rant: Sears Sucks

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

All I can say about government is that with a few notable exceptions,
all contact with officialdom has been detrimental. Size seems to be
the problem, as once an organization grows to be responsible to its
stockholders or constituents approaches zero. There are none bigger
than government and it shows. Much of my business plan revolves
around government avoidance.

I've discussed ethics with both government officials and businessmen.
The common thread is that individually, they all want to be helpful,
useful, kind, generous, and honest. However, pressure from both above
and below can change that overnight. When advancement means that it
has to be done over someone else's mortal remains, then ethics is the
first to be ignored. Then the stockholders demand profit not matter
who gets screwed in the process, again ethics is sidelined in the name
of profits. When asked to do something unethical or illegal, there is
always the implied threat that if one doesn't do it, they'll hire
someone else that will. When the benefit to cost ratio of expediency
is high enough to believe that one can get away with something,
temptation often trumps ethics.

In the beginning, you have many possible options and moves available.
It pays to be honest and ethical because the big reward is so far off
in the future that risking the future is just not worthwhile. However,
as the game reaches the end, the stakes are much higher, and the
options are available moves are far fewer, it is possible to simply
run out of legal and ethical options. For those that want to stay in
the game, the only choice is to break the rules or laws.

I often look with envy at my college friends who chose government
service over private employment. Most are retired by now and doing
well enough on a government pension. There was no risk involve and it
was only necessary to tolerate the ultimate bureaucracy for about 40
years. Cheat, lie, or steal didn't matter, as long as one didn't do
anything unethical or immoral. The end reward is a comfortable
pension and retirement. I'm rather jealous and rather wish I had gone
into government service (even though I probably would not have
tolerated it).

So, do I sleep nights and maintain a functional conscience? Yes, I
think so, mostly, maybe. Sleep is questionable thanks to bladder
problems, but as long as the local critters are quiet, I sleep like
the proverbial rock[1]. Conscience is a bit different. I worry about
my screwups, but as long as I try to fix or avoid further screwups, I
don't loose too much sleep over them. It's not a great
rationalization, but maintaining good intentions is the best I can do.


[1] Then, there's "sleep talking". I've had extended convesations on
the phone while asleep. In the morning, I can't remember anything
that I said or promised. Friends and customers say I sounded a bit
"detached" but otherwise normal. I also have some recordings. I
guess this would also qualify as not worrying in my sleep.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[krw]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:33:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:01:35 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:45:31 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:23:12 -0700, artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com
wrote:

In article <2dkkra1nend7b7ma3peltsknr2m77mhnpp@4ax.com>, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

all too common rant snipped

But it was a pretty good common rant, maybe B- sort of work?


Thinking back a few decades when our family was living in a small town,
remembering walking down Main street in late summer - early fall as
school was starting, and a guy calling out "Get your Christmas Shopping
Done Early!" handing out Sears catalogs...

I posit that Sears was the Amazon of its time, and that time spanned
many years, decades even.

Big appliances aren't the kinds of things you buy on Amazon, so there
is still a place for local dealers. Deliver, install, haul away the
old stuff.


So WTF happened? Other than the Internet (and Amazon) ate their lunch
(and their breakfast and dinner too, as well as Monkey Ward's, JCP, and
so many others).

Guess it's that adapt-or-die thing, and with the Internet, it's
adapt-or-die at Internet speeds.


McDonalds seems to be in the same death spiral. Pretty bad, boring
food, bad service, bean counters in charge.

Compare Microsoft to Apple. Apple stores are clean and bright, the
sales people know what they are doing, they really help. So Apple
grows and charges big bucks for their stuff; Windows 10 will be free,
and worth it.

Microsoft stores are clean and bright. I haven't noticed that their
sales people are any worse. My DIL thinks Windows 10 is really good.
Win-8 isn't so bad as long as you stay away from the tiled view
(whatever it's called).

Linear Tech charges big bucks for parts, because they do most
everything right, and give away LT Spice. I wish the FPGA people were
that good, but they are right up there with Sears on customer service.

FPGA folks give away their software too.

In a limited way. Multicore compile capability costs more. The free
software won't do the larger chips. Lots of features cost big bucks.

Big FPGAs cost big bucks.

The software, especially Xilinx, is horrible and there is no support.
I guess if you're making TVs or something and plan to buy a million
chips a week, you get support.

I haven't used Xilinx software in eight years. It was OK then but you
aren't the only one who's bitched about it since.
We didn't use a million chips a week, probably more like a few dozen
(at $3800 each) for the life of the program but we got support, after
a fashion. We didn't require much, though.

OTOH, I had much better response from Altera, even though we only used
a thousand, or so, CPLDs. Lattice has been super, though they are
looking to sell millions. ;-)

 

[krw]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:10:16 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:01:35 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:45:31 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Linear Tech charges big bucks for parts, because they do most
everything right, and give away LT Spice. I wish the FPGA people were
that good, but they are right up there with Sears on customer service.

FPGA folks give away their software too.

---
Is there software given away by the FPGA folks which is non-committal?

It only works with their hardware, if that's what you mean. So what?
The source is easily transportable (if you don't use vendor specific
hardware features). Test benches are transportable, too and often
they use ModelSim, anyway.

 

[rickman]

TLDR Don't know what the short version might be.

On 8/1/2015 7:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

All I can say about government is that with a few notable exceptions,
all contact with officialdom has been detrimental. Size seems to be
the problem, as once an organization grows to be responsible to its
stockholders or constituents approaches zero. There are none bigger
than government and it shows. Much of my business plan revolves
around government avoidance.

I've discussed ethics with both government officials and businessmen.
The common thread is that individually, they all want to be helpful,
useful, kind, generous, and honest. However, pressure from both above
and below can change that overnight. When advancement means that it
has to be done over someone else's mortal remains, then ethics is the
first to be ignored. Then the stockholders demand profit not matter
who gets screwed in the process, again ethics is sidelined in the name
of profits. When asked to do something unethical or illegal, there is
always the implied threat that if one doesn't do it, they'll hire
someone else that will. When the benefit to cost ratio of expediency
is high enough to believe that one can get away with something,
temptation often trumps ethics.

In the beginning, you have many possible options and moves available.
It pays to be honest and ethical because the big reward is so far off
in the future that risking the future is just not worthwhile. However,
as the game reaches the end, the stakes are much higher, and the
options are available moves are far fewer, it is possible to simply
run out of legal and ethical options. For those that want to stay in
the game, the only choice is to break the rules or laws.

I often look with envy at my college friends who chose government
service over private employment. Most are retired by now and doing
well enough on a government pension. There was no risk involve and it
was only necessary to tolerate the ultimate bureaucracy for about 40
years. Cheat, lie, or steal didn't matter, as long as one didn't do
anything unethical or immoral. The end reward is a comfortable
pension and retirement. I'm rather jealous and rather wish I had gone
into government service (even though I probably would not have
tolerated it).

So, do I sleep nights and maintain a functional conscience? Yes, I
think so, mostly, maybe. Sleep is questionable thanks to bladder
problems, but as long as the local critters are quiet, I sleep like
the proverbial rock[1]. Conscience is a bit different. I worry about
my screwups, but as long as I try to fix or avoid further screwups, I
don't loose too much sleep over them. It's not a great
rationalization, but maintaining good intentions is the best I can do.


[1] Then, there's "sleep talking". I've had extended convesations on
the phone while asleep. In the morning, I can't remember anything
that I said or promised. Friends and customers say I sounded a bit
"detached" but otherwise normal. I also have some recordings. I
guess this would also qualify as not worrying in my sleep.

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 8/1/2015 7:10 PM, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:01:35 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:45:31 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Linear Tech charges big bucks for parts, because they do most
everything right, and give away LT Spice. I wish the FPGA people were
that good, but they are right up there with Sears on customer service.

FPGA folks give away their software too.

---
Is there software given away by the FPGA folks which is non-committal?

No, they will have you committed no matter what.

Not sure what you intend by that term. If you mean can you use your
design on other vendor's chips, then yes, they can't restrict your
design. They can restrict the use of the bitstream their tools produce
however. I know Altera won't let you use the bitstream to directly
produce an ASIC. You have to use *your* sources.

--

Rick

 

[Kevin McMurtrie]

The job of Sears is to rebrand other products and throw a scam on top.
They get sued so much that I don't see how they're still allowed to
operate.

- The Sears Card exists only to generate revenue from broad spectrum of
late fee fraud.

- They violate all major credit card terms by billing for products
before they are available to ship. (A policy that helps with the Sears
Card fraud.)

- They've been caught selling foreign tool replicas as "Made in USA."

- They send fake technicians to your home to declare that your appliance
warranty has been voided.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:20:23 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
<mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

The job of Sears is to rebrand other products and throw a scam on top.
They get sued so much that I don't see how they're still allowed to
operate.

- The Sears Card exists only to generate revenue from broad spectrum of
late fee fraud.

While Sears has, at least at one time, made more money from its
financial business than it has from retail, "late fee fraud" is
certainly not their reason for existence. That's just absurd.

- They violate all major credit card terms by billing for products
before they are available to ship. (A policy that helps with the Sears
Card fraud.)

Citation needed.

- They've been caught selling foreign tool replicas as "Made in USA."

- They send fake technicians to your home to declare that your appliance
warranty has been voided.

Citation needed.

I have no love for Sears anymore and rarely walk in their stores but
the above is libelous drivel.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:02:54 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 14:30:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

But do they have fun?

Time for one last rant before EoV (end of vacation)...

I don't know. I've never had a public sector job and have no idea
what it might be like. That won't stop me from speculating.

One problem is that different people have different ideas of what
constitutes on the job fun. In my case, fun is simply the lack of
boredom. I tend to get bored very easily. My solution is to have a
large number of projects going simultaneously. Starting projects is
infinitely more fun than finishing them. That is not normally
considered a good idea for meeting deadlines, so I usually negotiate a
compromise. Working for myself, there's nobody to negotiate with, so
the cancerous growth of unfinished projects continues. However, I am
having fun.

For government servants, I would guess(tm) that the job would be
rather monotonous and boring. While I can't work in that manner,
there are those that can. While I look for new and unknown areas to
explore, there are those that function best in the safety of the well
practiced and well known, which implies endless repetition.

According to Outliers:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)>
it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. At 8
hrs/day and 200 working days per year, that's about 6 years which is
somewhat more than the 4.4 year average job tenure.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2012/08/14/job-hopping-is-the-new-normal-for-millennials-three-ways-to-prevent-a-human-resource-nightmare/>
That might also explain why nobody seems to know what they're doing.
They haven't put in the 10,000 hrs needed to become proficient. I
suspect that public sector jobs last somewhat longer than 6 years,
which suggests that once they become proficient, boredom sets in. So,
they change jobs, starting the learning curve over from scratch.
However, if they're stuck in their present position, the boredom can
become endemic, which means they're permanently not having any fun.

The obvious solution to the public sector boredom problem doesn't
work. You can't force an automatic job rotation every 6 years because
everyone would then be constantly climbing the learning curve. At
least with bored greater than 10,000 hrs public sector employees, they
know how to do their job. The only challenge is getting them
sufficiently inspired to actually do their job (without falling
asleep).

The problem is a little different in different size companies and
organizations. With a small company, everyone knows what everyone
else is doing. People tend to have multiple positions and functions,
which is great for providing the entertainment value needed to prevent
boredom. Things are not the same at larger companies, where an
employee is often compartmentalized into a single job function.
Without the ability to easily get involved in diversionary projects,
the large company employee reaches the point of boredom much sooner
than the small company employee. That's because the small company
diversions detract from the 10,000 hrs needed before the onset of
proficiency and boredom. Much of the fun that you're currently
enjoying in a small company might not be possible in a large company.

Let's see if the numbers are close. If someone works for about 45
years, and it takes 6 years to become bored, then the average tenure
per job should be about:
45 / 6 = 7.5 years/job
Well, it's a bit higher than the alleged 4.4 year average, but it's in
the ball park. Assuming the average is correct, the average worker is
bored:
7.5 - 4.4 = 3.1 years
of their life. Sounds about right.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Don Y]

On 8/2/2015 11:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One problem is that different people have different ideas of what
constitutes on the job fun.

A more fundamental issue is the expectations you have *from* your
"job". Many people will gladly trade "fun/enjoyment/challenge/etc."
for *security* -- they want to know they have $X coming in the door
every week. They'll put up with a fair amount of cruft in order to
get -- and maintain -- that "security".

Other people want to avoid "responsibility". Happy to fill a role
that someone *else* has deemed necessary -- without concern for
the truth of that ("if Bob thinks we need someone -- me -- to
fold napkins all day long, who am *I* to say otherwise?!")

Still others want to "have fun" -- which can be defined in many different
ways. E.g., test driving vehicles could be considered "fun" by some.
Even if the results of their acts are imprecisely defined ("This car
was a 3 out of 10" -- what the hell does that mean?)

Some might consider it "fun" to be a tour guide -- getting enjoyment
out of sharing their knowledge of a subject/site with others; watching
them develop an appreciation for something *you* value.

> In my case, fun is simply the lack of boredom.

I'm not sure I'd fall into the same camp. To me, "fun" is learning
something new -- a *fresh* challenge. Ideally, one that builds on
past learning in an evolutionary way.

E.g., refurbishing computers quickly reaches a plateau in terms of
"learning" -- after about the 4th or 5th unit! :> OTOH, coming
up with ways to more efficiently get the job done can be very
challenging -- esp when you are forced to adopt constraints over
which you have no control (e.g., can't BUY spare parts).

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

I tend to get bored very easily. My solution is to have a
large number of projects going simultaneously. Starting projects is
infinitely more fun than finishing them. That is not normally
considered a good idea for meeting deadlines, so I usually negotiate a
compromise. Working for myself, there's nobody to negotiate with, so
the cancerous growth of unfinished projects continues. However, I am
having fun.

For government servants, I would guess(tm) that the job would be
rather monotonous and boring.

It is *security*! Just don't get caught screwing a goat, etc.
I think the same is true of military careers -- if you can put up
with someone telling you what to do (even if they are "wrong"),
then you're guaranteed an income/position!

While I can't work in that manner,
there are those that can. While I look for new and unknown areas to
explore, there are those that function best in the safety of the well
practiced and well known, which implies endless repetition.

The problem is a little different in different size companies and
organizations. With a small company, everyone knows what everyone
else is doing. People tend to have multiple positions and functions,
which is great for providing the entertainment value needed to prevent
boredom.

At smaller companies (IME) there is also more innovation and willingness
to try new/different approaches to problems. Things that large companies
(and their inherent politics) tend to effectively discourage (stockholders,
little empires/fiefdoms, etc.)

Things are not the same at larger companies, where an
employee is often compartmentalized into a single job function.
Without the ability to easily get involved in diversionary projects,
the large company employee reaches the point of boredom much sooner
than the small company employee. That's because the small company
diversions detract from the 10,000 hrs needed before the onset of
proficiency and boredom. Much of the fun that you're currently
enjoying in a small company might not be possible in a large company.

I've often seen a sort of "hunger" in "old-timers" who opted for
"security" in their job positions when they see others engaged in
"interesting", new products; products in which they no longer have
the appropriate skillsets to participate.

<shrug> You make a tradeoff at one point in your career -- and then
tend to get stuck with it throughout (how many folks take a deliberate
pause and reassess where they are headed?)

 

[krw]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/2/2015 11:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One problem is that different people have different ideas of what
constitutes on the job fun.

A more fundamental issue is the expectations you have *from* your
"job". Many people will gladly trade "fun/enjoyment/challenge/etc."
for *security* -- they want to know they have $X coming in the door
every week. They'll put up with a fair amount of cruft in order to
get -- and maintain -- that "security".

Other people want to avoid "responsibility". Happy to fill a role
that someone *else* has deemed necessary -- without concern for
the truth of that ("if Bob thinks we need someone -- me -- to
fold napkins all day long, who am *I* to say otherwise?!")

Of course there is a continuum in the above. We all lie (and want to)
somewhere on these axis.

Still others want to "have fun" -- which can be defined in many different
ways. E.g., test driving vehicles could be considered "fun" by some.
Even if the results of their acts are imprecisely defined ("This car
was a 3 out of 10" -- what the hell does that mean?)

Sure. "Fun", like "happiness" is largely what you make it, though.
You are really in charge of that for yourself.

Some might consider it "fun" to be a tour guide -- getting enjoyment
out of sharing their knowledge of a subject/site with others; watching
them develop an appreciation for something *you* value.

In my case, fun is simply the lack of boredom.

I'm not sure I'd fall into the same camp. To me, "fun" is learning
something new -- a *fresh* challenge. Ideally, one that builds on
past learning in an evolutionary way.

E.g., refurbishing computers quickly reaches a plateau in terms of
"learning" -- after about the 4th or 5th unit! :> OTOH, coming
up with ways to more efficiently get the job done can be very
challenging -- esp when you are forced to adopt constraints over
which you have no control (e.g., can't BUY spare parts).

Ditto.

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

I tend to get bored very easily. My solution is to have a
large number of projects going simultaneously. Starting projects is
infinitely more fun than finishing them. That is not normally
considered a good idea for meeting deadlines, so I usually negotiate a
compromise. Working for myself, there's nobody to negotiate with, so
the cancerous growth of unfinished projects continues. However, I am
having fun.

For government servants, I would guess(tm) that the job would be
rather monotonous and boring.

It is *security*! Just don't get caught screwing a goat, etc.
I think the same is true of military careers -- if you can put up
with someone telling you what to do (even if they are "wrong"),
then you're guaranteed an income/position!

Goat screwers are now a protected class. It's not a firable offense,
rather a requirement for promotion.

While I can't work in that manner,
there are those that can. While I look for new and unknown areas to
explore, there are those that function best in the safety of the well
practiced and well known, which implies endless repetition.

The problem is a little different in different size companies and
organizations. With a small company, everyone knows what everyone
else is doing. People tend to have multiple positions and functions,
which is great for providing the entertainment value needed to prevent
boredom.

At smaller companies (IME) there is also more innovation and willingness
to try new/different approaches to problems. Things that large companies
(and their inherent politics) tend to effectively discourage (stockholders,
little empires/fiefdoms, etc.)

I haven't found that at all. I've only worked for one small company
(and three large ones) but, other than the government contract (could
only stand it for a year), I found that the large employers have far
more money to spend trying new ideas and weren't too worried about
failure. The small company was almost too scared to move.

Things are not the same at larger companies, where an
employee is often compartmentalized into a single job function.
Without the ability to easily get involved in diversionary projects,
the large company employee reaches the point of boredom much sooner
than the small company employee. That's because the small company
diversions detract from the 10,000 hrs needed before the onset of
proficiency and boredom. Much of the fun that you're currently
enjoying in a small company might not be possible in a large company.

I've often seen a sort of "hunger" in "old-timers" who opted for
"security" in their job positions when they see others engaged in
"interesting", new products; products in which they no longer have
the appropriate skillsets to participate.

I haven't seen that at all. Rather the opposite. The older folks
have the experience to know how to do new things. Perhaps those that
don't, fell out (into management? ;-) along the way.

shrug> You make a tradeoff at one point in your career -- and then
tend to get stuck with it throughout (how many folks take a deliberate
pause and reassess where they are headed?)

Many, once their children are on their own and they're more or less
financially set, take up second careers or start a business.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/2/2015 11:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One problem is that different people have different ideas of what
constitutes on the job fun.

A more fundamental issue is the expectations you have *from* your
"job". Many people will gladly trade "fun/enjoyment/challenge/etc."
for *security* -- they want to know they have $X coming in the door
every week. They'll put up with a fair amount of cruft in order to
get -- and maintain -- that "security".

Other people want to avoid "responsibility". Happy to fill a role
that someone *else* has deemed necessary -- without concern for
the truth of that ("if Bob thinks we need someone -- me -- to
fold napkins all day long, who am *I* to say otherwise?!")

Still others want to "have fun" -- which can be defined in many different
ways. E.g., test driving vehicles could be considered "fun" by some.
Even if the results of their acts are imprecisely defined ("This car
was a 3 out of 10" -- what the hell does that mean?)

Some might consider it "fun" to be a tour guide -- getting enjoyment
out of sharing their knowledge of a subject/site with others; watching
them develop an appreciation for something *you* value.

In my case, fun is simply the lack of boredom.

I'm not sure I'd fall into the same camp. To me, "fun" is learning
something new -- a *fresh* challenge. Ideally, one that builds on
past learning in an evolutionary way.

E.g., refurbishing computers quickly reaches a plateau in terms of
"learning" -- after about the 4th or 5th unit! :> OTOH, coming
up with ways to more efficiently get the job done can be very
challenging -- esp when you are forced to adopt constraints over
which you have no control (e.g., can't BUY spare parts).

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

But if you're reasonably good at it, electronics design is fun and
pays fairly well to very well.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[rickman]

On 8/2/2015 6:20 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/2/2015 11:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One problem is that different people have different ideas of what
constitutes on the job fun.

A more fundamental issue is the expectations you have *from* your
"job". Many people will gladly trade "fun/enjoyment/challenge/etc."
for *security* -- they want to know they have $X coming in the door
every week. They'll put up with a fair amount of cruft in order to
get -- and maintain -- that "security".

Other people want to avoid "responsibility". Happy to fill a role
that someone *else* has deemed necessary -- without concern for
the truth of that ("if Bob thinks we need someone -- me -- to
fold napkins all day long, who am *I* to say otherwise?!")

Still others want to "have fun" -- which can be defined in many different
ways. E.g., test driving vehicles could be considered "fun" by some.
Even if the results of their acts are imprecisely defined ("This car
was a 3 out of 10" -- what the hell does that mean?)

Some might consider it "fun" to be a tour guide -- getting enjoyment
out of sharing their knowledge of a subject/site with others; watching
them develop an appreciation for something *you* value.

In my case, fun is simply the lack of boredom.

I'm not sure I'd fall into the same camp. To me, "fun" is learning
something new -- a *fresh* challenge. Ideally, one that builds on
past learning in an evolutionary way.

E.g., refurbishing computers quickly reaches a plateau in terms of
"learning" -- after about the 4th or 5th unit! :> OTOH, coming
up with ways to more efficiently get the job done can be very
challenging -- esp when you are forced to adopt constraints over
which you have no control (e.g., can't BUY spare parts).

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

But if you're reasonably good at it, electronics design is fun and
pays fairly well to very well.

The fun part depends on a great many factors.

--

Rick

 

[Don Y]

On 8/2/2015 3:20 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

But if you're reasonably good at it, electronics design is fun and
pays fairly well to very well.

It depends on how varied the opportunities that are presented to you
and of which you avail yourself -- as well as the framework you
have to work within. E.g., how often can you explore a solution
AT YOUR LEISURE? Look at perhaps five or six (largely) *completed*
implementations before deciding which to actually pursue?

Employers, clients, customers tend to put financial and time pressures
on most development efforts that stiffle just how flexible you can be.
It's no fun trying to rush to meet a deadline -- wondering what
corners you've cut and haven't yet realized, etc.

[No, I *don't* want to have to come back and FIX something!]

I know folks who have done (essentially) the same thing for their
entire career (often very $ucce$$fully!). Few of them would
characterize their jobs as "fun"; many would say "nonchallenging",
trivial, disappointing, PROFITABLE, etc. -- looking for satisfaction
in *other* endeavors ("hobbies").

E.g., I know a guy that JUST designs power supplies. He's very
good at it and can squeeze whichever end of the balloon you tell him
needs to be optimized. But, it's just "work" to him; nothing
particularly challenging (even if you constrain cost, volume,
reliability, etc. -- "Ho, hum... <yawn>")

Another guy JUST designs data acquisition systems. How fast, how
precise, etc. Just different parameters on (essentially) the
same problem that he's been solving over and over again. A new
set of components/technologies available, this year... but, they'll
just be applied in more or less the same way as last year's!

Lots of software folks quickly fall into pigeon holes -- writing
code for the same sorts of applications (or devices) over and
over again. Usually not given much freedom to experiment with
different user interface styles, coding practices, implementation
frameworks, etc. ("This worked for the last project; why do anything
differently?")

[Writing software for the gummit is probably the worst of ALL worlds!]

I can knock out a new/novel hardware design in a few months -- and
spend a few *years* writing code for it. Very little challenge in
that (challenge == fun in my lexicon).

Rather, I get much more enjoyment and satisfaction in exploring other
application domains. Different *types* of problems to which my past
experiences can, perhaps, be directly applied -- or, can inspire
novel/untried approaches that, at the very least, shed new insights
on the application and/or the technology that I've tried to apply:
"Hmmm.... having tried *that*, I now know where my assumptions were
inappropriate -- and how I can better achieve the results I
originally sought! But, on a *different* project!"

The *last* thing I want to get stuck doing is repeating a past project
("We don't have time to do it right -- but, we'll have time to do it OVER!")
I find that the equivalent of "digging ditches" for a living (mindless).

"OK, guys, we're ready to start developing Product2016, now..."

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:14:27 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/2/2015 3:20 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

But if you're reasonably good at it, electronics design is fun and
pays fairly well to very well.

It depends on how varied the opportunities that are presented to you
and of which you avail yourself -- as well as the framework you
have to work within. E.g., how often can you explore a solution
AT YOUR LEISURE? Look at perhaps five or six (largely) *completed*
implementations before deciding which to actually pursue?

Employers, clients, customers tend to put financial and time pressures
on most development efforts that stiffle just how flexible you can be.
It's no fun trying to rush to meet a deadline -- wondering what
corners you've cut and haven't yet realized, etc.

[No, I *don't* want to have to come back and FIX something!]

I know folks who have done (essentially) the same thing for their
entire career (often very $ucce$$fully!). Few of them would
characterize their jobs as "fun"; many would say "nonchallenging",
trivial, disappointing, PROFITABLE, etc. -- looking for satisfaction
in *other* endeavors ("hobbies").

E.g., I know a guy that JUST designs power supplies. He's very
good at it and can squeeze whichever end of the balloon you tell him
needs to be optimized. But, it's just "work" to him; nothing
particularly challenging (even if you constrain cost, volume,
reliability, etc. -- "Ho, hum... <yawn>")

Another guy JUST designs data acquisition systems. How fast, how
precise, etc. Just different parameters on (essentially) the
same problem that he's been solving over and over again. A new
set of components/technologies available, this year... but, they'll
just be applied in more or less the same way as last year's!

Lots of software folks quickly fall into pigeon holes -- writing
code for the same sorts of applications (or devices) over and
over again. Usually not given much freedom to experiment with
different user interface styles, coding practices, implementation
frameworks, etc. ("This worked for the last project; why do anything
differently?")

[Writing software for the gummit is probably the worst of ALL worlds!]

I can knock out a new/novel hardware design in a few months -- and
spend a few *years* writing code for it. Very little challenge in
that (challenge == fun in my lexicon).

Rather, I get much more enjoyment and satisfaction in exploring other
application domains. Different *types* of problems to which my past
experiences can, perhaps, be directly applied -- or, can inspire
novel/untried approaches that, at the very least, shed new insights
on the application and/or the technology that I've tried to apply:
"Hmmm.... having tried *that*, I now know where my assumptions were
inappropriate -- and how I can better achieve the results I
originally sought! But, on a *different* project!"

The *last* thing I want to get stuck doing is repeating a past project
("We don't have time to do it right -- but, we'll have time to do it OVER!")
I find that the equivalent of "digging ditches" for a living (mindless).

"OK, guys, we're ready to start developing Product2016, now..."

If an electronic design is "pure electronics", electrical input and
electrical output, like designing variants of a power supply (and
pushing them through CE test labs!) it could get boring. What's
interesting is to do the things that George H and I do, which is to
apply electronics to various physical processes. One has to learn new
physics (and new buzzwords), push the limits of instrumentation, and
maybe amaze a few scientists now and then. You can be a scientific
dilettante, without the hassle of going to grad school and being a
postdoc and stuff. Play around lasers and jet engines and microscopes
for a while and move on.

But there isn't much leisure to try things five or six times. Things
have to work, preferably first try. That part can be exciting, too,
promising to do something difficult and then seeing if it will work.

It is amazing how ubiquitous electronics has become. There is
practically no science that doesn't involve electronics. Plenty of
opportunities.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Don Y]

On 8/2/2015 5:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:14:27 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/2/2015 3:20 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

You can "indulge" these sorts of preferences if you don't have
other pressures (e.g., lots of hungry mouths) coercing you to
address *other* needs, aren't driven by a need for "security",
fear of a new "unknown", etc.

But if you're reasonably good at it, electronics design is fun and
pays fairly well to very well.

It depends on how varied the opportunities that are presented to you
and of which you avail yourself -- as well as the framework you
have to work within. E.g., how often can you explore a solution
AT YOUR LEISURE? Look at perhaps five or six (largely) *completed*
implementations before deciding which to actually pursue?

Employers, clients, customers tend to put financial and time pressures
on most development efforts that stiffle just how flexible you can be.
It's no fun trying to rush to meet a deadline -- wondering what
corners you've cut and haven't yet realized, etc.

[No, I *don't* want to have to come back and FIX something!]

I know folks who have done (essentially) the same thing for their
entire career (often very $ucce$$fully!). Few of them would
characterize their jobs as "fun"; many would say "nonchallenging",
trivial, disappointing, PROFITABLE, etc. -- looking for satisfaction
in *other* endeavors ("hobbies").

E.g., I know a guy that JUST designs power supplies. He's very
good at it and can squeeze whichever end of the balloon you tell him
needs to be optimized. But, it's just "work" to him; nothing
particularly challenging (even if you constrain cost, volume,
reliability, etc. -- "Ho, hum... <yawn>")

Another guy JUST designs data acquisition systems. How fast, how
precise, etc. Just different parameters on (essentially) the
same problem that he's been solving over and over again. A new
set of components/technologies available, this year... but, they'll
just be applied in more or less the same way as last year's!

Lots of software folks quickly fall into pigeon holes -- writing
code for the same sorts of applications (or devices) over and
over again. Usually not given much freedom to experiment with
different user interface styles, coding practices, implementation
frameworks, etc. ("This worked for the last project; why do anything
differently?")

[Writing software for the gummit is probably the worst of ALL worlds!]

I can knock out a new/novel hardware design in a few months -- and
spend a few *years* writing code for it. Very little challenge in
that (challenge == fun in my lexicon).

Rather, I get much more enjoyment and satisfaction in exploring other
application domains. Different *types* of problems to which my past
experiences can, perhaps, be directly applied -- or, can inspire
novel/untried approaches that, at the very least, shed new insights
on the application and/or the technology that I've tried to apply:
"Hmmm.... having tried *that*, I now know where my assumptions were
inappropriate -- and how I can better achieve the results I
originally sought! But, on a *different* project!"

The *last* thing I want to get stuck doing is repeating a past project
("We don't have time to do it right -- but, we'll have time to do it OVER!")
I find that the equivalent of "digging ditches" for a living (mindless).

"OK, guys, we're ready to start developing Product2016, now..."

If an electronic design is "pure electronics", electrical input and
electrical output, like designing variants of a power supply (and
pushing them through CE test labs!) it could get boring. What's

The same can be said of many applications. I have a friend who
has been designing video games -- and now slot machines -- for
close to 40 years. Hard to see the "challenge" in that -- even
if you concoct all sorts of variations on the themes!

interesting is to do the things that George H and I do, which is to
apply electronics to various physical processes. One has to learn new
physics (and new buzzwords), push the limits of instrumentation, and
maybe amaze a few scientists now and then. You can be a scientific
dilettante, without the hassle of going to grad school and being a
postdoc and stuff. Play around lasers and jet engines and microscopes
for a while and move on.

I think you'd be surprised at how much variation there is in
the software world; talk about "ubiquity"! E.g., software
*in* switching power supplies, software controller radios,
etc. Plus the variety of other "commodity products" (gas
pumps, sewing machines, all matters of peripherals, process
control systems, etc.)

And, there are many things that can be done in software that are
completely impractical in hardware.

[Of course, the same is (currently) true, in reverse]

E.g., pharmaceuticals (tablets) are produced on high volume,
rotary tablet presses:
<http://www.hiwtc.com/photo/products/25/00/88/8844.jpg>
In essence, these are *many* "single station" presses that
are operated in a common mechanical framework:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_press>
So, a "75 station" press is actually 75 single station presses
on a common turret -- each station moving around the turret
experiencing various parts of the tablet formation cycle
(fill, precompression, compression, ejection) endlessly.

[imagine the animation in the wikipedia document wrapping
*around* a rotating turret -- there is a LOT of detail in
the animation that you'll probably not notice :< E.g.,
watch the position of the "heads" of the punches -- upper
and lower -- VERY closely; the punch motions are finely
scripted]

As each station has its own mechanical characteristics
(dimensions of upper and lower punches, shapes of punch faces,
dimensions of associated die), a tablet made on station #M
may be physically different than an "identical" tablet made
on station #N -- assuming everything else is held constant
(e.g., the granulation/powder that makes up the tablet varies
over time).

Yet, you have to ensure certain physical characteristics of
ALL of those tablets are within some set of manufacturing limits
(tablet weight, hardness, cosmetic issues, etc.).

Implement a traditional control loop and what ends up happening is
observations from station M are applied to station N; station
N's observations applied to station O; etc. So, your "control"
may, in fact, make the "process" *worse* than it would have been
without the control present!

Imagine observations of M suggest the tablet made there is
"too soft" -- because the punches were a few thousandths too
*short* (leading to a larger cavity in which the granulation
was compressed). You tweek the machine to effectively bring
those bunch tips closer together and, when N passes through a
moment (10 milliseconds) later, the tablet seems too *hard*...
because the punches at N are a thousandth of an inch *longer*
(the cavity would have been smaller just because of the
variation in punch lengths -- and you've aggravated it with
your control algorithm's "correction" from station M!)

So, the "random" arrangement of punches and dies in the machine
leads to unnecessary variations/oscillations *caused* by your
control loop.

Complicate this with the fact that *two* stations are producing
tablets at opposite sides of the machine at any given time
(examine original picture closely: notice two hoppers on top
and two ejection chutes on each side?). Now you've got 150 single
stroke machines in the same "box", sharing certain portions
of the mechanism(s) (e.g., compression rollers, fill/ejection cams,
etc.)

In software, you can treat each of these as separate control systems
and seek to optimize the overall process -- instead of making a
naive short-term control decision that *will* deleteriously impact
neighboring stations.

Imagine designing a piece of hardware to implement such an inter-combined
set of control loops. And, imagine being able to set performance criteria
for it!

But there isn't much leisure to try things five or six times. Things
have to work, preferably first try. That part can be exciting, too,
promising to do something difficult and then seeing if it will work.

There isn't in *many* (most) development environments. OTOH, there
*is* in others! Folks doing research rarely have the pressures of
"manufacturing deadlines". Hence, there is some aspect of "fun"
in that line of work.

It is amazing how ubiquitous electronics has become. There is
practically no science that doesn't involve electronics. Plenty of
opportunities.

Just because opportunities *exist* ("in theory") doesn't mean folks
can avail themselves of them! If your employer builds radios and
you want to build microwave ovens, you have to pick a different
employer! (and hope he is interested in your talents!) If, after
having your fill of microwave ovens you want to work on guidance
systems for ballistic missiles...

:>

 

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <c0csrat1le117m4uk6aa7k4rutfakjteut@4ax.com>,
krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:20:23 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

The job of Sears is to rebrand other products and throw a scam on top.
They get sued so much that I don't see how they're still allowed to
operate.

- The Sears Card exists only to generate revenue from broad spectrum of
late fee fraud.

While Sears has, at least at one time, made more money from its
financial business than it has from retail, "late fee fraud" is
certainly not their reason for existence. That's just absurd.

Search for "Sears Card fraud." There's a very sophisticated scheme
behind it that has generated many state lawsuits against Sears for fraud.

- They violate all major credit card terms by billing for products
before they are available to ship. (A policy that helps with the Sears
Card fraud.)

Citation needed.

Just ask Sears. They billed me for a clothes washer and drier as soon
as I placed the order, even though it was not yet available to ship.
Sears customer service claimed that it was their procedure. This
violates the terms of all major credit cards, including the one used.

- They've been caught selling foreign tool replicas as "Made in USA."

- They send fake technicians to your home to declare that your appliance
warranty has been voided.

Citation needed.

Me. I had a self-install RO filter that would not turn off. I followed
diagnostics in the manual and found a defective diaphragm. I boxed it
up for return to the store. Two Sears stores refused to honor their
warranty in-store and said a tech must inspect it as a house call. I
set the box on a table. The "tech" arrived hours late, saw that it was
boxed up, and phoned in that I had voided the warranty by uninstalling
it. While standing right in front of me and the box, he said that he
inspected the product and it was completely destroyed.

I recorded it with a laptop but can't find it at the moment.

I have no love for Sears anymore and rarely walk in their stores but
the above is libelous drivel.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

 

[rickman]

On 8/2/2015 8:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It is amazing how ubiquitous electronics has become. There is
practically no science that doesn't involve electronics. Plenty of
opportunities.

Yep, as long as you can find customers with deep enough pockets to fund
the development of products that aren't cookie cutter in nature. And...
as long as you don't try to use technology you aren't very good at using.

--

Rick

 

[Phil Hobbs]

But there isn't much leisure to try things five or six times. Things
have to work, preferably first try. That part can be exciting, too,
promising to do something difficult and then seeing if it will work.

As somebody said, 'the best projects are the ones where you get a knot in your stomach as soon as the contract gets signed.'

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net