Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:BAHAHAHA! GOODBYE! (Score 1) 175

He is extremely profitable, moreso than under a fixed plan. Many other users of the plans are less plan are not.

This happens all the time. It's worth it for a candy bar company to sell "sitting on the fence" Pete a bar for half price. But not worth selling just to him to drop their price for everyone by half.

Comment Re: Good for them (Score 1) 191

The question becomes, how do you tell which person is able to be rehabilitated, and those that arent. Are you willing to risk other peoples lives and well being over a convicted killer, rapist, pedophile, etc ?

To your first question, through some error prone process. There's no real way to look into someone's soul.

To your second question, yes. We have to accept some risk of letting people out of jail. Because what if I put "convicted druggie" in there? "Convicted speeders"?

Comment Re:Disappointed: Article not what it says (Score 2) 327

No, the fad I remembered is part and parcel with the idea of flattening an organization to get creative solutions. And the employee went to a dedicated point-person for physical plant issues, who then brought it up in a meeting and something happened.

I'm confused what the non holacracy distopia you imagine would be? It seems like this was solved by having a known person to bring issues to.

Comment Re:And why should this be done? (Score 1) 694

[citation needed]

This is a huge area of debate in the history, so if there's been research definitively proving it, I'd love to see it. The only things you can usually find are debunked stuff made by racists to justify being racists.

Also, there's a difference between personality and the desire to program computers for a living.

Comment Re:Easy (Score 1) 84

They care about trends and patterns, not about you as a person,

In other news, Google has recently allowed targeted advertisements based on the individual person/e-mail address.

"You as a person" is rarely worth targeting. But there are a lot of scale issues. It's worth targeting for Google, cause they only have to write that code once. And as time goes on, it gets cheaper and more widespread.

Comment Re:Probably bullshit (Score 1) 327

That really only works if any previous title is enough of a megahit to give you the money to delay without pissing off the money people. In other words, Valve. I guess Blizzard before the merger.

Other places, missing a shipping deadline or Christmas would (and has) caused studios to get shut down.

Comment Re:The problem is not "management"... (Score 1) 327

It depends on how large the company is. Once you get beyond N people reporting to you, you need another layer of management.

You have 10,000 people working for you, and one layer of middle management, and you are managing 100 people each mananging 100 people. Have 3 layers, and you manage 10, who each manage 10, who each manage 10.

Comment Re:Probably bullshit (Score 1) 327

Also, there's more ambiguity. Is person X recently the bosses friend or just an overconfident ass pushign their idea. Is person Y still in the bosses good graces.

If only there was some way to give people little rankings of the boss's affection, that could be seen by all and were announced company-wide, so people knew where other people stood.

Comment Re:Give me a raise (Score 1) 327

. I say "belief system" not to be insulting but to point out that such statements are often phrased, as here, to have no exceptions, there's no "usually" qualifiers anywhere.

Because they're implicitly there. When I say that response is indicative of someone who puts forth the least effort of running down a mental checklist of "disagreement points" to dismiss a point, I'm unlikely to say "in the majority of cases". Because there are exceptions.

And your post is one of those exceptions. I agree that there are ways of making a decision not subject to a single dictator's whims. I would say that consensus systems are often subject to the biggest ass's whims, and therefore are worse than other voting systems. The major issue I have with your point is that deciding is hard. It takes a lot of time and thought. Asking numerous people to do that imposes higher costs. Even more given that politicing, communication and voting costs. So you'll have to explain the benefits of organic leaders whose opinions everyone else copies and simply an appointed leader whose opinion is the decision.

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.