|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 13, 2015 15:44:12 GMT
I will try to find some links to postings and/or pictures, but Adam spent the day on Fakebook yesterday sending photos of the last day of filming and moving out of the offices. Last blueprint room filmed, last stand-ups filmed, offices emptied. He ended the day with a photo of himself in an airport in New Orleans for the first stop of the new live tour, which will be Jamie's last run with the tour. It is officially the end of the era. He is encouraging fans to post messages & memories on Fakebook & Twitterer with the tag #MythYouGuys He also posted those pictures to his Twitter account, if you don't mind scrolling down to get to the beginning of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 13, 2015 20:22:05 GMT
I always make it plain that I am complaining about the problem, not at the person I am talking too, and ask them to "Dont take this personally, but how can 'the company' make this happen" I usually start with "I have a problem, I need your help" - although I make an exception for the county permit process. I am highly offended that anybody gave the engineers any kind of award, because the software is TERRIBLE. Your tax dollars at work. This is a simplified version of how it normally goes: So, the government sends out a RFQ - Request For Quotation. It specifies what it wants. The contractors bid on it. The government bureaucrat selects one and a contract is signed. Hopefully, it's the cheapest one that's not fly-by-night. Frequently, it's their cousin's business partner, or the most politically correct, or the one who took them to the ball game...there's a lot of ways this can go wrong, and if the bureaucrat decides to do so, they can make a completely biased and wasteful decision. After all, it's not their money. The contractor builds it. Hopefully, the contract is structured such that payments are made on real deliverables in small pieces, a step at a time, with lots of competent auditors who aren't the contractor's business partner, or the most politically correct, or...you get the point. They deliver it to the bureaucrat. Hopefully, the bureaucrat actually tests the deliverable to make sure it meets the contractual obligations, and not just pass it because they're the contractor's business partner, etc., and what they asked for really is what they wanted--you'd be surprised how often it's not, especially with software (or maybe not). When a problem is discovered, there are lots of lawyers involved and making sure that the contract was written to see who pays for it. The contractor will wait until this is straightened out before working on it, if he hasn't got a maintenance agreement or upgrade path already sold. They fix the bugs (after extensive review) and move on. That's pretty much the best case scenario. Now, let's see what can happen with other incentives. The contractor is billing the government for time; they aren't motivated to give them a break. Especially if a "Time and Materials" contract is signed--that's a gravy train. Why kill the golden goose by making something perfect and on when you can milk the customer for life? Especially since, in this case, the customer is never going to feel the pain from a bad product. The bureaucrat isn't paying for it; you are. In fact, every bug is an excuse to promote their own budget, as it was obviously the result of "not enough oversight". So, you have committee meetings, retreats, and training exercises to make sure we keep an eye on your contractors. You hire more auditors and reviewers--they're free, after all. Just a few more tax dollars and that's an endless, bottomless stream. Odds are they're union, too, so that means you or your boss probably will be seeing more contributions to the correct campaigns in the future. Every bug and problem the citizen sees is an opportunity for both contractor and bureaucrat to get rich. Every fix ends that opportunity. Of course, every now and then someone gets really greedy, and they make a big enough mess that it can't be swept under the rug (see the Obamacare rollout). Then, the bureaucrat "loses" his job (actually just gets transferred to another department, sometimes with a promotion to keep the unions happy) and you bring in yet another contractor and bureaucrat who start the whole dance all over again. There's lots of other ways to make money as well during these disasters. Ever wonder how a department can throw away millions on computer system hardware when something goes wrong? Usually it's because it was written in the original contract and the custom software written for the custom hardware was so vendor specific that no other contractor can use it (see the last few iterations of the IRS IT debacles). So, they have to start from scratch, and deliver yet another product that must be tested and accepted. But it keeps everyone employed for the duration, and that's the goal. That's why bureaucrats are so fond of talking about "reset" buttons. What? You'd like to sue/not pay the contractor at the first sign of problems? I admire your commitment, but what exactly are you going to use in the meantime when you're waiting for the lawyers to finish chewing up each other (and paying for each other's mortgage, and that ain't cheap). Yup, you're going to hire another contractor to finish the job, which will take longer and more money--but again, that's a plus. If you're a bureaucrat, more cost means more responsibility, so you're going to get a promotion to manage your bigger organization. The only loser is the taxpayer paying for it. Or the citizen who depends on it (wave to the folks, TLW). Cynical? Maybe. But I've see so much fraud, waste, and abuse that is fully legal but revolting. It drove me out of the government contractor business--I hated working with no real goals other than billing time. The private sector has its own issues, but it can't stand for that--and if it does, it goes out of business. And remember, non-profit doesn't mean you can't get very well paid--it just means your organization won't make a profit.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 13, 2015 20:26:06 GMT
I usually start with "I have a problem, I need your help" - although I make an exception for the county permit process. I am highly offended that anybody gave the engineers any kind of award, because the software is TERRIBLE. Your tax dollars at work. This is a simplified version of how it normally goes: So, the government sends out a RFQ - Request For Quotation. It specifies what it wants. The contractors bid on it. The government bureaucrat selects one and a contract is signed. Hopefully, it's the cheapest one that's not fly-by-night. Frequently, it's their cousin's business partner, or the most politically correct, or the one who took them to the ball game...there's a lot of ways this can go wrong, and if the bureaucrat decides to do so, they can make a completely biased and wasteful decision. After all, it's not their money. The contractor builds it. Hopefully, the contract is structured such that payments are made on real deliverables in small pieces, a step at a time, with lots of competent auditors who aren't the contractor's business partner, or the most politically correct, or...you get the point. They deliver it to the bureaucrat. Hopefully, the bureaucrat actually tests the deliverable to make sure it meets the contractual obligations, and not just pass it because they're the contractor's business partner, etc., and what they asked for really is what they wanted--you'd be surprised how often it's not, especially with software (or maybe not). When a problem is discovered, there are lots of lawyers involved and making sure that the contract was written to see who pays for it. The contractor will wait until this is straightened out before working on it, if he hasn't got a maintenance agreement or upgrade path already sold. They fix the bugs (after extensive review) and move on. That's pretty much the best case scenario. Now, let's see what can happen with other incentives. The contractor is billing the government for time; they aren't motivated to give them a break. Especially if a "Time and Materials" contract is signed--that's a gravy train. Why kill the golden goose by making something perfect and on when you can milk the customer for life? Especially since, in this case, the customer is never going to feel the pain from a bad product. The bureaucrat isn't paying for it; you are. In fact, every bug is an excuse to promote their own budget, as it was obviously the result of "not enough oversight". So, you have committee meetings, retreats, and training exercises to make sure we keep an eye on your contractors. You hire more auditors and reviewers--they're free, after all. Just a few more tax dollars and that's an endless, bottomless stream. Odds are they're union, too, so that means you or your boss probably will be seeing more contributions to the correct campaigns in the future. Every bug and problem the citizen sees is an opportunity for both contractor and bureaucrat to get rich. Every fix ends that opportunity. Of course, every now and then someone gets really greedy, and they make a big enough mess that it can't be swept under the rug (see the Obamacare rollout). Then, the bureaucrat "loses" his job (actually just gets transferred to another department, sometimes with a promotion to keep the unions happy) and you bring in yet another contractor and bureaucrat who start the whole dance all over again. There's lots of other ways to make money as well during these disasters. Ever wonder how a department can throw away millions on computer system hardware when something goes wrong? Usually it's because it was written in the original contract and the custom software written for the custom hardware was so vendor specific that no other contractor can use it (see the last few iterations of the IRS IT debacles). So, they have to start from scratch, and deliver yet another product that must be tested and accepted. But it keeps everyone employed for the duration, and that's the goal. That's why bureaucrats are so fond of talking about "reset" buttons. What? You'd like to sue/not pay the contractor at the first sign of problems? I admire your commitment, but what exactly are you going to use in the meantime when you're waiting for the lawyers to finish chewing up each other (and paying for each other's mortgage, and that ain't cheap). Yup, you're going to hire another contractor to finish the job, which will take longer and more money--but again, that's a plus. If you're a bureaucrat, more cost means more responsibility, so you're going to get a promotion to manage your bigger organization. The only loser is the taxpayer paying for it. Or the citizen who depends on it (wave to the folks, TLW). Cynical? Maybe. But I've see so much fraud, waste, and abuse that is fully legal but revolting. It drove me out of the government contractor business--I hated working with no real goals other than billing time. The private sector has its own issues, but it can't stand for that--and if it does, it goes out of business. And remember, non-profit doesn't mean you can't get very well paid--it just means your organization won't make a profit. That almost sounds like you're saying that politicians are corrupt and/or corruptable. No way! </sarcasm> For extended proof of what's wrong with the process, look up: State of Connecticut vs. John Rowland (disgraced governor) State of Connecticut vs. Joseph Ganim (disgraced mayor/lawyer)
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 13, 2015 20:50:14 GMT
I usually start with "I have a problem, I need your help" - although I make an exception for the county permit process. I am highly offended that anybody gave the engineers any kind of award, because the software is TERRIBLE. Your tax dollars at work. This is a simplified version of how it normally goes: So, the government sends out a RFQ - Request For Quotation. It specifies what it wants. The contractors bid on it. The government bureaucrat selects one and a contract is signed. Hopefully, it's the cheapest one that's not fly-by-night. Frequently, it's their cousin's business partner, or the most politically correct, or the one who took them to the ball game...there's a lot of ways this can go wrong, and if the bureaucrat decides to do so, they can make a completely biased and wasteful decision. After all, it's not their money. The contractor builds it. Hopefully, the contract is structured such that payments are made on real deliverables in small pieces, a step at a time, with lots of competent auditors who aren't the contractor's business partner, or the most politically correct, or...you get the point. They deliver it to the bureaucrat. Hopefully, the bureaucrat actually tests the deliverable to make sure it meets the contractual obligations, and not just pass it because they're the contractor's business partner, etc., and what they asked for really is what they wanted--you'd be surprised how often it's not, especially with software (or maybe not). When a problem is discovered, there are lots of lawyers involved and making sure that the contract was written to see who pays for it. The contractor will wait until this is straightened out before working on it, if he hasn't got a maintenance agreement or upgrade path already sold. They fix the bugs (after extensive review) and move on. That's pretty much the best case scenario. Now, let's see what can happen with other incentives. The contractor is billing the government for time; they aren't motivated to give them a break. Especially if a "Time and Materials" contract is signed--that's a gravy train. Why kill the golden goose by making something perfect and on when you can milk the customer for life? Especially since, in this case, the customer is never going to feel the pain from a bad product. The bureaucrat isn't paying for it; you are. In fact, every bug is an excuse to promote their own budget, as it was obviously the result of "not enough oversight". So, you have committee meetings, retreats, and training exercises to make sure we keep an eye on your contractors. You hire more auditors and reviewers--they're free, after all. Just a few more tax dollars and that's an endless, bottomless stream. Odds are they're union, too, so that means you or your boss probably will be seeing more contributions to the correct campaigns in the future. Every bug and problem the citizen sees is an opportunity for both contractor and bureaucrat to get rich. Every fix ends that opportunity. Of course, every now and then someone gets really greedy, and they make a big enough mess that it can't be swept under the rug (see the Obamacare rollout). Then, the bureaucrat "loses" his job (actually just gets transferred to another department, sometimes with a promotion to keep the unions happy) and you bring in yet another contractor and bureaucrat who start the whole dance all over again. There's lots of other ways to make money as well during these disasters. Ever wonder how a department can throw away millions on computer system hardware when something goes wrong? Usually it's because it was written in the original contract and the custom software written for the custom hardware was so vendor specific that no other contractor can use it (see the last few iterations of the IRS IT debacles). So, they have to start from scratch, and deliver yet another product that must be tested and accepted. But it keeps everyone employed for the duration, and that's the goal. That's why bureaucrats are so fond of talking about "reset" buttons. What? You'd like to sue/not pay the contractor at the first sign of problems? I admire your commitment, but what exactly are you going to use in the meantime when you're waiting for the lawyers to finish chewing up each other (and paying for each other's mortgage, and that ain't cheap). Yup, you're going to hire another contractor to finish the job, which will take longer and more money--but again, that's a plus. If you're a bureaucrat, more cost means more responsibility, so you're going to get a promotion to manage your bigger organization. The only loser is the taxpayer paying for it. Or the citizen who depends on it (wave to the folks, TLW). Cynical? Maybe. But I've see so much fraud, waste, and abuse that is fully legal but revolting. It drove me out of the government contractor business--I hated working with no real goals other than billing time. The private sector has its own issues, but it can't stand for that--and if it does, it goes out of business. And remember, non-profit doesn't mean you can't get very well paid--it just means your organization won't make a profit. That almost sounds like you're saying that politicians are corrupt and/or corruptable. No way! </sarcasm> For extended proof of what's wrong with the process, look up: State of Connecticut vs. John Rowland (disgraced governor) State of Connecticut vs. Joseph Ganim (disgraced mayor/lawyer)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 0:44:48 GMT
bottom line, they get nastygrams from me every few months. first one asked if the software came from Oracle (the company that didn't make Oregon's insurance exchange website) the subsequent ones used words like "unacceptable" and "lost time" and future ones might include words like "back charge"
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 14, 2015 6:57:31 GMT
bottom line, they get nastygrams from me every few months. first one asked if the software came from Oracle (the company that didn't make Oregon's insurance exchange website) the subsequent ones used words like "unacceptable" and "lost time" and future ones might include words like "back charge" "Hey boss! We got another complaint from that guy again!" "Really? Was it good enough to put on the wall?" "Nah, just another reference to Oracle again." "Oh great! That's the 5000th one this week! That means we get to hire more staff read and respond to them! Good work, guys! Bonuses all around!" "He does mention 'lost time' and 'back charge'..." Boss rolls on floor, laughing. "Ooooh, I'm soooo scared! Like he's the only one who ever wasted his time talking to a government office. Guy must have never been to the DMV...Hey, that's a good idea! Just for fun, let's call Larry at the DMV and have him lose his registration records..." "Isn't that illegal?" "Who's going to stop us? We're union and this is Oregon! They can't even stop us from watching pron on government time, now they're complaining about service times? Geez, who does he think he is? It's not like he pays for us or nothin'. He obviously needs to be reminded about just who's the boss around here..." "Yeah, he's dumb enough to pull a permit--let's make him jump through the hoops. If he was smart, he'd hire an illegal to get it done first. Probably a dumb old 1%er who thinks we're public servants..." Cynical? Me? Or realistic? Admittedly, the DMV thing was somewhat unlikely but not impossible. In reality, they just don't care. 5:00 comes and they go home. All we do is fill their day until they retire with a nice pension.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 7:30:14 GMT
bottom line, they get nastygrams from me every few months. first one asked if the software came from Oracle (the company that didn't make Oregon's insurance exchange website) the subsequent ones used words like "unacceptable" and "lost time" and future ones might include words like "back charge" "Hey boss! We got another complaint from that guy again!" "Really? Was it good enough to put on the wall?" "Nah, just another reference to Oracle again." "Oh great! That's the 5000th one this week! That means we get to hire more staff read and respond to them! Good work, guys! Bonuses all around!" "He does mention 'lost time' and 'back charge'..." Boss rolls on floor, laughing. "Ooooh, I'm soooo scared! Like he's the only one who ever wasted his time talking to a government office. Guy must have never been to the DMV...Hey, that's a good idea! Just for fun, let's call Larry at the DMV and have him lose his registration records..." "Isn't that illegal?" "Who's going to stop us? We're union and this is Oregon! They can't even stop us from watching pron on government time, now they're complaining about service times? Geez, who does he think he is? It's not like he pays for us or nothin'. He obviously needs to be reminded about just who's the boss around here..." "Yeah, he's dumb enough to pull a permit--let's make him jump through the hoops. If he was smart, he'd hire an illegal to get it done first. Probably a dumb old 1%er who thinks we're public servants..." Cynical? Me? Or realistic? Admittedly, the DMV thing was somewhat unlikely but not impossible. In reality, they just don't care. 5:00 comes and they go home. All we do is fill their day until they retire with a nice pension. they can't watch pr0n in the government computers - the network was set up by Oracle.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 14, 2015 7:34:21 GMT
I usually start with "I have a problem, I need your help" - although I make an exception for the county permit process. I am highly offended that anybody gave the engineers any kind of award, because the software is TERRIBLE. Your tax dollars at work. This is a simplified version of how it normally goes: So, the government sends out a RFQ - Request For Quotation. It specifies what it wants. The contractors bid on it. The government bureaucrat selects one and a contract is signed. Hopefully, it's the cheapest one that's not fly-by-night. Frequently, it's their cousin's business partner, or the most politically correct, or the one who took them to the ball game...there's a lot of ways this can go wrong, and if the bureaucrat decides to do so, they can make a completely biased and wasteful decision. After all, it's not their money. The contractor builds it. Hopefully, the contract is structured such that payments are made on real deliverables in small pieces, a step at a time, with lots of competent auditors who aren't the contractor's business partner, or the most politically correct, or...you get the point. They deliver it to the bureaucrat. Hopefully, the bureaucrat actually tests the deliverable to make sure it meets the contractual obligations, and not just pass it because they're the contractor's business partner, etc., and what they asked for really is what they wanted--you'd be surprised how often it's not, especially with software (or maybe not). When a problem is discovered, there are lots of lawyers involved and making sure that the contract was written to see who pays for it. The contractor will wait until this is straightened out before working on it, if he hasn't got a maintenance agreement or upgrade path already sold. They fix the bugs (after extensive review) and move on. That's pretty much the best case scenario. Now, let's see what can happen with other incentives. The contractor is billing the government for time; they aren't motivated to give them a break. Especially if a "Time and Materials" contract is signed--that's a gravy train. Why kill the golden goose by making something perfect and on when you can milk the customer for life? Especially since, in this case, the customer is never going to feel the pain from a bad product. The bureaucrat isn't paying for it; you are. In fact, every bug is an excuse to promote their own budget, as it was obviously the result of "not enough oversight". So, you have committee meetings, retreats, and training exercises to make sure we keep an eye on your contractors. You hire more auditors and reviewers--they're free, after all. Just a few more tax dollars and that's an endless, bottomless stream. Odds are they're union, too, so that means you or your boss probably will be seeing more contributions to the correct campaigns in the future. Every bug and problem the citizen sees is an opportunity for both contractor and bureaucrat to get rich. Every fix ends that opportunity. Of course, every now and then someone gets really greedy, and they make a big enough mess that it can't be swept under the rug (see the Obamacare rollout). Then, the bureaucrat "loses" his job (actually just gets transferred to another department, sometimes with a promotion to keep the unions happy) and you bring in yet another contractor and bureaucrat who start the whole dance all over again. There's lots of other ways to make money as well during these disasters. Ever wonder how a department can throw away millions on computer system hardware when something goes wrong? Usually it's because it was written in the original contract and the custom software written for the custom hardware was so vendor specific that no other contractor can use it (see the last few iterations of the IRS IT debacles). So, they have to start from scratch, and deliver yet another product that must be tested and accepted. But it keeps everyone employed for the duration, and that's the goal. That's why bureaucrats are so fond of talking about "reset" buttons. What? You'd like to sue/not pay the contractor at the first sign of problems? I admire your commitment, but what exactly are you going to use in the meantime when you're waiting for the lawyers to finish chewing up each other (and paying for each other's mortgage, and that ain't cheap). Yup, you're going to hire another contractor to finish the job, which will take longer and more money--but again, that's a plus. If you're a bureaucrat, more cost means more responsibility, so you're going to get a promotion to manage your bigger organization. The only loser is the taxpayer paying for it. Or the citizen who depends on it (wave to the folks, TLW). Cynical? Maybe. But I've see so much fraud, waste, and abuse that is fully legal but revolting. It drove me out of the government contractor business--I hated working with no real goals other than billing time. The private sector has its own issues, but it can't stand for that--and if it does, it goes out of business. And remember, non-profit doesn't mean you can't get very well paid--it just means your organization won't make a profit. We have a similar debacle going on over here at the moment. We're getting to the point where our Air Force has to replace our old F-16s, so our government started "a competition" back around 2000. It started out being between the Eurofighter Typhoon, the F/A-18E Super Hornet, the SAAB Gripen and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. When the "competition" was announced, French manufacturer D'assault was offered a chance to enter with the Rafale being in the running. They declined, stating their belief that the whole thing was a complete charade, since Denmark had already been pouring money into the JSF program since '97. A couple of years later, SAAB pulled out for the same reason, so their offer is off the table, even though the Gripen was the cheapest choise of the 4 remaining competitors and almost as good as the Typhoon, so we could have had a lot more planes for the same amount of money and since SAAB is Swedish, expert help and spare parts are literally right next door. At this point, the smartest choise would either be the Super Hornet or the Typhoon, since they're both battle proven and considerably cheaper than the JSF, but the politicians want "the cool one", even though it doesn't fully work yet, so we're all expecting the JSF to win, because it won before the "competition" even started.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 14, 2015 7:50:01 GMT
We have a similar debacle going on over here at the moment. We're getting to the point where our Air Force has to replace our old F-16s, so our government started "a competition" back around 2000. It started out being between the Eurofighter Typhoon, the F/A-18E Super Hornet, the SAAB Gripen and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. When the "competition" was announced, French manufacturer D'assault was offered a chance to enter with the Rafale being in the running. They declined, stating their belief that the whole thing was a complete charade, since Denmark had already been pouring money into the JSF program since '97. A couple of years later, SAAB pulled out for the same reason, so their offer is off the table, even though the Gripen was the cheapest choise of the 4 remaining competitors and almost as good as the Typhoon, so we could have had a lot more planes for the same amount of money and since SAAB is Swedish, expert help and spare parts are literally right next door. At this point, the smartest choise would either be the Super Hornet or the Typhoon, since they're both battle proven and considerably cheaper than the JSF, but the politicians want "the cool one", even though it doesn't fully work yet, so we're all expecting the JSF to win, because it won before the "competition" even started. In the valley, what this sounds like is "specsmanship". In a supposedly fair, nonbiased quote, a manufacturer will convince the customer to specify things only one company can provide. So, in the case of this plane, if I wanted to favor the JSF, I'd write a section into the spec that said "at least x% of the intellectual content (or development funding, or some other unique attribute) must be from country Y". That could easily lock out the competition. I remember one customer whose RFQ was literally taken from one of our user manuals, word for word. Naturally, we got the contract. Of course, our competition sold their system to our customer's competition, and when I saw their spec, it was the same thing except it contained our competitor's user manual data. It's not illegal, and we could have redesigned our system to match the competition, but then they might have sued us. But even if they didn't sue, completely redesigning our system would obviously make us more expensive than the competition, as they were ready to deliver as soon as the contract was signed. Specsmanship even extends to industry wide specifications, like the RFCs used to define how the internet works. Every big networking company I know devotes full time employees to sit on the IETF groups just to try to make their proprietary features part of the standard and stop their competitors from doing likewise. What really usually happens is that both competitors get at least a partial lock on some particular feature via spec, as a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 7:55:20 GMT
in my department we're not quite so blatant with it, but our new SCBA gear will be specified to be 100% compatible with the current equipment - which essentially forces it to be the same manufacturer. and since it is additional gear, it pretty much has to be.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 14, 2015 8:10:18 GMT
You used to be able to do it with people, too!
We had some foreign workers on H1B visas. In order to prove to the government that they were valuable enough to employ over domestic employees, you had to place an ad for their job in a publication. When no local talent could be hired, you could keep employing the H1B.
Of course, if you really wanted to keep the H1B, you wrote the ad so specifically to them that no one else in the world could meet the requirements of the ad. You basically went down the person's resume and called out all their experiences in the ad.
The law has been changed over the last few years to make this a bit more difficult to do, but you can still play games a bit with the ad.
I think I ran into this myself, when I was looking for a job long ago. The ad I read was for someone who wrote "terminal software" for the terminals used to talk to mainframe computers. Although I never worked specifically on computer terminals, I'd worked on every component of them: keyboard drivers, CRT drivers, Serial Communication drivers, etc. During a phone interview, I explained this, but the person on the other end of the line insisted they only wanted "terminal software" people. When asked what part of the software they wanted that I hadn't done, they couldn't answer, except to say I was unqualified.
This is like saying that although you'd worked on tire, wheel, axle, transmission, engine, bodywork, and upholstery for automobiles, you're still not an auto mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 8:49:11 GMT
You used to be able to do it with people, too! We had some foreign workers on H1B visas. In order to prove to the government that they were valuable enough to employ over domestic employees, you had to place an ad for their job in a publication. When no local talent could be hired, you could keep employing the H1B. Of course, if you really wanted to keep the H1B, you wrote the ad so specifically to them that no one else in the world could meet the requirements of the ad. You basically went down the person's resume and called out all their experiences in the ad. The law has been changed over the last few years to make this a bit more difficult to do, but you can still play games a bit with the ad. I think I ran into this myself, when I was looking for a job long ago. The ad I read was for someone who wrote "terminal software" for the terminals used to talk to mainframe computers. Although I never worked specifically on computer terminals, I'd worked on every component of them: keyboard drivers, CRT drivers, Serial Communication drivers, etc. During a phone interview, I explained this, but the person on the other end of the line insisted they only wanted "terminal software" people. When asked what part of the software they wanted that I hadn't done, they couldn't answer, except to say I was unqualified. This is like saying that although you'd worked on tire, wheel, axle, transmission, engine, bodywork, and upholstery for automobiles, you're still not an auto mechanic. I once saw a call for an electrician with a supervisor's card, a welder's card, an asbestos abatement card, and a food service card. - one of the guys looking for work said he wanted to know who that call was customized for.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 16, 2015 15:02:54 GMT
bottom line, they get nastygrams from me every few months. first one asked if the software came from Oracle (the company that didn't make Oregon's insurance exchange website) the subsequent ones used words like "unacceptable" and "lost time" and future ones might include words like "back charge" "Hey boss! We got another complaint from that guy again!" "Really? Was it good enough to put on the wall?" "Nah, just another reference to Oracle again." "Oh great! That's the 5000th one this week! That means we get to hire more staff read and respond to them! Good work, guys! Bonuses all around!" "He does mention 'lost time' and 'back charge'..." Boss rolls on floor, laughing. "Ooooh, I'm soooo scared! Like he's the only one who ever wasted his time talking to a government office. Guy must have never been to the DMV...Hey, that's a good idea! Just for fun, let's call Larry at the DMV and have him lose his registration records..." "Isn't that illegal?" "Who's going to stop us? We're union and this is Oregon! They can't even stop us from watching pron on government time, now they're complaining about service times? Geez, who does he think he is? It's not like he pays for us or nothin'. He obviously needs to be reminded about just who's the boss around here..." "Yeah, he's dumb enough to pull a permit--let's make him jump through the hoops. If he was smart, he'd hire an illegal to get it done first. Probably a dumb old 1%er who thinks we're public servants..." Cynical? Me? Or realistic? Admittedly, the DMV thing was somewhat unlikely but not impossible. In reality, they just don't care. 5:00 comes and they go home. All we do is fill their day until they retire with a nice pension. Meanwhile in Connecticut... The government shutdown DMV offices for two weeks back in Septmeber, so they could install software to 'streamline systems' and "alleviate wait times". As of last week, wait times have officially tripled. You can call a hotline for the wait times and the average time is 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours for registrations (that's before they tell you that you need to wait in the other line). Part of the problem is that Connecticut thought it would be a good idea to offer a third type of ID (outside the standard Driver's License and Non-driver ID) for 'non-resident aliens': A driver's license that does not count as a government ID...so, a Non-ID Driver's License...
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 27, 2015 3:23:28 GMT
I'll try to get this one up sometime in January:
A “Myth”-ic Journey
By the time this is published, the final season of “Mythbusters” will be airing on The Discovery Channel.
Once upon a time, radio actor Don Herbert realized that television was a medium by which children could be inspired study science. In due time, he developed what would become the “Mr. Wizard” persona. “Watch Mr. Wizard” had a simple formula: a child would appear with Mr. Wizard and help them conduct a series of seemingly impossible scientific experiments. The show was a smash hit, and during its 15-year-run over a hundred thousand people joined the five thousand-plus “Mr. Wizard Science Clubs” that formed. The show was briefly revived in the 1970s, and in the 1980s we had “Mr. Wizard’s World” (which broadcast in re-runs until 2000). This second show had much the same formula as the first, and simply had a faster pace.
The 1990s gave the world two competing science shows that attempted the fill the gaps. The first, “Beakman’s World”, was an adaptation of the “You Can with Beakman and Jax” comic strip that had started shortly before (and which is still running). The other was “Bill Nye the Science Guy”, hosted by comedian and mechanical engineer Bill Nye. Both shows were created to teach science to younger audiences.
Then came “Mythbusters”.
The premise behind the series was simple: hosts Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage would use the scientific method to conduct experiments in which they tested the validity of urban legends; later, they would also test movie & television scenes, viral videos, historical myths, and many other such concepts. Each episode depicted the pair – and for several seasons, a group of assistants that included Scottie Chapman, Tori Belleci, Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, and Jessi Combs – researching one or more myths, at which point they would devise experiments. Some myths had them follow the proper scientific method from start to finish, while others would have them go straight to the “full-scale” experiments and then (if the experiment did not go as planned), based on the results they received, conduct a series of “small-scale” tests to tease out previously unseen variables before going “full-scale” again.
Along the way, the audience got to see the failures as well as the successes. It could frequently take hours, if not days, of work to get devices and rigs working properly, if at all. Experiments would have to be repeated again and again to get usable data. External factors, such as the weather, would often interfere. And of course, injury was a very real threat; several individuals on the show did indeed get hurt on occasion. Unlike a certain British show that shall not be named, there was no fear of failure. In fact, several episodes were devoted to retesting myths based on new evidence and suggestions.
So this is the show’s big triumph, eh? It’s unflinching view of science, good and bad?
Not entirely.
You see, most of the above-mentioned crew members were special effects workers. The bulk of the show was shot out of M5 Industries, Hyneman’s special effects workshop. Most of the hosts aside from Hyneman himself were special effects workers, Bellaci, Byron, and Savage being M5 employees at the time the show started.
Unlike its predecessors, none of them were scientists in any fashion or even presented themselves as scientists.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate legacy of “Mythbusters”. As each episode proved, you don’t need to be a scientist to engage in science. You just need common sense, determination, and an understanding of the scientific principle. Let’s hope the next show remembers this.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 27, 2015 12:56:08 GMT
Go on, name it, lets all have a laugh.....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 27, 2015 15:16:43 GMT
Go on, name it, lets all have a laugh..... there are probably legal concerns with publishing that a specific show had a fear of failure.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 27, 2015 15:35:47 GMT
I'll try to get this one up sometime in January: A “Myth”-ic JourneyBy the time this is published, the final season of “Mythbusters” will be airing on The Discovery Channel. Once upon a time, radio actor Don Herbert realized that television was a medium by which children could be inspired study science. In due time, he developed what would become the “Mr. Wizard” persona. “Watch Mr. Wizard” had a simple formula: a child would appear with Mr. Wizard and help them conduct a series of seemingly impossible scientific experiments. The show was a smash hit, and during its 15-year-run over a hundred thousand people joined the five thousand-plus “Mr. Wizard Science Clubs” that formed. The show was briefly revived in the 1970s, and in the 1980s we had “Mr. Wizard’s World” (which broadcast in re-runs until 2000). This second show had much the same formula as the first, and simply had a faster pace. The 1990s gave the world two competing science shows that attempted the fill the gaps. The first, “Beakman’s World”, was an adaptation of the “You Can with Beakman and Jax” comic strip that had started shortly before (and which is still running). The other was “Bill Nye the Science Guy”, hosted by comedian and mechanical engineer Bill Nye. Both shows were created to teach science to younger audiences. Then came “Mythbusters”. The premise behind the series was simple: hosts Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage would use the scientific method to conduct experiments in which they tested the validity of urban legends; later, they would also test movie & television scenes, viral videos, historical myths, and many other such concepts. Each episode depicted the pair – and for several seasons, a group of assistants that included Scottie Chapman, Tori Belleci, Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, and Jessi Combs – researching one or more myths, at which point they would devise experiments. Some myths had them follow the proper scientific method from start to finish, while others would have them go straight to the “full-scale” experiments and then (if the experiment did not go as planned), based on the results they received, conduct a series of “small-scale” tests to tease out previously unseen variables before going “full-scale” again. Along the way, the audience got to see the failures as well as the successes. It could frequently take hours, if not days, of work to get devices and rigs working properly, if at all. Experiments would have to be repeated again and again to get usable data. External factors, such as the weather, would often interfere. And of course, injury was a very real threat; several individuals on the show did indeed get hurt on occasion. Unlike a certain British show that shall not be named, there was no fear of failure. In fact, several episodes were devoted to retesting myths based on new evidence and suggestions. So this is the show’s big triumph, eh? It’s unflinching view of science, good and bad? Not entirely. You see, most of the above-mentioned crew members were special effects workers. The bulk of the show was shot out of M5 Industries, Hyneman’s special effects workshop. Most of the hosts aside from Hyneman himself were special effects workers, Bellaci, Byron, and Savage being M5 employees at the time the show started. Unlike its predecessors, none of them were scientists in any fashion or even presented themselves as scientists. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate legacy of “Mythbusters”. As each episode proved, you don’t need to be a scientist to engage in science. You just need common sense, determination, and an understanding of the scientific principle. Let’s hope the next show remembers this. One minor correction. Mythbusters didn't move on to covering movie and tv myths, they were actually covering some right from the start. One of the first myths they covered in the pilot episodes came from the James Bond film Goldfinger. The biggest aspect of Mythbusters that is frequently overlooked is that 90% of their myths came not from the producers but from fans of the show. In essence making Mythbusters interactive, or far more interactive than is usually the case with tv, while at the same time this interaction required the audience to actually think and learn about the science in order to stand a decent chance of getting an idea on the show. Such learning, at least for the more serious viewer, was just as importantly not just a case of passively absorbing information from the hosts. But also discussing the science with other fans, and even discussing history and occasionally different cultures - how many people on here have learnt things about other countries simply from talking to each other? Above all Mythbusters was a show that was fun, educational, made people think and showed that science doesn't require you to be a lab coat wearing humorless person with a degree.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 27, 2015 15:41:16 GMT
That's a hard distinction to quantify. the goldfinger death myth was an urban myth that involved a movie, but where do you draw the line between a myth that involves a movie and a myth that is perpetuated by a movie?
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Dec 27, 2015 17:31:34 GMT
Mythbusters duo would ‘like to never work together again’. So why do they have a new TV show?An interview with Jamie as to what the future looks like. "We’re revisiting the cement-truck dynamite myth but this time we’re doing it with many times more explosives. Because we (Hyneman and co-host Adam Savage) can. It’s what we do." More explosives? What comes after overkill? "We’re both executive producers of (an untitled new scripted TV series for CBS) and in that sense we will be working together some, but largely as creative input on the series. I’m not at liberty to give away what the plot’s about but it’s going to astonish quite a few people when it comes out I believe. It’s going to be very action adventure with a lot of tech and engineering involved. Our function is to make sure that science and engineering is both creative and also realistic." I guess CBS was getting flak for the outlandish science on shows like CSI:Cyber and Scorpion. I swear sometimes those shows make me cringe.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 27, 2015 22:21:45 GMT
Mythbusters duo would ‘like to never work together again’. So why do they have a new TV show?An interview with Jamie as to what the future looks like. "We’re revisiting the cement-truck dynamite myth but this time we’re doing it with many times more explosives. Because we (Hyneman and co-host Adam Savage) can. It’s what we do." More explosives? What comes after overkill? "We’re both executive producers of (an untitled new scripted TV series for CBS) and in that sense we will be working together some, but largely as creative input on the series. I’m not at liberty to give away what the plot’s about but it’s going to astonish quite a few people when it comes out I believe. It’s going to be very action adventure with a lot of tech and engineering involved. Our function is to make sure that science and engineering is both creative and also realistic." I guess CBS was getting flak for the outlandish science on shows like CSI:Cyber and Scorpion. I swear sometimes those shows make me cringe. you've apparently missed my synopsis of scorpion: "a show designed to make viewers feel superior by easily picking out all the unrealistic stuff the genius producer tries to pass off as real."
|
|