Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Companies don't get it.... (Score 1) 289

I mean this in the nicest way - You count as your own worst enemy.

You feel some sort of sense of duty to your job, you feel that you need to cover for your coworkers' shortcomings, you (want to) feel that your job "matters" so much that the company can't keep going without you. Reality check - If the company doesn't value a project enough to give you adequate resources to get it done, you should value it exactly as much as the company does - Not at all. It will get done when it gets done. Bonuses, you say? Yeah, they don't exist in the first place. I theoretically get an annual bonus - That depends 0% on my performance, and 100% on the performance of people entirely outside my department. The salesmen rule the world, simple as that. Hell, even my annual "performance" evaluation depends less than 25% on my actual performance. I could literally score a perfect "C" without getting a single one of my formal duties done.

Put bluntly, as long as upper management can get their email, your success or failure means nothing to the company on the short term. Yes, your project may well make the company more in the long run than even its core business - For which you will get zero thanks, because the C-levels have no clue what you do.

Make no mistake, I give my employer a fair day's work. But from what you've written, you would hate working with me, because I care about my job exactly as much as my boss, and his boss, and his boss' boss, all the way to the top of the food chain, do. If they make success possible, I will succeed. If they expect "Scotty the Miracle Worker" on a shoestring, you've already failed, don't waste your time fighting it..

Comment Re:Major disconnect from layers (Score 1) 289

And yet, I'm pretty sure Boeing's CEO doesn't order the employees to start building planes without wings (I don't care, just do it! You're the engineer, you make it work or I'll find another that will!) Something tells me he knows planes a bit better than "not at all, really".

Sure, but he doesn't actually need to if he's smart enough to listen to the people who work for him. You ask your engineers about engineering changes. You ask bean counters about counting beans. A company the size of Boeing does a feasibility study before they change toilet tissues.

Comment Re:DDoS? (Score 1) 34

Don't waste your time, friend. No matter how cogent you are, APK will seize upon any minor point, declare victory, and shit all over the table. If you agree with him on one thing you must agree with him on all things or be a hypocrite. He's hardly the only insane bugger on Slashdot, though, so it's not even work poking him with a stick.

Comment Re:Heh (Score 4, Insightful) 289

One thing I've noticed is someone who is very good at a tech job isn't just twice as productive as someone who is lousy at it; the discrepancy could easily be 10x; or it could be that he produces positive progress and the lousy guy produces anti-progress. This is clearly true for software developers, but I've seen it happen with network administrators too: small cadres of happy, super-productive admins outperforming armies of miserable tech drones.

But the thing is if you don't understand anything about (a) the technology or (b) human beings, how do you get a worker to be more productive? You make him work longer.

I'm not talking about striking while the iron is hot. When opportunity produces the occasional 80 hour work week, that's a totally different matter than having no better idea of what to do than setting unrealistic goals and leaving it to workers to make it up through sheer, unsustainable effort. Too often in the latter case you end up producing the semblance of progress. Yeah, I finished the module but someone's going to have to throw it out and rewrite when it blows up in the customer's face.

Comment Re:Wait for the results. (Score 1) 112

Well he *is* going to test the hypothesis. But he has to test the *procedure* as well on a smaller scale before he uses it on his research subjects.

People underestimate how much of science is like this. Advancing science isn't just a matter of creating more theoretical knowledge; a lot of the time it's about advancing know-how.

Comment Re:I don't see anything different. (Score 1) 119

They changed it because serif fonts are hard to read at different resolutions and don't scale well on small phones and watches.

At 60pt, they could write it in frickin' Viner Hand for all it matters and people would still have no trouble recognizing it even on the tiniest of screens.

On an iPhone 5, for example, it literally spans a good inch and a half, and roughly a third that height. "Hard to read" just doesn't apply.

Comment Re:Why didn't the old logo work? (Score 1) 119

I'm with you, I don't see how their new logo conveys how people "interact with Google products across many different platforms, apps and devices-sometimes all in a single day" any more or less than the old one did. It's a logo. It says "Google." Nothing about the old logo or the new one infers usage from a desktop PC, a phone, a tablet, or anything else, and they could have added the new microphone icon and whatever else without changing the logo. It's their brand to play with, but the justification doesn't make sense, they could have just said "we thought we needed a crisp new look."

"Is it really you, Fuzz, or is it Memorex, or is it radiation sickness?" -- Sonic Disruptors comics