Most departments want to hire more people to show on the DH CV that they head a department of 250 people executing multi-million-dollar initiatives. They conveniently leave off that the business need can be addressed with 8 clerks and a $90,000/year outsourced payroll solution instead of a $2 million/year in-house Oracle installation and 5 DBAs and whatnot supporting 200 clerks using a poorly-written in-house HR and purchasing system integrated with an off-the-shelf payroll system.
Closest response I've actually seen.
There's a lot of "managers don't want to think", "Break stuff and blame staffing", and "use Logic(TM)" responses here from clueless tech idiots who think they're management or diplomats or something. These are the same people that can't understand what executives (CEO CSO CISO etc.) actually do and why they're needed.
I've been studying project management because of this same shit. On one hand this place is understaffed; on the other, the stuff we're staffing up for would be easy to do on half the staff we have already... if managed properly. With a breakdown of the work, project experience and documentation that allows for fairly accurate estimating, and various risk management documents, you can show that A) you're in desperate need of more staffing if you want to actually complete any work this year; and/or B) current staffing prohibits implementation of risk controls, and the company's position is very precarious and based on the idea that one or two minor things can go wrong and the major things won't happen.
Negotiation requires good communication, but also good facts to communicate. You need to show management that their goals are best served by following your suggestions. This produces a situation where both sides feel they've gotten something out of the negotiation, and both sides understand what they're doing and why.
As a final thought, refer to chapter 4 of the PMBOK5e, particularly the section on meetings: Meetings are for A) communicating information; B) generating alternatives (brainstorming, etc., coming up with possible actions; or C) decision making. Exactly one per meeting. Have a meeting, communicate the situation: work to be done, human time available, human time consumed, problems, risks, and so on. Have another meeting a few days later, discuss how to address the problem: change timelines, drop projects, alter (reduce) project scopes, emphasize addressing risks, emphasize projects to improve efficiency so the same staff can complete their work in less time and with less effort, hire additional staff, etc. Have another meeting a week or so later, make a decision: make any procedural changes and create any additional positions as is fit. Never, ever do a bunch of different shit in one meeting; that's how you get vacant management-driven from-the-hip decisions that tend to be the worst possible solutions to any problem.
It's disturbing, but it looks relatively painless compared to beheading (NOT as painless as you'd think--there's a lot of debate about how long a disembodied head may remain conscious, ranging from instant black-out to 13-ish seconds to a matter of constitution and aiming of the hatchet), electrocution (also standard), etc. The only painless method is nitrogenation, and that's only "humane" because animals are stupid; lethal injection always seemed like a terrible fate for a human, who has to watch himself die slowly, feel the doctors strap him down, prep him, see the needle being brought over, feel it puncture the skin, feel the slow onset of drug-induced lethargy... versus a bullet to the head, where you stay at the "well this is it, I'm going to die" state and transition to dead without watching it actually happen (the bullet moves fast). Painless suffocation would be faster--nitrogen will drop you quick--but you still know the air is going to kill you, and there's a lead-up with psychological horror of invisible death.
It's still wasteful. Genetic tampering would produce a less-expensive crop and a simplified process.
Google tells me they don't use a meat grinder; they use a "macerator", essentially the same thing but operating with a feed profile that effectively acts within the same time frame as breaking the animal's neck. So potentially more humane than snapping their necks, depending on if the animal survives a brief moment to experience a broken neck or not.
It looks like the auger is large enough to pass a chick without harm, shuttling it
I wouldn't call it cruel. Disturbing, but not cruel. The cycle of life and death is acceptable; this is
This is what I was thinking: people are panicking over nasty-shit-at-sea. How is disposal actually handled, what are the actual environmental impacts, etc? Imagine dumping barrels of Vitamin A into the ocean: people wouldn't bat an eye; but that shit is toxic as living hell and would cause a localized ecological disaster, possibly mass extinction. Nuclear reactor water? A thousand gallons isn't going to hurt anything; but people are panicking about how if Fukushima leaks a few liters into the ocean it will destroy all life on the planet.
No kidding. My first thought here was that all games, movies, and music are digital versions. One comes by CD, one comes by Internet pipe. Baen ships eBooks on CD.
It's used by the powerful as a method for impressing and influencing the masses. See Global Warming. Technical correctness and scope are discarded as useful, and sometimes conflicting positions are taken. Global Warming, again is a good example: Some scientists are claiming that we're grossly underestimating the magnitude, some scientist are claiming we've grossly overestimated it, some scientists are claiming we've Columbused it (it's a 10 degree increase but we're billing it as a 0.1 degree increase to not cause panic), some are claiming we've been in a slump and we're following a global cooling trend now; politicians are cherry picking as desirable for their own cause, as are people arguing in Web forums.
It's a belief system. We have theocratic (our holy man says so, so it must be so), deific (our gods would be angered), spiritual (it is wrong to act cruelly, as karma will then bring cruelty down upon you), philosophic (it is wrong to act cruelly, because you shouldn't be a dick), and rational (we can demonstrate and repeat it, and we haven't been able to break it despite applied critical thinking and assault... for now) belief systems. Belief systems that are explicitly one of these can act as theocratic (scientists/my favorite news outlet/etc say so, so I believe this) or philosophic (I believe this, and here is all the evidence and literature that backs me, and everything else is misguided) systems when the unwashed masses fail to be rational or intelligent. These are both social effects: people want either an authority that allows them to be part of a common body (theocratic) or they want to show their social value by debate (philosophic)--and of course debate only requires you to convince others that you are correct, with no need for you to actually be correct.
I only care about definitions for linguistic discussion; when it comes to real-world behavior, considering psychology and sociology is more useful than talking in theory. It's like decision making: if people are rational, they'll seek the best alternative, hence capitalism; however people are irrational, hence all the defects in capitalism in practice. (Amusingly, capitalists like to use the exact same argument against socialism: People are not rational and will not play well together, hurting themselves as they damage the system; but they also use the inverse: People are rational and will not work harder than they have to, because it would make no sense.)
It's significantly critical that drivers are either incompatible or sub-optimal if migrated from one base to another. In theory this can be separated; in practice, monoliths don't separate in that way.
Oops. You're right, I thought it was stock 284. Never mind.
There IS a stock Chevy Cobalt that comes with 280HP front wheel drive, for people who don't want their car to go when they hit the gas. SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEESPIN!
DragonflyBSD is the only interesting BSD. Minix is the other interesting Unix-like. Dragonfly has a whole hell of a lot of novel concepts or novel implementations of concepts: HAMMERFS (runs 30 second snapshots for 24 hours, then 1 day snapshots, then 1 week, 1 month--a versioning file system, semi-useful), checkpointing with freeze/thaw (you can actually freeze an application and reboot, to the point that you can even move the application to another machine running Dragonfly with the same files at the same paths and thaw the application, continue running it as if you just ran sigstop/sigcont), and extremely good scheduling on SMP that scales to thousands of processors and threads way better than FreeBSD (unsure on how it compares to Linux).
Minix of course is obvious: It's a fully fault-tolerant self-healing microkernel.
I would enjoy seeing the Linux extensions (events, iptables, filesystems, etc.) rolled into Minix so that udev, dbus, systemd, and basically a straight Linux distro stack work without modification; and then seeing the DragonFlyBSD scheduling concepts and freeze/thaw checkpointing implemented in Minix, with the tools to call checkpointing ported from DragonFlyBSD. Then we could drop the whole thing straight into a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora and play with it in a VM, and it would work as expected. Obviously you'd need to port tons of drivers to get a usable desktop system; but to get "you can run Linux on this now", you just need to port some Linux-specific subsystems onto Minix and run it in VMware or KVM or VirtualBox. Straight direct comparisons can then be made.