Getting out quick is great advice. However, if that's not a realistic option, then level with management that it's a big job, and ask for a priority list from them.
Make a list of things to be done, along with the reason or consequences of not doing them, give your suggested priorities (A, B, C, D, etc.) for each task, and ask management to confirm or reassign priorities.
Often they won't want to assign priorities because that commits them to their decisions. Managers like wiggle room to blame others.
To get around that tendency, state something like, "I have assigned default priorities to the given tasks. I shall use these priorities as a my default working assumption unless and until explicitly given new priorities. I invite your feedback and would be happy to answer any questions about them."
They probably won't like that pressure and explicitness, but better to take your lumps up front rather than have an even bigger meltdown in the future.
And some may even appreciate your documenting of tasks. It might help them justify getting you some help. But that's a secondary reason for the list.
Anti-trust should be enforced, which neither party does much of, perhaps because they are being legally bribed via campaign donations to ignore the issue. The big co's have the most bribing funds.
Note that the crash started before O was in office such that anti-trust enforcement was not an option for him at the time. However, the banks are still too big for their britches. The new regulations didn't directly solve this.
They merely put more rules on big banks to reduce the chance of another similar crash. However, I'm pretty sure the creativity of banks will result in a different kind of crash in the future.
It's true they gradually learned from their mistakes and found eventual use for the technology, but had they followed the original formula, they wouldn't have had unleashed Bob and Clippy on the world.
Was the bumpy early journey worth it overall? Close call either way I'd reckon. It's not like Cortina is wildly popular, and they could have purchased similar technology from outside.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Note that both parties are guilty of running up debt during good times (for the reasons I already gave).
Giving the known evidence, "half-ass" Keynes still works better than so-called "austerity" during down times. Hoover (1930's), UK, Greece, Kansas, and other tests of austerity suggests it either makes downturns no better or worse. And WWII was the ultimate (unintentional) debt-based stimulus that ended the Great Depression once and for all. (FDR's public works programs greatly improved over Hoover's numbers, but didn't outright solve the slump.)
Some will argue that austerity will create a short-term shock but that the recovery is fast afterwards. However, populations don't want to suffer for the short term and seem to prefer a slow but steady recovery over shock-then-quick-boom.
We also get into messes by meddling in existing wars. How about don't meddle, PERIOD. Help out if there is a humanitarian problem, but otherwise keep our war machines to ourselves. Make the Department of Defense true to its name. We've been lousy "world cops"; let's fire ourselves already.
Maybe your expectations of what prez can accomplish is unrealistic. The middle east has confounded them all, for example. Either a prez should quit meddling over there, or be honest that failure is likely. They don't appear ready for (stable) democracy, which leaves either iron-fisted dictators, or roaming zealotic hordes.
And economic downturns seem to happen roughly every 10 years no matter what's done. Bubbles and the "business cycle" have existed for at least 400 years. It's a bug in capitalism that nobody knows entirely how to fix.
The only known partial solution is to save up during the good times so there's spending money during the down times (Keynes). However, politicians are expected to fix the here and now and are judged on the here and now, not the next decade. (The prez who exits during the "up" phase gets undo credit.)
We could perhaps have a constitutional amendment to force saving up, but that requires objectively defining "good times" and "bad times", which is a sticky request.
The same pattern of problems keep appearing and we keep blaming them all on the prez. Perhaps it's because they always promise to fix these things, but the fact they keep failing suggests we should not expect the prez alone to fix them regardless of what they claim. Spank the voters for once.
In the history of technology, the first to develop a technology and attempt to bring it to market is usually not the one that is ultimately successful.
That's why Microsoft was so successful: they let the market test ideas, and then stole, bought, or cloned only proven ideas.
When they did NOT follow this formula, such as for Bob, Zune, their first tablet, and Windows 8 tablet/desktop mishmash, they failed.
Unless there's a specific law they're violating, it's not criminal. Period.
Unfortunately, law makers often use vague language because they are non-committal nincompoops, and dump the interpretation problem on the courts and jurors.
That turns it into a marketing game where the best spinner wins.
Patterns of history are not necessarily hard "laws". The replacement jobs were far easier to spot at the time back then. I don't see potential replacement jobs for factory workers, bank tellers, travel agents, print-shop workers, typists, etc. in anywhere NEAR the quantity to replace the losses. It looks like about a 3-to-1 ratio of loss.
The location of the replacement jobs is extremely murky today. If you've found them, Please Show the World!
You are partly correct in that IF we did accept more 3rd-world-like conditions, we perhaps would be able to compete with the 3rd-world job-wise. (Such conditions include but is not limited to working hours, child labor, pollution, legal redress, and safety.)
But who wants to be in a 3rd-world country?
economy is stagnant. It's not growing. This is a direct result of government interference with the economy.)
That's pure speculation on your part. Granted, we don't have cloned Earth's to empirically test and instead must use combinations of observations. But some countries with a higher MEDIAN income than the USA are highly regulated. (There's a good reason I chose median over average.)
I also think the Federal Reserve should increase the money supply to get inflation up to about 2.3%, without using more QE, but political pressure stops them. Increasing the money supply would soak up idle capacity we have.
The 1% group is extremely fluid.
I don't think that's the case. Mitt, Trump, W, B. Gates, and many other plutocrats come from well-to-do families. But it's mostly a moot point because not everybody can be in the 1%. Even if you cloned the top 100 most successful people in a variety of fields and killed off everybody else, some would still end up mopping the floors because there is only so much room on the top. Even if it were fluid, you still have a stack where most are not at the top.
None of the features seem unique or original by themselves; this seems more of a case of alleged general copying. For example, slide-to-unlock just mirrors physical locks, and auto-links in memos, similar to Intellisense (per URL's, phone numbers, etc.), have been around quite a while, and would be difficult to defend on their own.
But if somebody seemingly copies the same grab-bag of features and puts it into a similar package, does that make for a general infringement?
For example, suppose a store sold a gift basket with certain kinds of perfumes, soaps, and chocolates. It sells well and the industry takes notice. A competitor then sells a similar looking gift basket with similar kinds of products.
None the products by themselves are protect-able by copyrights or patents, such as "peppermint soap", but the similarity of selection of products perhaps could be seen as some kind of I.P. infringement. To me it's a stretch, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting out quick is great advice. However, if that's not a realistic option, then level with management that it's a big job, and ask for a priority list from them.
Make a list of things to be done, along with the reason or consequences of not doing them, give your suggested priorities (A, B, C, D, etc.) for each task, and ask management to confirm or reassign priorities.
Often they won't want to assign priorities because that commits them to their decisions. Managers like wiggle room to blame others.
To get around that tendency, state something like, "I have assigned default priorities to the given tasks. I shall use these priorities as a my default working assumption unless and until explicitly given new priorities. I invite your feedback and would be happy to answer any questions about them."
They probably won't like that pressure and explicitness, but better to take your lumps up front rather than have an even bigger meltdown in the future.
And some may even appreciate your documenting of tasks. It might help them justify getting you some help. But that's a secondary reason for the list.
Anti-trust should be enforced, which neither party does much of, perhaps because they are being legally bribed via campaign donations to ignore the issue. The big co's have the most bribing funds.
Note that the crash started before O was in office such that anti-trust enforcement was not an option for him at the time. However, the banks are still too big for their britches. The new regulations didn't directly solve this.
They merely put more rules on big banks to reduce the chance of another similar crash. However, I'm pretty sure the creativity of banks will result in a different kind of crash in the future.
The main Iraqi gov't officials did not want it. For good or bad, the ultimate decision was theirs.
It's true they gradually learned from their mistakes and found eventual use for the technology, but had they followed the original formula, they wouldn't have had unleashed Bob and Clippy on the world.
Was the bumpy early journey worth it overall? Close call either way I'd reckon. It's not like Cortina is wildly popular, and they could have purchased similar technology from outside.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Note that both parties are guilty of running up debt during good times (for the reasons I already gave).
Giving the known evidence, "half-ass" Keynes still works better than so-called "austerity" during down times. Hoover (1930's), UK, Greece, Kansas, and other tests of austerity suggests it either makes downturns no better or worse. And WWII was the ultimate (unintentional) debt-based stimulus that ended the Great Depression once and for all. (FDR's public works programs greatly improved over Hoover's numbers, but didn't outright solve the slump.)
Some will argue that austerity will create a short-term shock but that the recovery is fast afterwards. However, populations don't want to suffer for the short term and seem to prefer a slow but steady recovery over shock-then-quick-boom.
We also get into messes by meddling in existing wars. How about don't meddle, PERIOD. Help out if there is a humanitarian problem, but otherwise keep our war machines to ourselves. Make the Department of Defense true to its name. We've been lousy "world cops"; let's fire ourselves already.
Correction: should be "undue credit" not "undo credit". Writing too much tech doc ingrains certain words.
Maybe your expectations of what prez can accomplish is unrealistic. The middle east has confounded them all, for example. Either a prez should quit meddling over there, or be honest that failure is likely. They don't appear ready for (stable) democracy, which leaves either iron-fisted dictators, or roaming zealotic hordes.
And economic downturns seem to happen roughly every 10 years no matter what's done. Bubbles and the "business cycle" have existed for at least 400 years. It's a bug in capitalism that nobody knows entirely how to fix.
The only known partial solution is to save up during the good times so there's spending money during the down times (Keynes). However, politicians are expected to fix the here and now and are judged on the here and now, not the next decade. (The prez who exits during the "up" phase gets undo credit.)
We could perhaps have a constitutional amendment to force saving up, but that requires objectively defining "good times" and "bad times", which is a sticky request.
The same pattern of problems keep appearing and we keep blaming them all on the prez. Perhaps it's because they always promise to fix these things, but the fact they keep failing suggests we should not expect the prez alone to fix them regardless of what they claim. Spank the voters for once.
Sorry, Ms. Jenner is a Republican.
Partisans are so selectively forgetful:
https://swiftjonathan.files.wo...
That's why Microsoft was so successful: they let the market test ideas, and then stole, bought, or cloned only proven ideas.
When they did NOT follow this formula, such as for Bob, Zune, their first tablet, and Windows 8 tablet/desktop mishmash, they failed.
Flood the internet with fake and silly stories and data about yourself so that people cannot tell the real from fake.
Xeros was shitty at computer hardware
That would give used-car salespeople a blank check to spin like a tornado. In the end I believe most agree that "it depends". Not all lies are equal.
Unfortunately, law makers often use vague language because they are non-committal nincompoops, and dump the interpretation problem on the courts and jurors.
That turns it into a marketing game where the best spinner wins.
Freedom to lie for money, the American Way!
Ann Coulter, Welcome to Slashdot!
Better yet, sell it to Republicans. You get money and natural justice in one.
Write Linux in tight Perl, it'll fit.
Seems IBM WebSphere did something like that. Their default URL's were often longer than a Giraffe's intestines.
http://stackoverflow.com/quest...
Patterns of history are not necessarily hard "laws". The replacement jobs were far easier to spot at the time back then. I don't see potential replacement jobs for factory workers, bank tellers, travel agents, print-shop workers, typists, etc. in anywhere NEAR the quantity to replace the losses. It looks like about a 3-to-1 ratio of loss.
The location of the replacement jobs is extremely murky today. If you've found them, Please Show the World!
You are partly correct in that IF we did accept more 3rd-world-like conditions, we perhaps would be able to compete with the 3rd-world job-wise. (Such conditions include but is not limited to working hours, child labor, pollution, legal redress, and safety.)
But who wants to be in a 3rd-world country?
That's pure speculation on your part. Granted, we don't have cloned Earth's to empirically test and instead must use combinations of observations. But some countries with a higher MEDIAN income than the USA are highly regulated. (There's a good reason I chose median over average.)
I also think the Federal Reserve should increase the money supply to get inflation up to about 2.3%, without using more QE, but political pressure stops them. Increasing the money supply would soak up idle capacity we have.
I don't think that's the case. Mitt, Trump, W, B. Gates, and many other plutocrats come from well-to-do families. But it's mostly a moot point because not everybody can be in the 1%. Even if you cloned the top 100 most successful people in a variety of fields and killed off everybody else, some would still end up mopping the floors because there is only so much room on the top. Even if it were fluid, you still have a stack where most are not at the top.
I've heard that Apple did pay royalties to Xerox for GUI technology. But, by most accounts they got a lousy deal.
Correction, it's an LG, not a Samsung. (I traded it with somebody else recently for an Apple with a faulty button, so it's not brand new.)
None of the features seem unique or original by themselves; this seems more of a case of alleged general copying. For example, slide-to-unlock just mirrors physical locks, and auto-links in memos, similar to Intellisense (per URL's, phone numbers, etc.), have been around quite a while, and would be difficult to defend on their own.
But if somebody seemingly copies the same grab-bag of features and puts it into a similar package, does that make for a general infringement?
For example, suppose a store sold a gift basket with certain kinds of perfumes, soaps, and chocolates. It sells well and the industry takes notice. A competitor then sells a similar looking gift basket with similar kinds of products.
None the products by themselves are protect-able by copyrights or patents, such as "peppermint soap", but the similarity of selection of products perhaps could be seen as some kind of I.P. infringement. To me it's a stretch, though.