do stand corrected, Disney has nothing to do with the stories. This was not my understand previous to the first 6 responses to my post. Let's see if I have the whole story straight now:
- Disney has nothing to do with the Pixar films, and has perhaps once or twice in it's existance made quality original films (which would lead to the conclusion that at best, there will be no change in the quality of Pixar's films, and at worst a decrease in quality).
- Disney is horribly evil because it has manipulated copyright law that is just plain "wrong" (even though the American courts don't seem to think so), and they have used older material, writen by others, which is also "wrong" (though they have never been successfully prosecuted for such a thing?)
- Microsoft sucks.
Do I have it right now?
"The Emporer's New Groove or something equally horrific."
Gear down, big trucker! That movie was hilarious...Kronk was brilliant!
I must be slow (I know, I'm opening myself up with that one, so take your shots :P).
Why is everyone slamming this? And since when the hell did Disney become evil? I for one think it's great. The minds from Disney and Pixar have given us some of the best animated work in years. The Toy Story movies, Monsters Inc., and recently, the Incredibles. They all rocked, and I was dismayed when I originally heard that the two companies had ended their contract together. I think the potential here is great. Disney has a system for writing good storys, and Pixar's people have a system for making them look really frickin cool.
The more posts I read on Slashdot slamming these major corporations for the sake of slamming them, the fewer times I update the page every day. It's getting quite ridiculous.
1) "Strawman. I never said that."
..." which seems to be some form of assumption about my intelligence. Two things: first, I am in sales because I choose to be. I have programmed, I have been an analyst and I prefer to sell. And I make more money doing so. Secondly, my ability to comprehend is not an issue here, I will not partake in a pissing contest regarding intelligence and education, just say that I am more than intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand.
I noticed your homepage was not in English. Perhaps we have a translation issue here. It was sarcasm.
2) "But it's easier to resort to straw men and accusations, isn't it?"
Not sure how I am resorting to men made of straw, or Wizard of Oz characters, but again, I believe this to be a misunderstanding of sarcasm.
3) "What do you sell? Used cars?"
Yes, old rusty ones. I am sure this is meant to be some form of insult, since you followed it with the line "It also explains why you don't grasp
I feel that you have misunderstood me, and perhaps I have misunderstood you and I was too quick to jump (however, I truly dislike being talked down to, as constructive feedback, I would avoid that). My point is not that profit is the SOLE reason, but it is the MAIN reason. All other reasons are secondary to that of profit. I stand by the fact that if you are not focused on maximizing your profits, you will not do so, and thus will not have the capital to succeed in those other areas to achieve secondary goals.
Oh, and I would most definitely not piss your customers off. How I express myself on Slashdot has no bearing on how I speak with my customers. Moreover, I am confident that were you hiring for a sales position, the only reason you would not hire me is due to a more qualified candidate; every position I have ever interviewed for, I was offered.
Since you are not in business to make money, then I assume you donate all of your income to some form of charity once you have paid for your groceries, bus pass and small mortgage payment ($700-$800/month). Please cut the crap. If you are in business and you are not doing everything in your power to maximize your income then I certainly hope you are in the same industry as I am. If you are working 70 hours a week and not making huge money, then I recommend a career change. And those Wall Street analysts that are ruining your economy are also going to be helping it when they retire at 45 and buy that multimillion dollar house, sports car, and the products your company sells.
You pity me? Not to worry my friend, after I have been working for "a few decades" I will have either enough capital, or be in the right position to work far fewer than 70 hours a week. I pity you, because if you truly are working 70 hours a week (which may just be you blowing smoke), then you are not seeing your family, and that, no matter what anyone tells me, will always be my primary concern.
Finally, to address your first comment that I do not know what I am writing about, I know one thing: I work to live, not live to work. Any for profit organization that is not doing everything in their power to maximize income should become an NPO and go save the trees. Hire good people, pay them well, and everyone will prosper.
Oh, and in your spare time, it's fun to write stuff to piss people off on the internet, since everyone is an expert and everyone is a CEO and owner of a corporation...well except me, I'm just in sales.
Im not mixing up anything; public or private, unless a company/organization/group of people who do stuff for money are non-profit, they still have the same purpose. The only difference is how many people will profit; one (sole proprietorship) or many (public company).
While The Corporation is an interesting read, its' argument is that if a corporation were a person, it would be psychotic. But they are not people. Moreover, a corporation (excluding non-profits, of course) exists for one reason: to increase shareholder wealth. While there are many people who have a problem with the tactics that are used in some instances to achieve such a goal, it does not change reality. Google is a corporation and they exist to increase their shareholders' wealth.
/rant
This seems to be something that Slashdot readers miss sometimes with regards to the major companies (Google, Microsoft, Intel, etc). Futhermore, the readers here love to hate them for their success. I have no idea whether or not Bill Gates can program worth a damn, but I do know he is a business genius, and by God people hate him for it.
Someone recently posted here that people who work for "the man" are this generations' version of "slaves" and that people should start their own businesses. I agree to some extent that entrepreneurs should be commended, but they had better hope they do not experience huge success, because then they will be another Bill Gates/Michael Dell/Sergey Brin/Larry Page; idolized one minute, detested the next.
http://www.injustice.net.nz/ Injustice is a game just as you requested. You are in a world where gangsters (think 1950's/1960's, not fiddy cent) run wild through various cities. Fun for the first little while, but then gets old (IMO). Oh, did I mention that it was text based? Oh, did I mention it was filled with 13 year olds? But yeah, there's no numbers or statistics.
Instead of printing it, they should make it a .pdf and email it to everyone in Bush's administration.
1) It was a joke.
:P
2) Porsche? Umm...I was thinking more along the lines of a brand new truck vs. one that is 10 years old.
3) You could have just said it was stupid.
I would skip the Dual Major, Comp Sci/Business Admin undergrad & MBA combo I did and do an undergrad with a major in Math, minor in Finance, then a Masters in Financial Mathematics and be a broker right now, making millions (or at least hundreds of thousands). Thats what math could've done for me; I only wish someone had told me.
While I appreciate the story, I think your sub-contractor was pretty brutal, at the very least he should have had a theodolite (construction instrument) to turn his 90 degree angles for him. I sell construction equipment and there is no doubt that it is difficult to "teach an old dog new tricks", the technology available to those companies is mind boggling, but equally as amazing is the fact that they dont search it out to improve their effeciency.
For example, the layout contractors I speak to (should) use instruments that allow them to layout their forms with not only no string, but also no paper. Plans are transfered to ruggedized PDAs, attached to instruments that calculate locations based on distance and angles from given landmarks, and stakes are pounded. They can increase productivity by 30% with very little effort at all. Some land suveyors are doing layout with GPS systems with sub-centimeter accuracy and are seeing 50-70% increases in productivity.
I dont mean to flame the parent, he/she is correct, the users in that industry dont use enough technology, but it is available to them.
PS: I think, no matter how much frickin money they make, they ALL drive beat up pickups
Well I don't doubt that Apple would like more volume, they are not a low cost provider, they are a differentiated provider. Basic business strategy says that they are attempting (and succeding) to sell their product at a premium because it has certain features (read: sustainable competitive advantage) that the competitors do not. Dell is becoming a low cost provider and Microsoft has (for all intents and purposes) a monopoly and thus can effectively do what they want (which is why they do).
I think all three (Jobs, Dell and Gates) are realistically just three of the most interesting business stories of the computer "era". They've all done great things in business by attacking the market in different ways.
...Only semi-attractive women can ask and they need to allow me to fuck them in the ass in return...
...The WMF idiocy showed that MS and its users still live in a dreamland...
It's comments like these that help to strengthen the argument that you are a sane, well-balanced individual, who should be listened to, due to your high level of intellect. Welcome to grade 4.
Flatery will get you nowhere.
This is a completely valid point and should certainly not have been modded down to 0 just because someone didn't agree with it, or because it was anonymous. The ads that we watch on television pay for the precious tv series that we love (whether we watch them on tv, or download them). If you don't like tv, dont pay for the service or the hardware. I can't wait for 30 years from now when there is a group of people who are ranting about the internet and computers dumb down society. The advent of television was one of the first steps in allowing people around the world to communicate. While it may not be innocent or nearly as beneficial today, I question as to whether or not the internet (for the average user) is as wonderful as many experienced users say it is. When my dad searches for a topic and gets random spam sites who just want him to click ads, its not helping him out the way it was designed...sorta like tv I guess.
Flame freely (oh wait...this wont get modded since its too late...pity).
Brilliant.
The only addition is that the marketing campaign would have to include the latest U2 track...