By contrast, there were several "MBA's" (in the Dilbertesque sense) in the MBA program right out of central casting. They couldn't write a line of code, couldn't turn a wrench, couldn't do anything useful, but they had executive hair, wore fancy suits, and constantly "networked" and looked for "synergy". They wanted a MBA strictly as a gateway to wealth and power.
I remember one of my first encounters with a PHB MBA. The company had set up an overly complicated central review process for desktop PC requests. Many complained it slowed down and complicated PC purchases. Each location (office) was already billed for the cost of PC's such that a draconian review process wasn't necessary: if they over-ordered, their own office ate the costs and therefore it was mostly self-policing. It only needed a light central review process.
Further, the cost of the central review team could instead be used to purchase better PC's such that micromanaging features wouldn't be necessary. For example, instead of limiting half the PC's to 8 meg of RAM and the rest to 12, ALL of them could have 12 with the money saved. ("Meg" is not a typo, this was a while ago.)
I spent about a half an hour debating the cost effectiveness of such heavy central oversight. The PHB at first used a lot of vague buzzwords like "informed decision making" and "cross-office purchase pattern analysis", but when pressed for specifics and numbers, it was clear he never really gave net costs serious thought. It all boiled down to "it's just what we do here". Since his group managed PC oversight (among other things), it was really just job security for him and he was digging for ways to justify his job.
It was probably dumb for me to debate somebody who greatly outranked me, but I was young and clueless about office politics then: a people-clueless person debating a numbers-clueless person. I bet the only reason he debated the issue with a plebeian like me was to hone his justification for his position in preparation for when the important people came trimming staff. The CEO had a STEM background and would probably want numbers also. I was a mock jury.
True, but it still employs hundreds of millions of Chinese, and some of those jobs perhaps would still be in the USA if we didn't permit huge trade imbalances with them.
I will agree that "free" trade probably has net advantages even if one party cheats some, BUT the advantages are not spread evenly: some people lose, and the rust belt took it in the arse.
Come on, T barely changed anything about the economy. The economy has been on cruse control for several years.
And while things are good now, we are do for recession soon (AKA "business cycle downturn"), and the ugly circumstances that usually entails. The rust belt is still trailing the rest of the country: a recession would thus hit them harder.
These days, the most "interesting" parts of being a kid in Chicago involves trying to dodge a hail of bullets
I can kind of see why the rust belt voted for you-know-who. Lopsided trade did a Yuuuge number on the area, and neither party seemed to really care, as if the area were the sacrificial lamb in order for everyone else to have cheap imported Walmart crap.
The rust belt happened to be key swing states this time, and they got payback by putting the F U candidate in office. T may not solve anything, but the Rust Belt sent a message: ignore us and you'll pay.
The Belt "hacked" the election the way this guy hacked TV and gave a big F U to America.
The alternative is to pay a programmer/DBA, which many co's don't want to do. If the total cost of problems caused by using Excel is perceived to be no greater than hiring an IT person, then they'll live with clunky spreadsheets.
Sometimes you can find a decent compromise: the database stores the raw numbers and manages data-entry coordination, and the spreadsheets do the final computations and reporting.
Simplified versions of the final reports can be generated via canned database-connected reporting tools to check ball-bark computations against the spreadsheets. The programmer/DBA then doesn't have to spend time with the nitty gritty of the domain and intricate reporting & scenario changes, and therefore their services are only needed part-time. (They may be borrowed from another dept.) They do generic CRUD, and domain details are left to the internal spreadsheet fiddlers.
If Siri were designed as generic assistant technology, then it could be added to any new device with relatively minor tweaks. Maybe they overly hard-wired Siri's design to phones and tablets.
If that worked so well, we could just get good leaders for our country in the first place.
If you are criticizing democracy in general, what do you propose as an alternative? (Yes, it does sometimes hiccup, as do all political systems.)
That's true, if a union came in and offered me a reasonably good raise, I would vote for them.
Sometimes they do. It all depends on negotiations and circumstances. Often they cannot promise such up front because they have actually have a unionized work-force in order to start negotiations with employer. It's a process.
I see nothing wrong with enforcing the laws on the books.
In the case of visa workers, the laws are vague enough that they are subject to interpretation and nuance, including political and lobbying bias. Further, the resources and techniques devoted to verifying employer claims is not clearly defined. It's not a cut-and-dry enforce versus not-enforce.
Both parties have been loosy goosy with visa workers, by the way.
At least in US law, one is under the supervision of parents until 18. Thus, it may be the parent's choice. But poor parents may wear their kids out to merely make ends-meet, and the students' education could suffer. When freedom meets starvation and illness, the philosophy of "freedom" gets messy and ugly.
Easy enough to fix - don't allow them to hire any H1B that doesn't meet all their stated requirements.
Then the co. will shape the "requirements" to fit the applicant. The auditor may ask, "You listed Java, but your org doesn't use Java." The co. can then say, "well, we plan to." It's hard to audit people's heads to see what they plan. There's a lot of tricks one can pull, and head-hunters perfect them over time.
"We see 653 Americans applied for this position through the board. Please prove that none of them met your requirements..."
Yes, I agree they should focus more on the rejected citizens: are there any that are pretty close to fitting current needs. If the co. asks for 5 years of MS-MVC but the rejected citizen only has 3, that should be considered a good-enough fit: learn on the job. You cannot get experience without getting experience.
Further, limit the rejection reason to say the top 2 or 3 skills. Otherwise, the head-headers will load it up with a long list of "required" skills as a way to reject citizens. There's no practical way a gov't auditor could even test the visa applicant on a long list of skills to verify.
Can't stand this president, but I do feel that reducing the number of H1Bs is good.
Yip, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Such a random person will accidentally do something right on occasion.
And I don't think they are reducing visas, only scrutinizing them better to make sure the request is a real need besides cheap labor. The end result will hopefully be that a narrow list of companies cannot "hog" bunches of them for coding sweatshops, and those approved will truly be unique specialists who work for a wider range of companies and fields.
"I don't believe in science; it's fake news, believe me. I know more than scientists and the generals. I will dis-invite that total loser Einstein from the White House. All his equations: Faaake! I can do rocket surgery in my sleep, partly because I got a bigly rocket in my Pence, I mean pants. And let's stop Buck Schumer's idiotic practice of buying rocket parts from Jiina; Make American Rockets Great Again!"
You do NOT have the right to use the force of law, which is a violent action, to STOP somebody else from working because they prefer not to join your club.
Who exactly was "stopped" from working? I smell high exaggeration.
(I thought I posted this reply already, so please forgive me if it eventually shows up twice.)
Slashdot Mirror
I remember one of my first encounters with a PHB MBA. The company had set up an overly complicated central review process for desktop PC requests. Many complained it slowed down and complicated PC purchases. Each location (office) was already billed for the cost of PC's such that a draconian review process wasn't necessary: if they over-ordered, their own office ate the costs and therefore it was mostly self-policing. It only needed a light central review process.
Further, the cost of the central review team could instead be used to purchase better PC's such that micromanaging features wouldn't be necessary. For example, instead of limiting half the PC's to 8 meg of RAM and the rest to 12, ALL of them could have 12 with the money saved. ("Meg" is not a typo, this was a while ago.)
I spent about a half an hour debating the cost effectiveness of such heavy central oversight. The PHB at first used a lot of vague buzzwords like "informed decision making" and "cross-office purchase pattern analysis", but when pressed for specifics and numbers, it was clear he never really gave net costs serious thought. It all boiled down to "it's just what we do here". Since his group managed PC oversight (among other things), it was really just job security for him and he was digging for ways to justify his job.
It was probably dumb for me to debate somebody who greatly outranked me, but I was young and clueless about office politics then: a people-clueless person debating a numbers-clueless person. I bet the only reason he debated the issue with a plebeian like me was to hone his justification for his position in preparation for when the important people came trimming staff. The CEO had a STEM background and would probably want numbers also. I was a mock jury.
correction: "due for a recession..."
True, but it still employs hundreds of millions of Chinese, and some of those jobs perhaps would still be in the USA if we didn't permit huge trade imbalances with them.
I will agree that "free" trade probably has net advantages even if one party cheats some, BUT the advantages are not spread evenly: some people lose, and the rust belt took it in the arse.
Come on, T barely changed anything about the economy. The economy has been on cruse control for several years.
And while things are good now, we are do for recession soon (AKA "business cycle downturn"), and the ugly circumstances that usually entails. The rust belt is still trailing the rest of the country: a recession would thus hit them harder.
I can kind of see why the rust belt voted for you-know-who. Lopsided trade did a Yuuuge number on the area, and neither party seemed to really care, as if the area were the sacrificial lamb in order for everyone else to have cheap imported Walmart crap.
The rust belt happened to be key swing states this time, and they got payback by putting the F U candidate in office. T may not solve anything, but the Rust Belt sent a message: ignore us and you'll pay.
The Belt "hacked" the election the way this guy hacked TV and gave a big F U to America.
Mitt Romney always reminded me of Max Headroom. I'm surprised the similarity was only lightly spoofed.
"C-c-corporations are p-p-people, my friends."
The alternative is to pay a programmer/DBA, which many co's don't want to do. If the total cost of problems caused by using Excel is perceived to be no greater than hiring an IT person, then they'll live with clunky spreadsheets.
Sometimes you can find a decent compromise: the database stores the raw numbers and manages data-entry coordination, and the spreadsheets do the final computations and reporting.
Simplified versions of the final reports can be generated via canned database-connected reporting tools to check ball-bark computations against the spreadsheets. The programmer/DBA then doesn't have to spend time with the nitty gritty of the domain and intricate reporting & scenario changes, and therefore their services are only needed part-time. (They may be borrowed from another dept.) They do generic CRUD, and domain details are left to the internal spreadsheet fiddlers.
https://www.theonion.com/study...
This can affect the health of millions of people. They should be put on trial and jailed when found guilty.
Becuase humuns fowl everthing up,
Please elaborate.
Life is an investment and a gamble. Nothing is for sure. But note you can know the current wages of an already-unionized shop.
It could potentially be the return of the likes of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc.
If Siri were designed as generic assistant technology, then it could be added to any new device with relatively minor tweaks. Maybe they overly hard-wired Siri's design to phones and tablets.
If you are criticizing democracy in general, what do you propose as an alternative? (Yes, it does sometimes hiccup, as do all political systems.)
Sometimes they do. It all depends on negotiations and circumstances. Often they cannot promise such up front because they have actually have a unionized work-force in order to start negotiations with employer. It's a process.
In the case of visa workers, the laws are vague enough that they are subject to interpretation and nuance, including political and lobbying bias. Further, the resources and techniques devoted to verifying employer claims is not clearly defined. It's not a cut-and-dry enforce versus not-enforce.
Both parties have been loosy goosy with visa workers, by the way.
So, these students are "generation X"?
At least in US law, one is under the supervision of parents until 18. Thus, it may be the parent's choice. But poor parents may wear their kids out to merely make ends-meet, and the students' education could suffer. When freedom meets starvation and illness, the philosophy of "freedom" gets messy and ugly.
Specs will inherently have some vagueness. If they were precise enough to avoid any ambiguity, they'd BE code.
Then the co. will shape the "requirements" to fit the applicant. The auditor may ask, "You listed Java, but your org doesn't use Java." The co. can then say, "well, we plan to." It's hard to audit people's heads to see what they plan. There's a lot of tricks one can pull, and head-hunters perfect them over time.
Yes, I agree they should focus more on the rejected citizens: are there any that are pretty close to fitting current needs. If the co. asks for 5 years of MS-MVC but the rejected citizen only has 3, that should be considered a good-enough fit: learn on the job. You cannot get experience without getting experience.
Further, limit the rejection reason to say the top 2 or 3 skills. Otherwise, the head-headers will load it up with a long list of "required" skills as a way to reject citizens. There's no practical way a gov't auditor could even test the visa applicant on a long list of skills to verify.
Yip, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Such a random person will accidentally do something right on occasion.
And I don't think they are reducing visas, only scrutinizing them better to make sure the request is a real need besides cheap labor. The end result will hopefully be that a narrow list of companies cannot "hog" bunches of them for coding sweatshops, and those approved will truly be unique specialists who work for a wider range of companies and fields.
In most unions, members vote for the union leaders. Don't like em? Change em. Other voters disagree with you? Then persuade them of your better way.
As far as "not helping", union members earn more on average than non-union members for similar positions.
"I don't believe in science; it's fake news, believe me. I know more than scientists and the generals. I will dis-invite that total loser Einstein from the White House. All his equations: Faaake! I can do rocket surgery in my sleep, partly because I got a bigly rocket in my Pence, I mean pants. And let's stop Buck Schumer's idiotic practice of buying rocket parts from Jiina; Make American Rockets Great Again!"
Who exactly was "stopped" from working? I smell high exaggeration.
(I thought I posted this reply already, so please forgive me if it eventually shows up twice.)
Most people don't want the purchase price of a product they buy going to business lobbying either. Double Standard.
Who was stopped from working?