I see no posts for days
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
| "it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
| (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
| about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
| the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
| 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
| a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
| rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
| things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
| you live neither in Joseph Stalin's Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
| utopia of 1984."
|
Did you really want a respose to this redneck
pseudo-intellectualism?
Your "signature" is 10 lines
while your post is 1 line.
I have over 200 'signatures' randomly selected.
Some are quite short.
I tend to just think of anything below the message as
an ad and ignore it, but like ads in webpages, it does make
for a lot of unnecessary noise.
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote
| > I have over 200 'signatures' randomly selected.
| > Some are quite short.
|
| There is an RFC that says you should keep them to four lines.
|
That's an interesting decision. People rig their email
to insert completely irrelevant text, not even knowing
themselves what gets inserted, for no good reason,
and there are politeness rules about how to do that?!
On 17/10/2020 13:52, Mayayana wrote:
I tend to just think of anything below the message as
an ad and ignore it, but like ads in webpages, it does make
for a lot of unnecessary noise.
Yes, you read it, or ignore it, enjoy it, or whatever.
It's just a sig. Unlike ads in web pages, its always in a predictable
place that you don't even have to scroll to.
And if your news client is in any way well specced, it never gets
repeated in followups.
I really don't see what the fuss is about. Dozens of sigs might irritate
me, but I don't feel so insecure as to have to comment on them
But these four lines are definetly not enough to have e-mail-signatures according to european laws (for business purposes).
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:41:16 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I have over 200 'signatures' randomly selected.
Some are quite short.
There is an RFC that says you should keep them to four lines.
Juergen Bruckner wrote:
But these four lines are definetly not enough to have e-mail-signatures
according to european laws (for business purposes).
Hu? Complete legal contact information certainly fits easily. Page long
blurb like "if you recieved this in error we in no way agologize but
threaten you with Mafia squads unless you comply with silly requirements
we are in no way entitled to make." is entirely voluntary.
Hu? Complete legal contact information certainly fits easily. Page long
blurb like "if you recieved this in error we in no way agologize but
threaten you with Mafia squads unless you comply with silly requirements
we are in no way entitled to make." is entirely voluntary.
e-mail-signature MUST contain the
same information as business letters.
So e.g. legal address and contact information, commercial register
number and court, business register number and authority, VAT-ID,
Juergen Bruckner wrote:
e-mail-signature MUST contain the
same information as business letters.
So e.g. legal address and contact information, commercial register
number and court, business register number and authority, VAT-ID,
Yes, email if it contains binding contract information. But a Usenet
post? I'm pretty sure Impressum requirements for printed pamphlets
suffice.
Mayayana wrote to Juergen Bruckner <=-
Very different thing. Usenet is anonymous chat. If you
choose to advertise your company that's usenet spam,
not legally required information. You're talking about
conducting official business via digital communication.
There'd be nothing stopping you from running a private NNTP server.
There'd be nothing stopping you from running a private NNTP server.
I've had the opportunity to set up standards-based collaboration a
couple of times - use NNTP as a collaboration tool with private
newsgroups, Jabber for chat, SMTP/IMAP/LDAP for mail and directory
services and you had a platform-agnostic collaboration suite on par
with on-prem exchange - long before anyone had heard of Teams or
Slack.
All true, but these days you need video conferencing with good
screen sharing capabilities
On 19/10/2020 18:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
All true, but these days you need video conferencing with good
screen sharing capabilities
Do you?
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:09:58 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/10/2020 18:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
All true, but these days you need video conferencing with good
screen sharing capabilities
Do you?
In the absence of being able to gather around a whiteboard, or meet face to face - yes.
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
| > In the absence of being able to gather around a whiteboard, or meet
| > face to face - yes.
| >
| Good grief...
|
And all this time you thought reality was theoretical.
Whaddaya know about that? :)
On the subject of white boards, by astonishment was in the pure
snowflakeness of the man who cant do without a whiteboard.
On 20-10-2020 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On the subject of white boards, by astonishment was in the pure
snowflakeness of the man who cant do without a whiteboard.
Whiteboards or blackboards or chalkboards have of course been *very*
long standing tools in education, discussion, explanation, problem
solving and who knows what other kinds of collaborations &
communications.
On 20-10-2020 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On the subject of white boards, by astonishment was in the pure
snowflakeness of the man who cant do without a whiteboard.
Whiteboards or blackboards or chalkboards have of course been *very*
long standing tools in education, discussion, explanation, problem
solving and who knows what other kinds of collaborations & communications.
Of course, if you hate people or people hate you, it's hard to
collaborate with whatever tool.
On the subject of white boards, by astonishment was in the pure
snowflakeness of the man who cant do without a whiteboard.
So I imagine most people probably have to put up
with whiteboard meetings, and now Zoom pep rallies, so
the boss can see that you're doing the Walmart Wiggle.
In my company 99% of the communications was done by email and a bit of phoning. Face to face wastes time, and was very seldom undertaken, and certainly didn't need any physical drawing surface. If you have access
to something like whatsapp, you can take pictures of any drawings you
need to share.
So what do I understand by 'team'? In most of the places I've worked
since the late '70s, teams/groups/projects, call them what you will, had
a boss but his job was primarily to stop intra-group squabbles and, much
more rarely, to keep everybody heading for the same goal. In many of
these, the boss was not the designer, but in all of them ideas and suggestions were encouraged by both boss and designer/design team and in
none of then was a suggestion slapped down though it might be refused
with reasons. That's what I understand by 'team work'.
But it struck me that the idea of being a "team player"
(AKA willing to be a lackey who takes orders) has become an almost
universal euphemism in employment ads these days.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:26:34 -0000 (UTC)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
So what do I understand by 'team'? In most of the places I've worked
since the late '70s, teams/groups/projects, call them what you will, had
a boss but his job was primarily to stop intra-group squabbles and, much
more rarely, to keep everybody heading for the same goal. In many of
these, the boss was not the designer, but in all of them ideas and
suggestions were encouraged by both boss and designer/design team and in
none of then was a suggestion slapped down though it might be refused
with reasons. That's what I understand by 'team work'.
That's a pretty good description IMHO.
That sounds like the way it should work.
I experienced a management invasion
where the new bosses constantly preached the virtues of teamwork,
while systematically destroying the smoothly-operating teams that had
been in place for 10 years.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:13:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That sounds like the way it should work.
I was lucky: spent 15 years in Logica while it was still a thing.
I experienced a management invasion
where the new bosses constantly preached the virtues of teamwork,
while systematically destroying the smoothly-operating teams that had
been in place for 10 years.
Were they all MBA's or salesmen by any chance? If they were, that would explain it perfectly.
Salesmen make terrible managers and there should be a permanent open
season on MBAs.
I agree with that assessment with one addition: the team leader (more accurate than “boss”) also has the responsibility to provide “air support” to keep higher level management from disrupting the team’soperation.
;-)
I loved leading or participating in a real team, which, in my experience requires some practice to achieve mutual respect, becoming a team. The
most effective and delightful teams I’ve had the pleasure to participate
in or lead have been highly interdisciplinary, with 6-12 members.
I draw a strong contrast with a committee, which often resorts to voting
to make decisions.
The observation that “All of us are smarter than any of us” is
definitely applicable to a team.
I recall a Dilbert cartoon which stated that the IQ of a committee is determined by dividing the IQ of the lowest IQ member by the number of
people on the committee. ;-)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:53:11 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
But it struck me that the idea of being a "team player"Maybe a euphemism, but its very different from what I understand by
(AKA willing to be a lackey who takes orders) has become an almost
universal euphemism in employment ads these days.
'team'.
So what do I understand by 'team'? In most of the places I've worked
since the late '70s, teams/groups/projects, call them what you will, had
a boss but his job was primarily to stop intra-group squabbles and, much
more rarely, to keep everybody heading for the same goal. In many of
these, the boss was not the designer, but in all of them ideas and suggestions were encouraged by both boss and designer/design team and in
none of then was a suggestion slapped down though it might be refused
with reasons. That's what I understand by 'team work'.
On 2020-10-20, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:13:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That sounds like the way it should work.
I was lucky: spent 15 years in Logica while it was still a thing.
I experienced a management invasion where the new bosses constantly
preached the virtues of teamwork, while systematically destroying the
smoothly-operating teams that had been in place for 10 years.
Were they all MBA's or salesmen by any chance? If they were, that would
explain it perfectly.
Our first warning was when a consultant walked into our office and said,
"OK, now here's the plan..." Why should he ask us how things worked?
All we had been doing was keeping the place running for 10 years.
I know, there are good consultants out there. But I've cleaned up
enough messes left by bad ones that I consider them guilty until proven innocent.
Salesmen make terrible managers and there should be a permanent open
season on MBAs.
At a previous company I learned how important it is to keep the salesmen
on a tight leash. This outfit didn't. On one project we ate a man-year trying to keep a salesman's promises. I swore that if it happened again
I'd be gone. Not only did it happen again, it was the same salesman who
did it. (He left halfway through that one.)
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:support”
So what do I understand by 'team'? In most of the places I've worked
since the late '70s, teams/groups/projects, call them what you will, had
a boss but his job was primarily to stop intra-group squabbles and, much
more rarely, to keep everybody heading for the same goal. In many of
these, the boss was not the designer, but in all of them ideas and
suggestions were encouraged by both boss and designer/design team and in
none of then was a suggestion slapped down though it might be refused
with reasons. That's what I understand by 'team work'.
I agree with that assessment with one addition: the team leader (more accurate than “boss”) also has the responsibility to provide “air
to keep higher level management from disrupting the team’s operation. ;-)
I recall a Dilbert cartoon which stated that the IQ of a committee is determined by dividing the IQ of the lowest IQ member by the number of
people on the committee. ;-)
General principle of consulting, customer must be doing something wrong
or they would not have called you in so change things - the bigger the changes the more ???????? you can charge.
"A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain."
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
"A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain."Eight or more legs and no brain. A committee of three is not generally quorate.
General principle of consulting, customer must be doing something wrong
or they would not have called you in so change things - the bigger the
changes the more ???????? you can charge.
Also the principle of the new top manager just appointed :-(
Worked where one such swanned in, threw everything in the air, and
before anyone could tell whether it was good or bad, they'd buggered off
to their next bigger job. I better not mention any names - quite famous.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 65:27:10 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,841 |