Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Why are reports typically created? Usually in my experience it's because you need to get a handle on the performance of something. Or you have identified a problem that you need so solve.
If you want to get a handle on the performance of something then you should run the report as long as it takes to get a handle on it. If it's not a problem, then stop the reporting.
If you have identified a problem, then by all means create a report to measure the problem and set a criteria for what you would consider to be "bad" and "good". Once you get the problem in hand and move your measure from bad to good and can keep it at good the problem will likely be gone. At which point your report is really doing no good anymore. If you're concerned about the problem coming up again set up some sort of threshold alert to warn you and stash that report away in your archives.
If a report outlives the problem it was intended to help solve institutional momentum will keep that report going forever. No one will remember why metric X was generated or why it was considered "bad" back in 2007 when that value got too high. The underlying technology or processes may have changed completely in the meantime and metric X may be meaningless, but someone who is ill informed will keep looking at it and trying to drive meaningless work off of it. The healthiest thing a company can do is to define a lifetime for their reports and re-evaluate whether those reports should continue at the end of the lifetime. If you do determine it should keep continuing define a new lifetime and re-evaluate it at the end of that lifetime again.
- One person cell phone
- One work issued cell phone
- One medical device that has a cellular connection to a service provider
- One security system that has a mobile module in it
- Two kindles, one 2nd generation, and one DX both of which connect via cellular
So right there I account for six "subscriptions."
Safeties on firearms typically disable the ability to pull the trigger or to allow the mechanism to engage the firing pin. All a "smart firearm" can do is to build some complex mechanism that acts as one of these safeties. If I were to open up a firearm for maintenance I could easily remove the "smart" portion of the firearm and replace it with some normal "dumb" components. Which thanks to 3D printing and relatively cheap machining equipment could be produced at home. Criminals will still steal weapons, they will pay someone some money to disable the smart portion, and they will continue on their way.
Here are some other problems I see with a "smart firearm."
- Batteries, ok, now I need to change the batteries in my firearms before I can use them
- Fingerprint scanners are useless in states that have cold weather, ever hear of gloves?
- Fingerprint scanners are also useless in most cases if your hands are too dry from things like woodworking, or a number of other hands on trades
- RF Bracelets? Umm... ever hear of RF jammers? If I'm a criminal and I want to rob people all I have to do is get an RF jammer that works on the approved frequencies and I suddenly render all firearms (except my own hacked one) useless. (If you want to point out that such jammers would be illegal I'll point you back to the fact that criminals don't follow the law.) And, I guarantee you the police will demand they can jam the frequency so the tech will be out there and it won't stay in police hands.
There's nothing in her experience that I would call as truly being unique to her. She's just voicing self doubt and complaining about how hard it was to find her way into a specific field. Everyone feels self doubt at some point. But, she attributes that self doubt and inability to find opportunities to her gender.
Very few people I know in IT started out saying I want to be X and then found a college program to study that, and then immediately found a job doing that. Most people's careers are simply defined by the opportunities they are lucky enough to find when they are looking for a position. If you graduated with a CS degree but could only find DBA positions, you probably became a DBA. If all you could find was support, you're probably still working in support. If you found a position that involved coding, there's a good possibility that you're still doing coding. The folks that I know who work in security usually stumbled into the field because they were working on something security related for a project and made the right contacts to follow through.
Would you put someone in charge of a legal department who was not a lawyer?
I'm guessing the answer in both cases would be no. These are specialist areas that require specialized knowledge to ensure that the organizations are working correctly and effectively. Information Technology is also a specialist area and should really be treated in the same mode as a finance or legal department. Leadership within a specialist department should be representative of the core competency of that department. We certainly need people to help manage the money and people, and there are many other roles within a large IT organization that don't need to be technical. But, when it comes to making good decisions about technology you really need people with a technical background.
I would make sure that the correspondence you send to your legal department includes copies of some of the email chains you have with your managers, peers, etc... raising the concerns. Be sure to specify any regulations you suspect are being violated. If the legal team determines there is concern you can bet that change will happen. If they determine otherwise, then you've done your due diligence and reported it within the means your company gives for you to report it.
I would argue that most of these individuals would've been better off having obtained a major in some other field and done theatre as a minor or second major. Personally I majored in computer science. I have a stable profitable career, and I'm still able to partake in the arts and contribute to the arts.
The same can also be said for elementary education majors here in MN. We probably have per capita one of the highest rates of people with elementary education degrees. To the point where most of them are not working in education. Probably only half of the people I know who went to college for elementary education are actually working in that field. Did they learn something valuable? Sure. Could they have potentially learned something else and had an easier time getting a career in another field? Definitely.
I think the original commenter was simply trying to point out this fact. We do a very poor job of guiding teenagers moving from high school to either the real world or college. And, there are some fields which are simply over-saturated and it'll be hard to get a job in.
There's definitely value in teaching kids that it's good to try, and it's ok to not succeed at some things. But, it may have been taken a bit too far. People need to fall down if only to learn how to stand. And, that's not really happening right now in our schools.
As for cracking down on the protests can you really blame anyone working in management at these banks for wanting to? You have an angry group of people who will not so much as give a cohesive list of demands that could sensibly bring an end to the protest. All you have is a large group of people with no defined leadership, which makes them impossible to even negotiate with, and a list of ideas/concepts/whatever that they are protesting for or against that's so general and broad that there is literally no way possible that any of the targets of their protest could reasonably assuage them.
Peaceful protests? Sure, parts of the protests have been peaceful. Parts have been less so. Blocking traffic, causing such a disruption that small employers like the local restaurants and coffee shops were unable to do business, beating drums at all hours of the night so the local residents cannot sleep in their own homes. (Yes, there are people living in those neighborhoods too.) These don't strike me as particularly peaceful. The folks living there can in no way effect the operations of the businesses so beating drums in the middle of the night when there aren't any office workers there is pretty much just a nuisance activity. Destroying the business of the folks who may very well have their entire livelihoods tied up in those local businesses that were unable to operate because of the disruption is also not in line with peaceful protests. Based on the tenor of your comment I'm going to guess that you'll probably justify all those actions in some manner though.
As for your question I'm not going to answer it. You define only two possible answers and assume that my reasoning must fall into one those and therefore try to constrain me to fit within the categories which you define. If I answer in any way other than you would accept you're just going to assume that I ultimately fall back into one of those two categories. By defining naivete and dishonesty as the only two possible answers you show that your mind is already closed.
I've also been in situations where people simply complained about something and said "fix it." My question to them always is "how do you want it fixed?" If there is no direct answer then I can't fix it. OWS suffers from this same exact problem. Simply complaining about something is not enough. Giving a stated list of suggestions on how to fix something is effective. You may not get your ideal solution, but you may get something instead of just getting ignored.
Because OWS eschews formal organizational structures and leadership and tries to lead everything by committee their message is lost, diffuse, and ultimately ignored.
Some corporations definitely do hold too much sway in politics. As I would argue many special interest groups and even unions do. I would love to see all these groups have their influence dialed back. But, I would argue without term limits and campaign finance reform you won't see any of them lose their sway. Politicians who "serve" indefinitely are in my opinion the real problem. It invites a class of individuals whose only true goal is to continue to be re-elected. They then cater to some mix of these groups and accept their money happily to fund their campaigns. If politicians were limited in the length of time they could serve in federal elected offices and prohibited from then moving into appointed positions you would likely see a return of the citizen legislator that once (very early in our republic) dominated. And, perhaps a bit of a return to sanity and common sense. Or at least so I hope.