Thursday, 30 June 2011
Seriously
If you're going to express some sort of opinion on politics have you got all the angles covered?
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Wiki Murphy's Law
If anything will go wrong it will go wrong.
Also can be interpreted as
SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SIMPLIFY!
Complex bureaucracy just means people are going to get things wrong and not bother to fill things in.
If anything will go wrong it will go wrong.
Also can be interpreted as
SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SIMPLIFY!
Complex bureaucracy just means people are going to get things wrong and not bother to fill things in.
Wrong style of managing
If you have a shop and you have 3 sales people and 30 customers. Each customers tells the sales staff they like yellow tiles, the sales people then know the customers only want those. So you should order 30 yellow tiles....
If the Manager has not ever met the customer and doesn't talk to his sales staff instead tells them what the customer wants and does something different.
Why the fuck do you think we have 400 purple tiles?
The Manager has broken the first rule of management, your subordinates know better than you.
If the Manager has not ever met the customer and doesn't talk to his sales staff instead tells them what the customer wants and does something different.
Why the fuck do you think we have 400 purple tiles?
The Manager has broken the first rule of management, your subordinates know better than you.
Common Sense
What is he term "I thought it would be Common Sense"
To me it just implies that someone thinks I am stupid. No Common Sense has no place in business as it means someone is presuming that something is going to happen. Sorry no I learned a while ago that unless its written down or on something I am not going to do jack shit.
It's like people expect other people to be clairvoyant or something, honestly I don't know what the fuck people are thinking. Then they get all pissed off if something isn't done the exact way the expect it to be. Just fuck off and do it yourself. It's only going to get done if you ask and say how you want it done otherwise everything between A) asking for it B) getting it is all up for interpretation, and in that space I will do whatever the fuck I want.
If you're saying "Common Sense" in business think for a second. 1) Your culture is fucked. 2) why aren't you telling people this in the first place 3) don't be an asshole 4) You're the one without Common Sense for not pointing it out in the first place.
To me it just implies that someone thinks I am stupid. No Common Sense has no place in business as it means someone is presuming that something is going to happen. Sorry no I learned a while ago that unless its written down or on something I am not going to do jack shit.
It's like people expect other people to be clairvoyant or something, honestly I don't know what the fuck people are thinking. Then they get all pissed off if something isn't done the exact way the expect it to be. Just fuck off and do it yourself. It's only going to get done if you ask and say how you want it done otherwise everything between A) asking for it B) getting it is all up for interpretation, and in that space I will do whatever the fuck I want.
If you're saying "Common Sense" in business think for a second. 1) Your culture is fucked. 2) why aren't you telling people this in the first place 3) don't be an asshole 4) You're the one without Common Sense for not pointing it out in the first place.
Seriously Bored....
Somehow I think that certain companies are lying their wee little socks off.
There is a new buzzword from Sweden "SUSTAINABILITY!" there is also "CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY"
What does it all mean? Most of the time this stuff is just a cover all for common sense as is the case with Empowerment which just means giving someone responsibility.
Sustainability is a bit more complex in some respects but in essence it is about using sustainable resources and in a way minimizing waste.
Corporate Social Responsibility is about looking after local residents and your employees. Doing voluntary work and making sure you clean up your own mess not try to blame someone or cover it up and doing due diligence.
What am I getting at? There is no way that most American companies can see what their arse end is doing when even the the supervisors of employees don't even understand what job they do properly. By far in the worst way to create waste is to hire a shit load of middle management. Its like a land of zombies whose task is to fill in pointless bits of paperwork in order to create even more sodding bureaucracy.
Seriously if you have 3 lines of development all doing the same sort of work why does all three have to use 3 different types of paperwork to convey the same sort of information and one of them can't be bothered to do it properly. Simplify! One set of paperwork to cover all! Minimize the sodding waste re task the people creating the nonsense. You will find a lot more productivity in this case. There does seem to be a pretty crude way of thinking which goes "Somethings wrong!" and then spend the next couple of weeks implementing charts, graphs, diagrams and metrices which don't even show what is wrong properly because what you could have done in the first place was go down stairs and have a look where its going wrong for yourself. Better yet get the staff to stop and think about the problems themselves give them responsibility, they aren't stupid treating them as such won't get you anywhere .... EVER!
The next biggest problem is the obsession with outsourcing, why on earth get contract workers to fill permanent vacancies. They aren't good enough to become a full-time employee but you will spend the same sort of money paying their agencies and the like. No proper background checks no trial periods no training.
The biggest problem!
No training. You positively cannot go about anything with no training, it is absolutely insane. No one has a clue it gets even worse when you get people who think they do when they do not.
The whole thing is just crazy.
I saw an article about a certain american company with XXXXXXXXXXXX the man who saved .XXXX are you kidding me? I mean seriously? the company is in debt up to its eyeballs. It sacked a load of staff and cut the pay of everyone else. All maintenance and training has been slashed, and not put back equipment is getting old and worn out. No money will be spent. Everything is falling apart and its damn near the end of the company. This is what is termed in Business Studies as a failing company and a prime candidate for "Turnaround."
It sold off loads of brands in an attempt to focus on its own. Lost a lot of competancy, I mean some of its most sucessful iconic products are based on the other brands platforms. Where does that leave the parent company. I don't know but I am in doubt that it can keep up with development in some fields.
Safety, Dynamics and Engine Technology are the mains ones which is almost a cover all. The design I feel is being lack luster and a lack of a coupe to rival M3s and 1 Ms is probably something they are missing (Also a lot of other companies are missing). They miss the point of these pinnacle of engineering specs. People want the other cars because they are "Related" to the fast ones, they won't buy the fast ones for various reasons but feel their normal car as inherited some of the traits. They don't know any better. Also I am absolutely unconvinced by the rantings of idiots that say you want 400hp and 45mpg isn't that a bit pointless.
No it fucking isn't if I drive down the damn road or get stuck in traffic I don't want to be wasting petrol for no reason whatsoever I want to be wasting petrol when I choose too, and we should get serious about 3rd generation biofuels and reduce the amount of fuel we are using that won't last. Not to say bio fuels are entirely sustainable.
Six Sigma is balls its complete and utter balls. Yes statisical analysis is good but what are you looking for. When you go in to look for answers you won't see the answers. It only shows what you want to see. For me it just generally shows that people are missing more problems that are not listed. Glossing over real problems. Ignoring the actual working staff, and going back on how it was done in the beginning. No one knows what they are doing. Its Mental!!!!!!
There is a new buzzword from Sweden "SUSTAINABILITY!" there is also "CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY"
What does it all mean? Most of the time this stuff is just a cover all for common sense as is the case with Empowerment which just means giving someone responsibility.
Sustainability is a bit more complex in some respects but in essence it is about using sustainable resources and in a way minimizing waste.
Corporate Social Responsibility is about looking after local residents and your employees. Doing voluntary work and making sure you clean up your own mess not try to blame someone or cover it up and doing due diligence.
What am I getting at? There is no way that most American companies can see what their arse end is doing when even the the supervisors of employees don't even understand what job they do properly. By far in the worst way to create waste is to hire a shit load of middle management. Its like a land of zombies whose task is to fill in pointless bits of paperwork in order to create even more sodding bureaucracy.
Seriously if you have 3 lines of development all doing the same sort of work why does all three have to use 3 different types of paperwork to convey the same sort of information and one of them can't be bothered to do it properly. Simplify! One set of paperwork to cover all! Minimize the sodding waste re task the people creating the nonsense. You will find a lot more productivity in this case. There does seem to be a pretty crude way of thinking which goes "Somethings wrong!" and then spend the next couple of weeks implementing charts, graphs, diagrams and metrices which don't even show what is wrong properly because what you could have done in the first place was go down stairs and have a look where its going wrong for yourself. Better yet get the staff to stop and think about the problems themselves give them responsibility, they aren't stupid treating them as such won't get you anywhere .... EVER!
The next biggest problem is the obsession with outsourcing, why on earth get contract workers to fill permanent vacancies. They aren't good enough to become a full-time employee but you will spend the same sort of money paying their agencies and the like. No proper background checks no trial periods no training.
The biggest problem!
No training. You positively cannot go about anything with no training, it is absolutely insane. No one has a clue it gets even worse when you get people who think they do when they do not.
The whole thing is just crazy.
I saw an article about a certain american company with XXXXXXXXXXXX the man who saved .XXXX are you kidding me? I mean seriously? the company is in debt up to its eyeballs. It sacked a load of staff and cut the pay of everyone else. All maintenance and training has been slashed, and not put back equipment is getting old and worn out. No money will be spent. Everything is falling apart and its damn near the end of the company. This is what is termed in Business Studies as a failing company and a prime candidate for "Turnaround."
It sold off loads of brands in an attempt to focus on its own. Lost a lot of competancy, I mean some of its most sucessful iconic products are based on the other brands platforms. Where does that leave the parent company. I don't know but I am in doubt that it can keep up with development in some fields.
Safety, Dynamics and Engine Technology are the mains ones which is almost a cover all. The design I feel is being lack luster and a lack of a coupe to rival M3s and 1 Ms is probably something they are missing (Also a lot of other companies are missing). They miss the point of these pinnacle of engineering specs. People want the other cars because they are "Related" to the fast ones, they won't buy the fast ones for various reasons but feel their normal car as inherited some of the traits. They don't know any better. Also I am absolutely unconvinced by the rantings of idiots that say you want 400hp and 45mpg isn't that a bit pointless.
No it fucking isn't if I drive down the damn road or get stuck in traffic I don't want to be wasting petrol for no reason whatsoever I want to be wasting petrol when I choose too, and we should get serious about 3rd generation biofuels and reduce the amount of fuel we are using that won't last. Not to say bio fuels are entirely sustainable.
Six Sigma is balls its complete and utter balls. Yes statisical analysis is good but what are you looking for. When you go in to look for answers you won't see the answers. It only shows what you want to see. For me it just generally shows that people are missing more problems that are not listed. Glossing over real problems. Ignoring the actual working staff, and going back on how it was done in the beginning. No one knows what they are doing. Its Mental!!!!!!
Seriously unconvincing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/13878359.stm
this one is a bit unconvincing. You want to improve economy? Fine, I have a better idea.
All technology available to engineers should be made available any configuration.
the qualifying timing rule will make sure people are sufficiently fast enough.
My idea is simple. Any engine should be able to be used, be it turbocharged supercharged, both, naturally aspirated. High Revving large displacement.
1 tank of fuel to last the race.
and a points scoring system for the trophy most important to teams "The constructors title." Whoever has the lowest fuel consumption (and not lapped you still have to be fast) should be awarded the same amount of points as a win for a driver and so on. This will give the teams something to think about.
Hybridisation should have be more free of regulation so we can see the teams optimise their systems for all the way around the track - always on always working boosting constantly. We would see some proper hybrids then and some very fast paced technology development.
That would give F1 an edge and give it its cutting edge feel. Even though we have seen some pretty damn awesome racing mostly down to artificial differences "push to pass" and KERS, these sorts of changes would see what F1 really needs variety. Just imagine 4 cylinder turbo supercharged vs V12 turbos V8 turbos V6 turbos V8 high rev. The combinations are endless, but all the teams would have to work to a point as their car would still need to be fast.
It would also show what would be the most fuel efficient combination. Along with this suppliers should be required to only supply a maximum of 3 teams and also open up the tire choices and vendors. Vendors would only be allowed 3 teams and this would be chosen at random by the FIA charging would be capped and development would have to be done on the tire makers "dime"
Would give us more variety again.
Secondly open up the aero rules a little, I think the push to pass should be linked to a traction control system as its too dangerous to remove that much load instantly in high speed corners.
EFI control should be different for every team.
I would say that traction control should be used but I am torn on this. It could raise the limit that the drivers could achieve and then some, it could make for some impossible maneuvers
this one is a bit unconvincing. You want to improve economy? Fine, I have a better idea.
All technology available to engineers should be made available any configuration.
the qualifying timing rule will make sure people are sufficiently fast enough.
My idea is simple. Any engine should be able to be used, be it turbocharged supercharged, both, naturally aspirated. High Revving large displacement.
1 tank of fuel to last the race.
and a points scoring system for the trophy most important to teams "The constructors title." Whoever has the lowest fuel consumption (and not lapped you still have to be fast) should be awarded the same amount of points as a win for a driver and so on. This will give the teams something to think about.
Hybridisation should have be more free of regulation so we can see the teams optimise their systems for all the way around the track - always on always working boosting constantly. We would see some proper hybrids then and some very fast paced technology development.
That would give F1 an edge and give it its cutting edge feel. Even though we have seen some pretty damn awesome racing mostly down to artificial differences "push to pass" and KERS, these sorts of changes would see what F1 really needs variety. Just imagine 4 cylinder turbo supercharged vs V12 turbos V8 turbos V6 turbos V8 high rev. The combinations are endless, but all the teams would have to work to a point as their car would still need to be fast.
It would also show what would be the most fuel efficient combination. Along with this suppliers should be required to only supply a maximum of 3 teams and also open up the tire choices and vendors. Vendors would only be allowed 3 teams and this would be chosen at random by the FIA charging would be capped and development would have to be done on the tire makers "dime"
Would give us more variety again.
Secondly open up the aero rules a little, I think the push to pass should be linked to a traction control system as its too dangerous to remove that much load instantly in high speed corners.
EFI control should be different for every team.
I would say that traction control should be used but I am torn on this. It could raise the limit that the drivers could achieve and then some, it could make for some impossible maneuvers
Poser
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/13953045.stm
This is getting boring. Hamilton may be "interesting" but he's falling into a strange crowd it seems. He is turning into a bit of a bitch and its getting boring.
Lots of people think Button is Boring but Canada proved he is one of the best. I don't care what anyone says it takes Buttons consistancy, pace and accuracy to do what he did in that race. Hamilton would have stacked it and he did, he is too anxious to be able to make things stick. He just shoves it in where as Button "poaches" which is a more professional way of overtaking by maximizing your chances and minimizing the risk if you know its going to be your best bet then you wait. However he had so many opportunities in Canada it was staggering and the only mistake he made saw Hamilton try to overtake in the dumbest of places and I really don't care what Brundle says theres no way he knew he was there especially with that aggressive an overtake into the path of the other car (Hamilton went into a dissappearing zone where the racing line is) it did not go well.
This is getting boring. Hamilton may be "interesting" but he's falling into a strange crowd it seems. He is turning into a bit of a bitch and its getting boring.
Lots of people think Button is Boring but Canada proved he is one of the best. I don't care what anyone says it takes Buttons consistancy, pace and accuracy to do what he did in that race. Hamilton would have stacked it and he did, he is too anxious to be able to make things stick. He just shoves it in where as Button "poaches" which is a more professional way of overtaking by maximizing your chances and minimizing the risk if you know its going to be your best bet then you wait. However he had so many opportunities in Canada it was staggering and the only mistake he made saw Hamilton try to overtake in the dumbest of places and I really don't care what Brundle says theres no way he knew he was there especially with that aggressive an overtake into the path of the other car (Hamilton went into a dissappearing zone where the racing line is) it did not go well.
I hate Hippies
No seriously I hate hippies. Greenpeace are unrealistic idealists. A lot of what people put in the media seems to be anti middle class and anti upper class. They seem to think that the middle classes are stopping progress and that they are polluting everything.
Seriously the High Speed Link lobbey seem to think attacking the middle classes for hindering them building the line up to Birmingham is somehow the right thing to do, and by saying they are hindering the lower classes seems bullshit and a needless attack and also stating that the link will reduce pollution. That will not get anyone to follow your cause.
Then you have Greenpeace who seem to think the middle classes are responsible for all pollution in the world.
What baffles me the most is when they try to limit the amount of cars going into London by congestion charging. They are going there because they have too no one sits in traffic because they want too. It has had an effect but as soon as its later on at night the traffic is a complete Nightmare!!! Effectively just moving the problem.
This is pretty much the same sort of thinking that dominates poor production lines and badly performing companies.
Flow needs to be increased. People have to be able to move about more freely. Cost of travel limits the amount of travel people do. Better flow also has its advantages in that vehicles will not be sitting still for long periods of time, pollution should decrease. Maybe stop start technology would aid with reducing the amount of pollution but it doesn't reduce the large cost to the Economy that people sitting in traffic not being able to do jobs costs. Not to mention the flow of money out of the country to oil nations.
Seriously the High Speed Link lobbey seem to think attacking the middle classes for hindering them building the line up to Birmingham is somehow the right thing to do, and by saying they are hindering the lower classes seems bullshit and a needless attack and also stating that the link will reduce pollution. That will not get anyone to follow your cause.
Then you have Greenpeace who seem to think the middle classes are responsible for all pollution in the world.
What baffles me the most is when they try to limit the amount of cars going into London by congestion charging. They are going there because they have too no one sits in traffic because they want too. It has had an effect but as soon as its later on at night the traffic is a complete Nightmare!!! Effectively just moving the problem.
This is pretty much the same sort of thinking that dominates poor production lines and badly performing companies.
Flow needs to be increased. People have to be able to move about more freely. Cost of travel limits the amount of travel people do. Better flow also has its advantages in that vehicles will not be sitting still for long periods of time, pollution should decrease. Maybe stop start technology would aid with reducing the amount of pollution but it doesn't reduce the large cost to the Economy that people sitting in traffic not being able to do jobs costs. Not to mention the flow of money out of the country to oil nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)