🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 07:19:23 -0800 (PST), ninjap...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Please see this job opportunity:
>
>Is written in job opportunity:
>
>Position: Java Python Developer: https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m90whgNpJY1rdv58yo1_1280.png
>
>This post international is proof that no matter the place in the world, always will exist an HR department to invent new things. In this time, they invented a language called Java Python. I hope it pulls to Python, if not ...
>
>Java and Python do exist, but does not exist Java Python, is written in job opportunity Position Java Python Developer.

Well, don't apply for the damned job.  If you can't figure out that
they want someone who is proficient in both Java and Python they
probably don't want you anyway, although there are certain
neurological disorders which manifest in an excessive literalism that
are popularly percieved to have some correlation with ability as a
programmer, so maybe they do.
>
>The following job opportunity in Brazil requires experience in programming Batman: http://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8hdthBpFZ1rdv58yo1_500.png
>
>Developer Junior Batman? So it is Robin, Batman is Senior!
>
>An HR department in Brazil invented a language called Batman. An HR department in Brazil published an job advertisement that require experience in programming Batman in language Brazilian Portuguese, not in English.
>
>Is it not very strange an HR department to require knowledge of technology that does not exist?
>
>Why no matter the place in the world, always will exist an HR department to invent new things?
>
>I posted this topic because I need to be well informed about the internationals opportunities of IT job to not deliver my CV to the HR departments that require knowledge of technology that does not exist.

Did you actually google "Batman" before you posted this?

J. Clarke, the link of the following job opportunity in Brazil that requires experience in programming Batman is this: http://tidiota.tumblr.com/post/29044443895/programador-jr-batman-ent%C3%A3o-%C3%A9-robin-o-batman-%C3%A9#notes

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:31:00 -0800 (PST), ninjap...@gmail.com
wrote:

>J. Clarke, the link of the following job opportunity in Brazil that requires experience in programming Batman is this: http://tidiota.tumblr.com/post/29044443895/programador-jr-batman-ent%C3%A3o-%C3%A9-robin-o-batman-%C3%A9#notes
<plonk>

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 07:19:23 -0800 (PST), ninjap...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Please see this job opportunity:
>
>Is written in job opportunity:
>
>Position: Java Python Developer: https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m90whgNpJY1rdv58yo1_1280.png

It shows stupidity. I have been interviewed by HR people who claimed
to be computer literate. It turned out they were functionally
illiterate and also knew nothing about computers.

I wisely withdrew my application. I have/had no desire to work for
fools or morons.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:32:10 -0600, JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 07:19:23 -0800 (PST), ninjap...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>Please see this job opportunity:
>>
>>Is written in job opportunity:
>>
>>Position: Java Python Developer: https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m90whgNpJY1rdv58yo1_1280.png
>
>It shows stupidity. I have been interviewed by HR people who claimed
>to be computer literate. It turned out they were functionally
>illiterate and also knew nothing about computers.
>
>I wisely withdrew my application. I have/had no desire to work for
>fools or morons.

The thing is, you wouldn't be working for HR people.  You have to get
past the HR people to get to the people you _would_ be working for.

Further,  it's the 21st century--the HR people might not even be
employed by the same _company_ as the one you would be working
for--hiring is one of the latest things to get outsourced.  And you
would be _amazed_ at the stuff that the people on the _other_ end have
to go through.

In article <gq584dtpjdripvq4g...@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...

> Further,  it's the 21st century--the HR people might not even be
> employed by the same _company_ as the one you would be working
> for--hiring is one of the latest things to get outsourced.  And you
> would be _amazed_ at the stuff that the people on the _other_ end have
> to go through.

Indeed. Some people still seem to be labo(u)ring under the delusion that 
the primary responsibility of an HR department is staffing. No, they are 
there to ensure that the company does not get sued. As one might 
suspect, this mandate all too often leads to conflicts with hiring 
managers who are tasked with ensuring that work gets done. 

-- 
Dave

Dave Garrett <da...@compassnet.com> wrote:
> In article <gq584dtpjdripvq4g...@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
> @gmail.com says...
> 
>> Further,  it's the 21st century--the HR people might not even be
>> employed by the same _company_ as the one you would be working
>> for--hiring is one of the latest things to get outsourced.  And you
>> would be _amazed_ at the stuff that the people on the _other_ end have
>> to go through.
> 
> Indeed. Some people still seem to be labo(u)ring under the delusion that 
> the primary responsibility of an HR department is staffing. No, they are 
> there to ensure that the company does not get sued. As one might 
> suspect, this mandate all too often leads to conflicts with hiring 
> managers who are tasked with ensuring that work gets done. 
> 

True. That's what leads to the ridiculous job requirements. They try to at
least pretend that filling jobs is an awesome objective process to avoid
being accused of bias.

-- 
Pete

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:08:36 -0600, Dave Garrett <da...@compassnet.com>
wrote:

>In article <gq584dtpjdripvq4g...@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
>@gmail.com says...
>
>> Further,  it's the 21st century--the HR people might not even be
>> employed by the same _company_ as the one you would be working
>> for--hiring is one of the latest things to get outsourced.  And you
>> would be _amazed_ at the stuff that the people on the _other_ end have
>> to go through.
>
>Indeed. Some people still seem to be labo(u)ring under the delusion that 
>the primary responsibility of an HR department is staffing. No, they are 
>there to ensure that the company does not get sued. As one might 
>suspect, this mandate all too often leads to conflicts with hiring 
>managers who are tasked with ensuring that work gets done. 

A book I bought to help me imrpove my interview skills, pointed out
that HR was originally set up to find qualified people. That changed
to decrease the number of applications read by the interviewer.

Problem is, I have noticed them not call in peopel who were qualified
and call in for interview people whose pplicaiton should have been
circular filed.

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 12:29:34 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:

> A book I bought to help me imrpove my interview skills, pointed out
> that HR was originally set up to find qualified people. That changed
> to decrease the number of applications read by the interviewer.
> 
> Problem is, I have noticed them not call in peopel who were qualified
> and call in for interview people whose pplicaiton should have been
> circular filed.

Personally, some companies (both HR _and_ IT) offered me 
jobs for which I was wholly not qualified.  I was very
surprised by this, but it happened on a number of occasions.  I
couldn't understand why they did so.  

On the flip side, I submitted my resume in response to job ads
for which I seemed to be well qualified, yet never heard back.

As mentioned, some I.T. managers had strange attitudes when it
came to hiring.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of MVS
(S/370-OS) sites would not consider anyone without S/370-OS
experience, regardless of their background.  S/370-DOS was not
adequate.  A solid record on a Burroughs was not adequate.

Also, some managers would not consider anyone without similar
industry experience.  That is, an industrial plant would only
consider people with industrial experience; someone from say
an insurance company would not be considered (and vice versa.)
I could sort of understand this to some extent, as there are
certain industry-specific skills that developers should be
aware of.  But on the other hand, a software developer is not 
gonna be out running the blast furnace or rolling mill

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 12:29:34 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
> 
>> A book I bought to help me imrpove my interview skills, pointed out
>> that HR was originally set up to find qualified people. That changed
>> to decrease the number of applications read by the interviewer.
>> 
>> Problem is, I have noticed them not call in peopel who were qualified
>> and call in for interview people whose pplicaiton should have been
>> circular filed.
> 
> Personally, some companies (both HR _and_ IT) offered me 
> jobs for which I was wholly not qualified.  I was very
> surprised by this, but it happened on a number of occasions.  I
> couldn't understand why they did so.  
> 
> On the flip side, I submitted my resume in response to job ads
> for which I seemed to be well qualified, yet never heard back.
> 
> As mentioned, some I.T. managers had strange attitudes when it
> came to hiring.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of MVS
> (S/370-OS) sites would not consider anyone without S/370-OS
> experience, regardless of their background.  S/370-DOS was not
> adequate.  A solid record on a Burroughs was not adequate.

They did this because they could - the pool of programmers with experience
on OS/360 was large enough that they didn't have to look elsewhere. They
missed a lot of good people this way, but it simplified their work filling
the position. Conversely the pool of Univac 1100 or Burroughs 6700
programmers was considerably smaller, so those companies had to widen the
search criteria.

> 
> Also, some managers would not consider anyone without similar
> industry experience.  That is, an industrial plant would only
> consider people with industrial experience; someone from say
> an insurance company would not be considered (and vice versa.)
> I could sort of understand this to some extent, as there are
> certain industry-specific skills that developers should be
> aware of.  But on the other hand, a software developer is not 
> gonna be out running the blast furnace or rolling mill
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 12:29:34 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>
>> A book I bought to help me imrpove my interview skills, pointed out
>> that HR was originally set up to find qualified people. That changed
>> to decrease the number of applications read by the interviewer.
>>
>> Problem is, I have noticed them not call in peopel who were qualified
>> and call in for interview people whose pplicaiton should have been
>> circular filed.
>
> Personally, some companies (both HR _and_ IT) offered me
> jobs for which I was wholly not qualified.  I was very
> surprised by this, but it happened on a number of occasions.  I
> couldn't understand why they did so.
>
> On the flip side, I submitted my resume in response to job ads
> for which I seemed to be well qualified, yet never heard back.
>
> As mentioned, some I.T. managers had strange attitudes when it
> came to hiring.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of MVS
> (S/370-OS) sites would not consider anyone without S/370-OS
> experience, regardless of their background.  S/370-DOS was not
> adequate.  A solid record on a Burroughs was not adequate.
>
> Also, some managers would not consider anyone without similar
> industry experience.  That is, an industrial plant would only
> consider people with industrial experience; someone from say
> an insurance company would not be considered (and vice versa.)
> I could sort of understand this to some extent, as there are
> certain industry-specific skills that developers should be
> aware of.  But on the other hand, a software developer is not
> gonna be out running the blast furnace or rolling mill

Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.



/BAH

On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 12:29:34 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> A book I bought to help me imrpove my interview skills, pointed out
>>> that HR was originally set up to find qualified people. That changed
>>> to decrease the number of applications read by the interviewer.
>>>
>>> Problem is, I have noticed them not call in peopel who were qualified
>>> and call in for interview people whose pplicaiton should have been
>>> circular filed.
>>
>> Personally, some companies (both HR _and_ IT) offered me
>> jobs for which I was wholly not qualified.  I was very
>> surprised by this, but it happened on a number of occasions.  I
>> couldn't understand why they did so.
>>
>> On the flip side, I submitted my resume in response to job ads
>> for which I seemed to be well qualified, yet never heard back.
>>
>> As mentioned, some I.T. managers had strange attitudes when it
>> came to hiring.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of MVS
>> (S/370-OS) sites would not consider anyone without S/370-OS
>> experience, regardless of their background.  S/370-DOS was not
>> adequate.  A solid record on a Burroughs was not adequate.
>>
>> Also, some managers would not consider anyone without similar
>> industry experience.  That is, an industrial plant would only
>> consider people with industrial experience; someone from say
>> an insurance company would not be considered (and vice versa.)
>> I could sort of understand this to some extent, as there are
>> certain industry-specific skills that developers should be
>> aware of.  But on the other hand, a software developer is not
>> gonna be out running the blast furnace or rolling mill
>
>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>
>
>
>/BAH

I overheard part of a conversation some years ago...

"Sir, I don't care when the due date is, the concrete has to set
first, then we can put up the walls and roof..."

Even I could tell, the concrete had just been poured.

On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.

     If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
experts, he is incompetent.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 08:44:07 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>
>     If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
>experts, he is incompetent.

If he doesn't know that he _needs_ to talk to subject matter experts
he is incompetent.  If he doesn't know enough to _understand_ them
then he is just inexperienced in the particular field.

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> writes:

> On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>
>      If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
> experts, he is incompetent.

Agree.

I worked in lots of industries.
Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
The skill is in prying the needed information out
of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.


-- 
Dan Espen

On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> writes:
>
>> On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>>> experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>>> world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>>> If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>>> of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>>
>>      If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
>> experts, he is incompetent.
>
> Agree.
>
> I worked in lots of industries.
> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
> The skill is in prying the needed information out
> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.

This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
political requirement that everything passes through an
intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
clear the air.  Unfortunately, I had already handed in my
notice, so there wasn't a lot I could do with the knowledge
I gained.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>
>      If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
> experts, he is incompetent.

Consider mixing cement.  Pounds, pints, and feet won't be used.  The
expert wouldn't think of mentioning this because it's a basic of
doing chemistry.  The programmer would have to know enough about the
business to use the correct conversion units.

/BAH

On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> I worked in lots of industries.
>> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
>> The skill is in prying the needed information out
>> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.
>
> This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
> political requirement that everything passes through an
> intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
> At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
> the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
> clear the air.

I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
through the red tape that way ...

... Although once you understand a user's real needs, you're still
paid to tick off the official requirements.

> Unfortunately, I had already handed in my notice, so there wasn't a
> lot I could do with the knowledge I gained.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 31 Dec 2017 15:48:32 GMT
Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> > This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
> > political requirement that everything passes through an
> > intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
> > At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
> > the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
> > clear the air.
> 
> I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
> through the red tape that way ...

	Several of mine :)

> ... Although once you understand a user's real needs, you're still
> paid to tick off the official requirements.

	On one project there was a documentation group assigned to us, we
had the brief to get the job done and make it work - they had the brief to
document it as though we had used SSADM to design the system which we point
blank refused to do.

	The documentation team found it difficult - there were parts of the
system that could not be described in the constrained terms required by
SSADM, apparently it had problems coping with opaque data flows - I think
they had to wind up claiming to document all the variations the data could
contain, in which case they lied.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 2017-12-31, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> I worked in lots of industries.
>>> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
>>> The skill is in prying the needed information out
>>> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.
>>
>> This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
>> political requirement that everything passes through an
>> intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
>> At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
>> the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
>> clear the air.
>
> I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
> through the red tape that way ...

One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
try to find how many people died of it. 

Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
many people died.

>
> ... Although once you understand a user's real needs, you're still
> paid to tick off the official requirements.
>
>> Unfortunately, I had already handed in my notice, so there wasn't a
>> lot I could do with the knowledge I gained.
>
> /Jorgen
>


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 31 Dec 2017 14:54:25 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>>>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>>>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>>>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>>>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>>
>>      If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
>> experts, he is incompetent.
>
>Consider mixing cement.  Pounds, pints, and feet won't be used.  The
>expert wouldn't think of mentioning this because it's a basic of
>doing chemistry.  The programmer would have to know enough about the
>business to use the correct conversion units.

     Or to ask.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 12:22:53 -0500
Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> writes:
> 
> > On 30 Dec 2017 14:40:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
> >>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
> >>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
> >>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
> >>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
> >
> >      If a programmer does not know enough to talk to subject matter
> > experts, he is incompetent.
> 
> Agree.

	Definitely.

> I worked in lots of industries.
> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.

	Not an issue, just something to be acquired quickly as part of
understanding the problem to be solved.

> The skill is in prying the needed information out
> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.

	Indeed - it is sometimes necessary to learn some background in
order to talk the user's language.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 2018-01-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-12-31, maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-31, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> I worked in lots of industries.
>>>>> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
>>>>> The skill is in prying the needed information out
>>>>> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
>>>> political requirement that everything passes through an
>>>> intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
>>>> At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
>>>> the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
>>>> clear the air.
>>>
>>> I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
>>> through the red tape that way ...
>>
>> One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
>> on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>> try to find how many people died of it. 
>>
>> Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
>> many people died.
>
> I'm surprised you didn't blame that on Thatcher, too.
>
>

The most surprising people are implicated in that, which the Tories have
'kicked to touch' ( A rugby term, if you don't know, in politics, means
'we have started an official inquiry, which will drag on very slowly')


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 31/12/2017 22:44, maus wrote:
> 
> One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
> on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
> try to find how many people died of it.

... and what is the difference between BSE and PMT?

Well, one is Mad Cow Disease, whereas the other is an agricultural problem.

On Sun, 2017-12-31, maus wrote:
> On 2017-12-31, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I worked in lots of industries.
>>>> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
>>>> The skill is in prying the needed information out
>>>> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.
>>>
>>> This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
>>> political requirement that everything passes through an
>>> intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
>>> At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
>>> the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
>>> clear the air.
>>
>> I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
>> through the red tape that way ...
>
> One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
> on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
> try to find how many people died of it. 
>
> Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
> many people died.

Yes. There is this tension between:

a) Letting people feel they are responsible for making things work
   out well.
b) Distrusting people and making up rules they have to follow, like
   machines.

(a) is vulnerable to incompetence, corruption and wishful thinking.
(b) ignores people's desire to do a good job and to use the best of
    themselves to help others.

I tend to think there's too much of (b) these days.  Not just in
software development; lots of workers seem to spend a lot of time
following rules and documenting what they are doing, as if they were
executing an algorithm.  I'd rather risk some corruption, since most
people seem to be eager to do useful work.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 1 Jan 2018 21:00:45 GMT
Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:

> Yes. There is this tension between:
> 
> a) Letting people feel they are responsible for making things work
>    out well.
> b) Distrusting people and making up rules they have to follow, like
>    machines.

	I never did understand what's wrong with 

c) Do (a) with cross checking because everyone screws up sometimes.

	Every time I've seen it done the results have been good, it goes
along with a culture of admitting your mistakes early and working to fix
them rather than hide them.

> I tend to think there's too much of (b) these days.  Not just in

	Yep - but then almost any amount of (b) is too much IMHO.

> software development; lots of workers seem to spend a lot of time
> following rules and documenting what they are doing, as if they were
> executing an algorithm.

	Creativity meet window.

> I'd rather risk some corruption, since most
> people seem to be eager to do useful work.

	Yep - and with a little careful watching it should be possible to
minimise the corruption.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 2018-01-01, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-12-31, maus wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-31, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> I worked in lots of industries.
>>>>> Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
>>>>> The skill is in prying the needed information out
>>>>> of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> This assumes you can even talk to the users.  If it is a
>>>> political requirement that everything passes through an
>>>> intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
>>>> At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
>>>> the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
>>>> clear the air.
>>>
>>> I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
>>> through the red tape that way ...
>>
>> One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
>> on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>> try to find how many people died of it. 
>>
>> Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
>> many people died.
>
> Yes. There is this tension between:
>
> a) Letting people feel they are responsible for making things work
>    out well.
> b) Distrusting people and making up rules they have to follow, like
>    machines.
>
> (a) is vulnerable to incompetence, corruption and wishful thinking.
> (b) ignores people's desire to do a good job and to use the best of
>     themselves to help others.
>
> I tend to think there's too much of (b) these days.  Not just in
> software development; lots of workers seem to spend a lot of time
> following rules and documenting what they are doing, as if they were
> executing an algorithm.  I'd rather risk some corruption, since most
> people seem to be eager to do useful work.

I hope you're right.  My wive and I are seeing a disconcerting number
of counterexamples, though.  Here's a light-hearted look at where it
might wind up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> I hope you're right.  My wive and I are seeing a disconcerting number
> of counterexamples, though.  Here's a light-hearted look at where it
> might wind up:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c

Umm, no.
Fake.
Fake and dumb.
No, fake, dumb, and stupid.

Things are bad enough without fabricating stuff that never happened,
and never will happen.

So, not light-hearted, I'm leaning toward evil and mean spirited.

-- 
Dan Espen

On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 9:41:06 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> > Also, some managers would not consider anyone without similar
> > industry experience.  That is, an industrial plant would only
> > consider people with industrial experience; someone from say
> > an insurance company would not be considered (and vice versa.)
> > I could sort of understand this to some extent, as there are
> > certain industry-specific skills that developers should be
> > aware of.  But on the other hand, a software developer is not
> > gonna be out running the blast furnace or rolling mill
> 
> Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
> experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
> world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
> If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
> of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.

A business applications programmer does not normally get into
hard physics or chemistry to get out the payroll, accounts
receivable, or inventory.

A process-control programmer obviously would.  But my
impression was that those people usually began their careers
as engineers or scientists, and then branched into programming.
Or, the vendor of the controller provided the software.

For instance
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/trw/rw-300/Texaco_Port_Arthur_Apr59.pdf

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> Consider mixing cement.  Pounds, pints, and feet won't be used.  The
> expert wouldn't think of mentioning this because it's a basic of
> doing chemistry.  The programmer would have to know enough about the
> business to use the correct conversion units.

The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.

He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
grade knows about units of measure.

On 1 Jan 2018, Huge wrote
(in article <fashej...@mid.individual.net>):

> On 2017-12-31, Jorgen Grahn<grahn...@snipabacken.se>  wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-12-31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > > On 2017-12-30, Dan Espen<dan1...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > ...
> > > > I worked in lots of industries.
> > > > Knowledge of the business was NEVER an issue.
> > > > The skill is in prying the needed information out
> > > > of the users, not in knowing what they need beforehand.
> > >
> > > This assumes you can even talk to the users. If it is a
> > > political requirement that everything passes through an
> > > intermediary, things are inevitably going to get garbled.
> > > At my first job I finally got a chance to talk directly to
> > > the customer, and it was amazing how much we were able to
> > > clear the air.
> >
> > I sometimes wonder how many projects are saved by people cutting
> > through the red tape that way ...
>
> All of them. :o)
>
> I've always suspected that one reason most outsourcing projects fail is
> because a lot (perhaps most) of the IT in any company is done "under
> the counter" by people cutting through the red tape, and is therefore
> unknown to those doing the outsourcing deal.

How else do you debug the specification?

-- 
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 
637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Consider mixing cement.  Pounds, pints, and feet won't be used.  The
>> expert wouldn't think of mentioning this because it's a basic of
>> doing chemistry.  The programmer would have to know enough about the
>> business to use the correct conversion units.
>
> The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
>
> He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
> company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
> the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
> or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
> grade knows about units of measure.
>
Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.

/BAH

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> > The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
> >
> > He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
> > company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
> > the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
> > or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
> > grade knows about units of measure.
> >
> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.

Any business of more than a few people has specialists--a business
type person to do the accounting, pay bills, get out the payroll,
etc.; and an science/engineering person to design and manufacture
the product.  Two different specialties.  

By the 1960s the data processing was also specialized into various
disciplines.  Some folks were into hardware development.  Others
were "systems programmers", working on compilers, operating systems,
and installing and maintaining them at customer locations.  Still
others were application developers, often specialized in eng/sci
or business, even with S/360.

Unless it was a small operation, the people who got out the payroll
didn't get involved with science or engineering problems--two
different disciplines and training required.


On a personal note, I had several jobs working for a hospital.  I
had no medical training.  The very little medicine I did need to
know was explained to me on the job (such as that a cc and ml were
the same thing.)  There were some other tidbits about working in
a hospital covered in a booklet that HR gave out.  Oh yes, all
hospital personnel get trained on how to use various fire 
extinguishers and know class A, B, and C fires and response.

On 2018-01-02, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> I hope you're right.  My wive and I are seeing a disconcerting number
>> of counterexamples, though.  Here's a light-hearted look at where it
>> might wind up:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c
>
> Umm, no.
> Fake.
> Fake and dumb.
> No, fake, dumb, and stupid.
>
> Things are bad enough without fabricating stuff that never happened,
> and never will happen.
>
> So, not light-hearted, I'm leaning toward evil and mean spirited.

I'd call it satire, myself.  So far.

My wife, who often ends up schlepping gear when twenty-something
cow orkers refuse to lift a finger to help, found it quite funny.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.

cement/concrete, large projects ... especially government ... have all
sort of quality control and audit trails ... including (computerized)
record retention. web search turns up references to large project
management. part of it may also depend on how far stretch term
"programming" ... spreadsheet programmers, DBMS management/admins, etc

almost all larger organizations (regardless of kind) have significant
computer/network support staff ... that require some level of
programming expertise.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On 2018-01-03, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Consider mixing cement.  Pounds, pints, and feet won't be used.  The
>>> expert wouldn't think of mentioning this because it's a basic of
>>> doing chemistry.  The programmer would have to know enough about the
>>> business to use the correct conversion units.
>>
>> The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
>>
>> He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
>> company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
>> the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
>> or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
>> grade knows about units of measure.
>>
> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.
>
> /BAH

Cement, in Yurop anyway, has various standards, for various purposes,
for instance laying a garage floor would not need as exact as spec,
as would mass concrete walls. Its been a while.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> > The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
>> >
>> > He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
>> > company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
>> > the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
>> > or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
>> > grade knows about units of measure.
>> >
>> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
>> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.
>
> Any business of more than a few people has specialists--a business
> type person to do the accounting, pay bills, get out the payroll,
> etc.; and an science/engineering person to design and manufacture
> the product.  Two different specialties.

If a business only has a few people, would payroll, etc. really
require a full-time person?
>
> By the 1960s the data processing was also specialized into various
> disciplines.  Some folks were into hardware development.  Others
> were "systems programmers", working on compilers, operating systems,
> and installing and maintaining them at customer locations.  Still
> others were application developers, often specialized in eng/sci
> or business, even with S/360.

You are talking about mid-cap or larger businesses which employ
hundreds or more.
>
> Unless it was a small operation, the people who got out the payroll
> didn't get involved with science or engineering problems--two
> different disciplines and training required.

I was talking about small businesses.
>
>
> On a personal note, I had several jobs working for a hospital.  I
> had no medical training.  The very little medicine I did need to
> know was explained to me on the job (such as that a cc and ml were
> the same thing.)  There were some other tidbits about working in
> a hospital covered in a booklet that HR gave out.  Oh yes, all
> hospital personnel get trained on how to use various fire
> extinguishers and know class A, B, and C fires and response.

HOw many people were employed at that place?  Have you ever worked
for a small business?

/BAH

ma...@mail.com wrote:
> On 2018-01-03, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Consider mixing cement.  Pounds, pints, and feet won't be used.  The
>>>> expert wouldn't think of mentioning this because it's a basic of
>>>> doing chemistry.  The programmer would have to know enough about the
>>>> business to use the correct conversion units.
>>>
>>> The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
>>>
>>> He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
>>> company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
>>> the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
>>> or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
>>> grade knows about units of measure.
>>>
>> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
>> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Cement, in Yurop anyway, has various standards, for various purposes,
> for instance laying a garage floor would not need as exact as spec,
> as would mass concrete walls. Its been a while.

There are a lot of recipes for cement.

/BAH

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:34:44 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
> >
> >> > The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
> >> >
> >> > He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
> >> > company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
> >> > the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
> >> > or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
> >> > grade knows about units of measure.
> >> >
> >> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
> >> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.
> >
> > Any business of more than a few people has specialists--a business
> > type person to do the accounting, pay bills, get out the payroll,
> > etc.; and an science/engineering person to design and manufacture
> > the product.  Two different specialties.
> 
> If a business only has a few people, would payroll, etc. really
> require a full-time person?

I don't think companies that manufactured cement only have a few
people working for them.

> > By the 1960s the data processing was also specialized into various
> > disciplines.  Some folks were into hardware development.  Others
> > were "systems programmers", working on compilers, operating systems,
> > and installing and maintaining them at customer locations.  Still
> > others were application developers, often specialized in eng/sci
> > or business, even with S/360.
> 
> You are talking about mid-cap or larger businesses which employ
> hundreds or more.

Yes, the kind of places that would manufacture cement.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:34:44 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The business programmer wouldn't be involved in mixing cement.
>> >> >
>> >> > He might be involved in billing the customer for the cement the
>> >> > company made.  In about 30 seconds the company could tell him
>> >> > the units they use for selling their product, be they by volume
>> >> > or weight, metric or English.  Anyone who has finished eighth
>> >> > grade knows about units of measure.
>> >> >
>> >> Why would the cement manufacturer have two programmers?  Part of
>> >> the business end of selling cement is the quality of the cement.
>> >
>> > Any business of more than a few people has specialists--a business
>> > type person to do the accounting, pay bills, get out the payroll,
>> > etc.; and an science/engineering person to design and manufacture
>> > the product.  Two different specialties.
>>
>> If a business only has a few people, would payroll, etc. really
>> require a full-time person?
>
> I don't think companies that manufactured cement only have a few
> people working for them.

I visited one.  The company made the cement according to the spec
and poured into another company's trucks for transport.  Cement
manufacturers don't have to be the ones who use the cement.

>
>> > By the 1960s the data processing was also specialized into various
>> > disciplines.  Some folks were into hardware development.  Others
>> > were "systems programmers", working on compilers, operating systems,
>> > and installing and maintaining them at customer locations.  Still
>> > others were application developers, often specialized in eng/sci
>> > or business, even with S/360.
>>
>> You are talking about mid-cap or larger businesses which employ
>> hundreds or more.
>
> Yes, the kind of places that would manufacture cement.

It depends on the project.  The first thing built when the Hoover
Dam specs were approved was a cement plant and was run by the same
people who built the dam.  For smaller projects, a cement business
would be geographically central to small projects.  The contractors
who needed cement for these projects would buy it from the local
manufacturer.

/BAH

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

>Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the chemistry
>of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.



>/BAH

Best case. Wourst case, the plant explodes, making sausage of
the employees and opening up the company to lawsuits.
-- 
  O wad some Power the giftie gie us
  To see oursels as ithers see us!
  It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
  An' foolish notion:

maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:

>One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
>on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>try to find how many people died of it. 

And people who lived in Britan still are unable to give blood in the
US IIUC.

I think we haven't seen the end of the death toll  or rather diminished 
lifespan, whoopie we're all gonna die.

>Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
>many people died.


-- 
  O wad some Power the giftie gie us
  To see oursels as ithers see us!
  It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
  An' foolish notion:

On Mon, 2018-02-12, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
...
>>>Government reducing the regulations
>>>on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>>>try to find how many people died of it. 
>>
>> And people who lived in Britan still are unable to give blood in the
>> US IIUC.
>
> Wrong. It isn't everyone - anyone who spent more than three months in the
> UK between 1980 and 1996 is still prohibited from donating. 

Sounds like pretty much every elegible donor, except the oldest and
the very young.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>One great example was the Thatcher Government reducing the regulations
>>on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>>try to find how many people died of it. 
>
> And people who lived in Britan still are unable to give blood in the
> US IIUC.
>
> I think we haven't seen the end of the death toll  or rather diminished 
> lifespan, whoopie we're all gonna die.
>
>>Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
>>many people died.
>
>
Do try to keep up, Mr. Bond!
(check the dates)


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 2018-02-12, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One great example was the Thatcher
>
> Like it had anything to do with her.
>
>>>Government reducing the regulations
>>>on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>>>try to find how many people died of it. 
>>
>> And people who lived in Britan still are unable to give blood in the
>> US IIUC.
>
> Wrong. It isn't everyone - anyone who spent more than three months in the
> UK between 1980 and 1996 is still prohibited from donating. 
>
>> I think we haven't seen the end of the death toll  or rather diminished 
>> lifespan, whoopie we're all gonna die.
>>
>>>Then we have the recent example of the tower block in london, in which 
>>>many people died.
>
> Example of what, exactly?
>
>

Cutting red tape. The fault in the cladding had originally been
prohibited after the great fire of London (166?)(flammible outside
walls)


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 2/12/2018 2:11 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12, Huge wrote:
>> On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>>> Government reducing the regulations
>>>> on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>>>> try to find how many people died of it.
>>>
>>> And people who lived in Britan still are unable to give blood in the
>>> US IIUC.
>>
>> Wrong. It isn't everyone - anyone who spent more than three months in the
>> UK between 1980 and 1996 is still prohibited from donating.
> 
> Sounds like pretty much every elegible donor, except the oldest and
> the very young.

That's in the US. Relatively few of us have ever spent 3 months in the 
UK (or, indeed, outside our own borders). And 2018-1996=20, so that's 
only "very young" to us old farts. Also prohibited are those who:
-Spent 6 months or more associated with a military base in Belgium, 
the Netherlands, or Germany from 1980-1990
-Spent 6 months or more associated with a military base in Spain, 
Portugal, Turkey, Italy, or Greece from 1980-1996
-Spent five years or more in Europe from 1980 to the present
I dunno why military bases are so prominent, maybe the US military got 
the best buys on beef from UK farmers who had a sudden desire to 
slaughter their herds? Or, for that matter, what we've got against 
present-day Europe.

On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>> experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>> world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>> If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the
>> chemistry of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.

Sort of like Windows: re-boot, re-format, re-install.
And people accept it.

> Best case. Wourst case, the plant explodes, making sausage of
> the employees and opening up the company to lawsuits.

    Oh, Mister, Mister Johnny Verbeck, how could you be so mean?
    I told you you'd be sorry for inventing that machine.
    Now all the neighbours' cats and dogs will never more be seen:
    They've all been ground into sausage meat in Johnny Verbeck's machine.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 13 Feb 2018 05:25:14 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you kidding?  They would have to know enough to talk to the
>>> experts who do the work.  Chemistry and physics in the real
>>> world have rules, no matter how the software is written.
>>> If the software messes up just a little bit w.r.t. the
>>> chemistry of cement, the entire batch has to be dumped.
>
>Sort of like Windows: re-boot, re-format, re-install.
>And people accept it.

And we have another one who hasn't used Windows in 20 years.

On Mon, 2018-02-12, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 2/12/2018 2:11 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-02-12, Huge wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> Government reducing the regulations
>>>>> on treating scrap meat before it was fed to animals. BSE, anyone, and
>>>>> try to find how many people died of it.
>>>>
>>>> And people who lived in Britan still are unable to give blood in the
>>>> US IIUC.
>>>
>>> Wrong. It isn't everyone - anyone who spent more than three months in the
>>> UK between 1980 and 1996 is still prohibited from donating.
>> 
>> Sounds like pretty much every elegible donor, except the oldest and
>> the very young.
>
> That's in the US. Relatively few of us have ever spent 3 months in the 
> UK (or, indeed, outside our own borders).

Sorry; I meant "... of the people who lived in Britain".

> And 2018-1996=20, so that's only "very young" to us old farts.

Still, based on what I see in Sweden, you tend to start giving blood
when you've settled down a bit. (And the kids seem to be getting new
tattoos all the time; you can't donate for 6 months or something after
that.)

YMMV, of course.

> Also prohibited are those who:
> -Spent 6 months or more associated with a military base in Belgium, 
> the Netherlands, or Germany from 1980-1990
> -Spent 6 months or more associated with a military base in Spain, 
> Portugal, Turkey, Italy, or Greece from 1980-1996
> -Spent five years or more in Europe from 1980 to the present
> I dunno why military bases are so prominent, maybe the US military got 
> the best buys on beef from UK farmers who had a sudden desire to 
> slaughter their herds? Or, for that matter, what we've got against 
> present-day Europe.

The only rule in Sweden related to this is, you have to answer the
question if you /or/ someone in your family has had Creutzfeldt-
Jacob's (sp?) which is more or less BSE.  Don't know what happens if
you answer "yes"; probably you're sent home.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 2/13/2018 8:58 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12, Dave Garland wrote:

>> Also prohibited are those who:
>> -Spent 6 months or more associated with a military base in Belgium,
>> the Netherlands, or Germany from 1980-1990
>> -Spent 6 months or more associated with a military base in Spain,
>> Portugal, Turkey, Italy, or Greece from 1980-1996
>> -Spent five years or more in Europe from 1980 to the present
>> I dunno why military bases are so prominent, maybe the US military got
>> the best buys on beef from UK farmers who had a sudden desire to
>> slaughter their herds? Or, for that matter, what we've got against
>> present-day Europe.
> 
> The only rule in Sweden related to this is, you have to answer the
> question if you /or/ someone in your family has had Creutzfeldt-
> Jacob's (sp?) which is more or less BSE.  Don't know what happens if
> you answer "yes"; probably you're sent home.

Yeah, we (in the US) have a bunch of rules like that (including that 
one). Chagas, hepatitis, HIV, malaria, etc. The rationale is obvious, 
you don't want blood from anybody who's got a disease that can be 
communicated via blood. But I don't think that being exposed to Europe 
will make me sick.