Good technology requires planning for about 5 to 7 years out. If you burn the future to get profits NOW, then you'll eventually burn your reputation also. I don't exactly know the best corporate management strategies to optimize solutions for 5 to 7 years out, but IBM's "profits now!" program clearly failed.
Focus far more on customer satisfaction and loyalty. If you don't give them IT headaches, they'll pay a premium and/or more projects. And listening to your engineers helps also. They want to feel like they are working on something useful instead of being pawns in marketing or financial gimmicks.
You can screw some of your customers all of the time and screw all of your customers some of the time, but you cannot screw all your customers all of the time. (My apologies to Mr. Lincoln.)
It gets hard to get everyone necessary to attend sessions...
Getting stakeholders and users to put in the time necessary to think things out is always going to be tricky. Timely feedback is a scarce resource no matter what methodology you use. For this reason, the practical thing is to assume you'll get crappy feedback and have to redo a lot because of lack of feedback. Thus, it's probably better to optimize the rework process rather than obsess on preventing it.
Standardizing GUI and CRUD interface standards is one area that may help. The web browser stack in current use is a fricken mess. I'd like to be able to focus on business rules rather than details of scrolling or drag-and-drop bugs.
At the current time, techies are in enough of demand that the outsourcing and visa-sourcing will not tick off enough techies to create a movement. But for the rest of the population, things may be different during the next slump.
Most the benefits of "internationalization" and automation are going to the 1%, and the 99% are starting to really notice. A tipping point may come. True, consumer products may be cheaper, but most males value jobs over stuff because it's what they are judged on.
(I had been replaced by a visa worker during the post-dot-com IT slump, so I hear you on that. I'm partly okay with the visa program during the up-times, but they don't draw them down during slumps.)
1) Use agile NodeJS in the cloud with Hadoop. It will allow them to synergistically provide access to economically sound catalysts for change to allow them to conveniently monetize high standards in holistically motivated mindshare opportunities.
a religious figure has no business opining on science issues
What to do or not do about climate change is a moral issue, and therefore a religious issue. Science doesn't dictate human actions; it only describes consequences of actions. But obviously consequences should affect decisions.
If there are moral decisions to made over climate change, then religious leaders are obligated to look into the science behind it to make sure they have the base facts correct.
It will take just one Charles Manson-like incident to make people want regulations again. It's all fun and flower-power until somebody takes advantage of trust.
Because they can simply use Klingon trionically charged transverse matrix converters to reverse the entropy polarization angles using the crystal alignment plentifier.
I don't know whether it's "officially" legal or not, but in practice they are doing it. They probably have a bag of clever reasons for judges, like claiming they mistook a sneeze for a request add insurance charges to the bill.
* Unfair (you take a hit for others' screw-ups) * Backstabbing * Grudges * Grumpy bosses * Getting fired by surprise * Reinventing variations of the same work (retake class)
I had a very similar incident. I complained to a company that rhymes with "Slime Corner" that my internet service was spotty, "sticking" often such that minutes went by without anything coming through. They then simply recommended that I upgrade to a higher bandwidth.
(And it still does it, by the way. Especially on the weekends. The sole alternative vendor is even slimier, tacking on magic fees from nowhere onto our bill.)
<curmudgeon>
Get ON my lawn and fix my damned Internet! </curmudgeon>
What's the exact definition? A "dimension" is any factor an observer wants to analyze or treat separately. Eye color in people can "be" a dimension(s) if we want it to. (I would only disqualify a factor if it's identical to another factor.)
Our family was considering DirectTV because AT&T plays billing games, and TWC has flaky quality. Now we are stuck again because they will be the same thing.
"Dimension" is a perspective, a human artifact. The universe doesn't classify itself. 3D space as we perceive it may just be a useful lie to ourselves--a handy model but only an approximate model. We can throw in time and think of our world as 4D, but that doesn't mean that time is or is not a "dimension". It's only a perspective or model we can choose to use or not.
For a simpler version of this, imagine a 2D world where each time "slice" is stacked onto each other kind of like really thin pancakes from OUR perspective; we are given a God view. The higher we go in the stack, the more recent the time of their world. It's kind of like a flip-book, except it may be continuous instead of discrete pages.
We could cut into and study the pancakes to observe any time of this 2D world we want. But to the inhabitants of the 2D world, only the currently active "slice" (the present) is all they are capable of influencing and directly observing, outside of memories. It's just like our limited relationship with time.
We don't know what the "right" perspective is of our universe or if there even is ONE "right" one. There are only relationships (such as relationships between particles). How one chooses to perceive or project or represent these relationships is ultimately arbitrary.
I find different answers as to whether they won the case or not. I'm not a lawyer, so it may be the judgement was nuanced such that interpretation by us mortals can be dicey.
By some accounts, documents of their internal tests showed that the extra plastic reduced the problem, yet they didn't act on it. It may turn out down the road in the course of history it didn't actually help in production, but their "sin" was ignoring their own best evidence of the time. They did a cost/benefit analysis internally on early test models.
Slashdot Mirror
But 7 astronauts didn't die due to the snafu; only their dinner.
A preventable problem will occur, such as something that could be caught with a background check.
Good technology requires planning for about 5 to 7 years out. If you burn the future to get profits NOW, then you'll eventually burn your reputation also. I don't exactly know the best corporate management strategies to optimize solutions for 5 to 7 years out, but IBM's "profits now!" program clearly failed.
Focus far more on customer satisfaction and loyalty. If you don't give them IT headaches, they'll pay a premium and/or more projects. And listening to your engineers helps also. They want to feel like they are working on something useful instead of being pawns in marketing or financial gimmicks.
You can screw some of your customers all of the time and screw all of your customers some of the time, but you cannot screw all your customers all of the time. (My apologies to Mr. Lincoln.)
Getting stakeholders and users to put in the time necessary to think things out is always going to be tricky. Timely feedback is a scarce resource no matter what methodology you use. For this reason, the practical thing is to assume you'll get crappy feedback and have to redo a lot because of lack of feedback. Thus, it's probably better to optimize the rework process rather than obsess on preventing it.
Standardizing GUI and CRUD interface standards is one area that may help. The web browser stack in current use is a fricken mess. I'd like to be able to focus on business rules rather than details of scrolling or drag-and-drop bugs.
At the current time, techies are in enough of demand that the outsourcing and visa-sourcing will not tick off enough techies to create a movement. But for the rest of the population, things may be different during the next slump.
Most the benefits of "internationalization" and automation are going to the 1%, and the 99% are starting to really notice. A tipping point may come. True, consumer products may be cheaper, but most males value jobs over stuff because it's what they are judged on.
(I had been replaced by a visa worker during the post-dot-com IT slump, so I hear you on that. I'm partly okay with the visa program during the up-times, but they don't draw them down during slumps.)
1) Use agile NodeJS in the cloud with Hadoop. It will allow them to synergistically provide access to economically sound catalysts for change to allow them to conveniently monetize high standards in holistically motivated mindshare opportunities.
2) Don't be a dick.
At least my word-processor has verbs
They want to replace the Pope with an H1B of their choosing.
What to do or not do about climate change is a moral issue, and therefore a religious issue. Science doesn't dictate human actions; it only describes consequences of actions. But obviously consequences should affect decisions.
If there are moral decisions to made over climate change, then religious leaders are obligated to look into the science behind it to make sure they have the base facts correct.
It will take just one Charles Manson-like incident to make people want regulations again. It's all fun and flower-power until somebody takes advantage of trust.
Because they can simply use Klingon trionically charged transverse matrix converters to reverse the entropy polarization angles using the crystal alignment plentifier.
Customer: "My brand new Chevy only goes 5 mph."
SalesWorm: "Oh, you need to upgrade to a Lamborghini. Our Lamborghini's are really fast."
I don't know whether it's "officially" legal or not, but in practice they are doing it. They probably have a bag of clever reasons for judges, like claiming they mistook a sneeze for a request add insurance charges to the bill.
It's perfect preparation for the real work world:
* Unfair (you take a hit for others' screw-ups)
* Backstabbing
* Grudges
* Grumpy bosses
* Getting fired by surprise
* Reinventing variations of the same work (retake class)
"Replicator, generate me some Earth cash. USA. Early 1980's, mixed denominations. Oh, and some tea, Earl Grey, hot."
You appear to be talking about spacial dimensions. I'm talking dimensions in general.
I had a very similar incident. I complained to a company that rhymes with "Slime Corner" that my internet service was spotty, "sticking" often such that minutes went by without anything coming through. They then simply recommended that I upgrade to a higher bandwidth.
(And it still does it, by the way. Especially on the weekends. The sole alternative vendor is even slimier, tacking on magic fees from nowhere onto our bill.)
This could really shake up the industry!
What's the exact definition? A "dimension" is any factor an observer wants to analyze or treat separately. Eye color in people can "be" a dimension(s) if we want it to. (I would only disqualify a factor if it's identical to another factor.)
Our family was considering DirectTV because AT&T plays billing games, and TWC has flaky quality. Now we are stuck again because they will be the same thing.
I don't think that's what Dr. Schrodinger had in mind.
"Dimension" is a perspective, a human artifact. The universe doesn't classify itself. 3D space as we perceive it may just be a useful lie to ourselves--a handy model but only an approximate model. We can throw in time and think of our world as 4D, but that doesn't mean that time is or is not a "dimension". It's only a perspective or model we can choose to use or not.
For a simpler version of this, imagine a 2D world where each time "slice" is stacked onto each other kind of like really thin pancakes from OUR perspective; we are given a God view. The higher we go in the stack, the more recent the time of their world. It's kind of like a flip-book, except it may be continuous instead of discrete pages.
We could cut into and study the pancakes to observe any time of this 2D world we want. But to the inhabitants of the 2D world, only the currently active "slice" (the present) is all they are capable of influencing and directly observing, outside of memories. It's just like our limited relationship with time.
We don't know what the "right" perspective is of our universe or if there even is ONE "right" one. There are only relationships (such as relationships between particles). How one chooses to perceive or project or represent these relationships is ultimately arbitrary.
I find different answers as to whether they won the case or not. I'm not a lawyer, so it may be the judgement was nuanced such that interpretation by us mortals can be dicey.
By some accounts, documents of their internal tests showed that the extra plastic reduced the problem, yet they didn't act on it. It may turn out down the road in the course of history it didn't actually help in production, but their "sin" was ignoring their own best evidence of the time. They did a cost/benefit analysis internally on early test models.
Just don't freak out when you find you can pass your hand through your cat.
It only works on cats. I don't know why, ask Schrodinger. Something to do with Youtube fame particles (YFP), I think.
God's Linux box. Just hope he didn't back up the universe to Hillary's server.