 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah yes, another day, another global policy document to read. This one
talks about a process to "ensure continued continuity". Wonderful stuff...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4992e24f@news.povray.org...
> Ah yes, another day, another global policy document to read. This one
> talks about a process to "ensure continued continuity". Wonderful stuff...
Well, you have to ensure that the continuity is continued otherwise
non-continued continuity can't be continued.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah yes, another day, another global policy document to read. This one
>> talks about a process to "ensure continued continuity". Wonderful stuff...
>
> Well, you have to ensure that the continuity is continued otherwise
> non-continued continuity can't be continued.
Perhaps more worrying is that they have apparently decided that we're
goig to keep a record of every user account ever created... using an
Excel spreadsheet.
*facepalm*
Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4992e683@news.povray.org...
>>> Ah yes, another day, another global policy document to read. This one
>>> talks about a process to "ensure continued continuity". Wonderful
>>> stuff...
>>
>> Well, you have to ensure that the continuity is continued otherwise
>> non-continued continuity can't be continued.
>
> Perhaps more worrying is that they have apparently decided that we're goig
> to keep a record of every user account ever created... using an Excel
> spreadsheet.
>
> *facepalm*
>
> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
Then step in and advise them accordingly.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Perhaps more worrying is that they have apparently decided that we're goig
>> to keep a record of every user account ever created... using an Excel
>> spreadsheet.
>>
>> *facepalm*
>>
>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>
> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say. :-P
For some reason, my opinion was not deemed necessary when drafting this
procedure. And now it's been finalised. Only *now* do I get to look at
it. Obviously it's not too late to change anything unless I can come up
with a *really* compelling reason. (And "this is an inefficient way to
do it" doesn't count as compelling enough.)
Still, this is what happens when you work for a bunch of people who
don't think things through properly, and who regard you as a clueless
idiot...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4992e24f@news.povray.org...
>> Ah yes, another day, another global policy document to read. This one
>> talks about a process to "ensure continued continuity". Wonderful stuff...
>
> Well, you have to ensure that the continuity is continued otherwise
> non-continued continuity can't be continued.
>
And don't forget the paradigm shift for results-oriented continuity as
well as ensured global policy and standardization of operations and
procedures ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
A different paradigm for user-centralized ad-hoc data visualization and
rapid results-based internalized customer advocacy?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>>
>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>
> A different paradigm for user-centralized ad-hoc data visualization and
> rapid results-based internalized customer advocacy?
So... you have found a Markov-chain text generator?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:08:45 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>
>> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
>
> Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say. :-P
They certainly are guaranteed to not take notice of what you say if you
say nothing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>
>> A different paradigm for user-centralized ad-hoc data visualization
>> and rapid results-based internalized customer advocacy?
>
> So... you have found a Markov-chain text generator?
>
lol... nah, just seeing how many buzzwords I can cram into a sentence. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So... you have found a Markov-chain text generator?
>
> lol... nah, just seeing how many buzzwords I can cram into a sentence. :)
Frighening, eh?
Sometimes I do sit down and attempt to construct a sentence which *does*
convey the correct meaning, but is never the less maximally technical.
"We apppear to be experiencing copious quantities of solid-phase aqueous
precipitation in the lower troposphere currently."
This is slightly different to constructing sentences which are very
wordy but don't "say" anything. My sister has taken this to an art form.
I truly mean that. I read one of her reports for school once. I managed
to get through 3 pages, all the while thinking "gee, this stuff is
really good". And then I suddenly realised "wait a sec - you haven't
*said* anything yet!" True genius. No wonder she got such excellent
grades...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> This is slightly different to constructing sentences which are very
> wordy but don't "say" anything.
There was a conference on linguistics or some such where the authors took
markov chains from a few earlier papers and constructed a completely random
paper to submit, got it accepted, and presented it. They were apparently up
to the fifth or sixth slide before people started to catch on that it was
literally random nonsense.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is slightly different to constructing sentences which are very
>> wordy but don't "say" anything.
>
> There was a conference on linguistics or some such where the authors
> took markov chains from a few earlier papers and constructed a
> completely random paper to submit, got it accepted, and presented it.
> They were apparently up to the fifth or sixth slide before people
> started to catch on that it was literally random nonsense.
Apparently this has been done more than once...
Hence my earlier comment about *Markov chains*! :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So... you have found a Markov-chain text generator?
>>
>> lol... nah, just seeing how many buzzwords I can cram into a sentence. :)
>
> Frighening, eh?
>
> Sometimes I do sit down and attempt to construct a sentence which *does*
> convey the correct meaning, but is never the less maximally technical.
>
> "We apppear to be experiencing copious quantities of solid-phase aqueous
> precipitation in the lower troposphere currently."
Heh, yeah, that makes too much sense.
> This is slightly different to constructing sentences which are very
> wordy but don't "say" anything. My sister has taken this to an art form.
> I truly mean that. I read one of her reports for school once. I managed
> to get through 3 pages, all the while thinking "gee, this stuff is
> really good". And then I suddenly realised "wait a sec - you haven't
> *said* anything yet!" True genius. No wonder she got such excellent
> grades...
>
She'll go far in incentivizing the workforce to produce maximally
customer friendly intuitive content.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sometimes I do sit down and attempt to construct a sentence which
>> *does* convey the correct meaning, but is never the less maximally
>> technical.
>>
>> "We apppear to be experiencing copious quantities of solid-phase
>> aqueous precipitation in the lower troposphere currently."
>
> Heh, yeah, that makes too much sense.
Well it depends what you're aiming for. If you want "technically correct
but difficult to comprehend", that's what you just got. If you want
"sounds impressive but actually meaningless", then talk to my sister.
> She'll go far in incentivizing the workforce to produce maximally
> customer friendly intuitive content.
Actually, she's an accountant. :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is slightly different to constructing sentences which are very wordy
> but don't "say" anything. My sister has taken this to an art form. I truly
> mean that. I read one of her reports for school once. I managed to get
> through 3 pages, all the while thinking "gee, this stuff is really good".
> And then I suddenly realised "wait a sec - you haven't *said* anything
> yet!" True genius. No wonder she got such excellent grades...
Reminds me of this announcement of an upcoming show at my school:
"My practice endeavors to register a world that is in constant flux.
Processes used incorporate symbolisms relating to historical representations
in both social and artistic associations. Metaphors are created in an
attempt to define the diversity that is the human condition. It is about
possibilities, the importance of freedom and the action of an expression
that looks at moments of optimism, personal freedom and the necessity and
failure of idealism without being didactic in its manifestation. The work
revolves around themes such as globalization, the power of the media and the
economy. Often this includes taking on the role of facilitator to develop
collaborative projects with a wide variety of participants, many of who
would have no formal artistic background."
Can you really take on the role of facilitator without your metaphors
becoming didactic with regard to how the sybolisms relate to representations
of associations?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
>> Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say. :-P
>
> They certainly are guaranteed to not take notice of what you say if you
> say nothing.
I queried it. Needless to say, they don't think this is a real problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:28:33 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>>> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
>>> Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say. :-P
>>
>> They certainly are guaranteed to not take notice of what you say if you
>> say nothing.
>
>I queried it. Needless to say, they don't think this is a real problem.
They are right, it is not a real problem, lots of companies work like this. You
and I know that there are better ways it can be done but spreadsheets work, it
must be said.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>>>> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
>>>> Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say. :-P
>>> They certainly are guaranteed to not take notice of what you say if you
>>> say nothing.
>> I queried it. Needless to say, they don't think this is a real problem.
>
> They are right, it is not a real problem, lots of companies work like this. You
> and I know that there are better ways it can be done but spreadsheets work, it
> must be said.
I wonder how well it will "work" once we have a few GB of data in there
though?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:22:21 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>>>>> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
>>>>> Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say. :-P
>>>> They certainly are guaranteed to not take notice of what you say if you
>>>> say nothing.
>>> I queried it. Needless to say, they don't think this is a real problem.
>>
>> They are right, it is not a real problem, lots of companies work like this. You
>> and I know that there are better ways it can be done but spreadsheets work, it
>> must be said.
>
>I wonder how well it will "work" once we have a few GB of data in there
>though?
Not very well but you told them so. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Perhaps more worrying is that they have apparently decided that we're
> goig to keep a record of every user account ever created... using an
> Excel spreadsheet.
OK, so I've just received an email asking me for details of every user
account that has ever existed in the UK system.
WTF?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK, so I've just received an email asking me for details of every user
> account that has ever existed in the UK system.
>
> WTF?
I would print out the list, scan it in, then email them the PDF. Tell them
you don't have the original document anymore of all the old users, that
should keep them busy for a while :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> OK, so I've just received an email asking me for details of every user
>> account that has ever existed in the UK system.
>>
>> WTF?
>
> I would print out the list, scan it in, then email them the PDF. Tell
> them you don't have the original document anymore of all the old users,
> that should keep them busy for a while :-)
More to the point, we really *don't* have this information anywhere.
When I first joined the company, nobody bothered to record this kind of
stuff. Ah, times were much simpler back then. (And much less organised,
it must be said!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:28:33 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>>>> Why...WHY would you do this?? >_<
>>>> Then step in and advise them accordingly.
>>> Yes. Because they're *really* going to take notice of what *I* say.
>>> :-P
>>
>> They certainly are guaranteed to not take notice of what you say if you
>> say nothing.
>
> I queried it. Needless to say, they don't think this is a real problem.
And did you push back with reasons why you think it is?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:06:44 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> OK, so I've just received an email asking me for details of every user
>>> account that has ever existed in the UK system.
>>>
>>> WTF?
>>
>> I would print out the list, scan it in, then email them the PDF. Tell
>> them you don't have the original document anymore of all the old users,
>> that should keep them busy for a while :-)
>
> More to the point, we really *don't* have this information anywhere.
> When I first joined the company, nobody bothered to record this kind of
> stuff. Ah, times were much simpler back then. (And much less organised,
> it must be said!)
If there in Active Directory still, use ldifde (I believe that's what
it's called) and dump the contents to a text file, then send that to them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> WTF?
>>> I would print out the list, scan it in, then email them the PDF. Tell
>>> them you don't have the original document anymore of all the old users,
>>> that should keep them busy for a while :-)
>> More to the point, we really *don't* have this information anywhere.
>> When I first joined the company, nobody bothered to record this kind of
>> stuff. Ah, times were much simpler back then. (And much less organised,
>> it must be said!)
>
> If there in Active Directory still, use ldifde (I believe that's what
> it's called) and dump the contents to a text file, then send that to them.
Nah. We're talking about accounts that were deleted before AD was even
invented.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:20:13 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> WTF?
>>>> I would print out the list, scan it in, then email them the PDF.
>>>> Tell them you don't have the original document anymore of all the old
>>>> users, that should keep them busy for a while :-)
>>> More to the point, we really *don't* have this information anywhere.
>>> When I first joined the company, nobody bothered to record this kind
>>> of stuff. Ah, times were much simpler back then. (And much less
>>> organised, it must be said!)
>>
>> If there in Active Directory still, use ldifde (I believe that's what
>> it's called) and dump the contents to a text file, then send that to
>> them.
>
> Nah. We're talking about accounts that were deleted before AD was even
> invented.
Well, that's even easier, then. Go grab random first names and last
names and stick them together. ;-)
In seriousness, if you can get access to HR records (electronic HR
records), you cold probably reconstruct enough information. Or just
refer them to the HR department if there's an easy criteria (such as
"anyone we hired had an account, and HR documents all of that").
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I wonder how well it will "work" once we have a few GB of data in there
> though?
You have a few GB of login account information? WTF?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I wonder how well it will "work" once we have a few GB of data in
>> there though?
>
> You have a few GB of login account information? WTF?
A list of every employee who has ever worked for the company in its
entire 25-year history? Every temp who's spent a week with us?
Maybe GB is exaggerating slightly, but we're talking about a file that
by definition is going to grow without limit. Isn't there a row limit in
Excel?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>Isn't there a row limit in Excel?
By the time you've hired and fired 65,000 employees, you'll probably have
migrated to a better system.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/12/2009 3:22 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I wonder how well it will "work" once we have a few GB of data in there
> though?
How long has your company been in business, how many employees do they
have, and what's their turnover like?
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Isn't there a row limit in Excel?
>
> By the time you've hired and fired 65,000 employees, you'll probably
> have migrated to a better system.
I really hope you're right about that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I wonder how well it will "work" once we have a few GB of data in there
>> though?
>
> How long has your company been in business, how many employees do they
> have, and what's their turnover like?
Company history: 25 years.
Current workforce: Approx 500 people.
Turnover: Increasing exponentially.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Isn't there a row limit in Excel?
>
> By the time you've hired and fired 65,000 employees, you'll probably
> have migrated to a better system.
>
Yes, there is a slight possibility that at that time they have at least
one computer running Excel 2007.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Company history: 25 years.
>
> Current workforce: Approx 500 people.
>
> Turnover: Increasing exponentially.
How prophetic those words...
On Tuesday somebody asked me whether I'd set up the user account yet.
Apparently we have a new member of staff arrive on Monday. Nobody
bothered to tell me that.
Ah, but that's tame. Apparently nobody bothered to tell Finance either,
and they're refusing to pay his wages. So the guy is, like, 5 days into
his training, and they've just told him "Sorry, we won't be employing
you. Go home."
Uh, whiskey tango foxtrot, out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So the guy is, like, 5 days into
> his training, and they've just told him "Sorry, we won't be employing
> you. Go home."
>
> Uh, whiskey tango foxtrot, out.
Thinking further about this... I was under the impression that this kind
of behaviour is actually *illegal*.
As in, if you promise somebody a job, in writing, you're not allowed to
then arbitrarily retract that offer a few days later.
Perhaps I'm mistaken?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Perhaps I'm mistaken?
Was a contract signed?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Thinking further about this... I was under the impression that this kind
> of behaviour is actually *illegal*.
>
> As in, if you promise somebody a job, in writing, you're not allowed to
> then arbitrarily retract that offer a few days later.
>
> Perhaps I'm mistaken?
Perfectly legal here. The state I'm in has what they call At-Will
employment. Either party can terminate the employment at any time for
any reason.
What isn't legal is not getting paid for the 5 days of wages.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Perhaps I'm mistaken?
>
> Was a contract signed?
Not yet, I don't think.
Even so, I was under the impression that if a company tells you in
writing that they're going to employ you, they're required to do so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Thinking further about this... I was under the impression that this kind
> of behaviour is actually *illegal*.
>
> As in, if you promise somebody a job, in writing, you're not allowed to
> then arbitrarily retract that offer a few days later.
>
> Perhaps I'm mistaken?
Dunno about Britain, but in Finland there's two main kinds of employing
contracts - one's done for a defined period (eg. 1 year) and the other
one is until otherwise is chosen. On the latter one there usually is a
notice time (2 weeks to 2 months), on which either part is allowed to
snap off the contract at any time. After that time the employee can snap
off the contract and have a ending notice time (also usually 2 weeks to
2 months). The employer is also allowed to do that, but they need a good
reason for it.
The case you defined would drop to the starting notice time here.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Even so, I was under the impression that if a company tells you in
> writing that they're going to employ you, they're required to do so.
I don't know about the UK, but in the USA, that's true of a verbal promise
too. It's just a heck of a lot harder to hold someone to it.
And since the state likes to get their income tax, this is exactly the kind
of situation where the employee wins pretty easily. He should at least get
his five days pay, I'd think.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even so, I was under the impression that if a company tells you in
>> writing that they're going to employ you, they're required to do so.
>
> I don't know about the UK, but in the USA, that's true of a verbal
> promise too. It's just a heck of a lot harder to hold someone to it.
>
> And since the state likes to get their income tax, this is exactly the
> kind of situation where the employee wins pretty easily. He should at
> least get his five days pay, I'd think.
Apparently they're going to pay him for 2 weeks' work (even though he
only actually did one). But still, if I were him, I'd be PISSED!
Or... possibly glad I found out the company was retarded without
actually being stuck there? :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
