On Good Questions

[Tim Wescott]

Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his
questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always
makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and
rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.

If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may
not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or
entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop
up.

So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought I'd
publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and why I
appreciate seeing them. I'm about to push "send" and I'm not entirely
happy with what I've written -- but what the heck, it's drooled out of my
cerebrum, through my fingertips and onto my editor screen, and I don't
want to just delete it now. So here goes:

1: Ask questions that can be answered:

"How much string do I need to bind up a 50-pound bale of alfalfa?" is a
useful question, compared to "how much string do I need for a bale?"

Mostly, asking a question that can be answered means supplying enough
information to the experts so that they can give you a meaningful
answer. Counter-examples would be things like:

"Should I use and IIR filter or an FIR filter" (this doesn't anything
about the available processing power, or about performance constraints
that may put more weight on one filter or another -- it's like asking if
a motorcycle is better than a car).

"What emitter resistor should I use with a 2N3904?" (without knowing the
circuit it's in, any answer would be meaningless).

"Is H-infinity control the best design approach?" (without knowing how
much information you have about your plant, whether it's strongly
nonlinear, how much it'll vary in practice, and a host of other factors,
there's no way to tell).

2: Ask for guidance, not for your work to be done for you:

"My boss wants me to implement a left-handed franowitz by Tuesday.
Please respond with schematics and code." Personally, I'm happy to do
the work that your boss needs done -- as long as I'm under contract to
him, and as long as I get paid.

"Given a triangle with sides of lengths 8, 9 and 10, what is the area?
Find an answer without using integration." I am absolutely, positively,
not going to do your homework for you. "I'm having trouble finding the
area of a triangle given the lengths of the sides, can you suggest an
approach?" will get you lots of help. Barfing out homework problems and
insisting on solutions won't.

Note that I (and many others) will NOT do your school work for you, even
for money. I've had one person approach me about work that appeared
legitimate, then turned out to be doing the core work for a graduate
degree. I was not amused, except for the faint ironic humor of having
him stop emailing me anything at all when I informed him that I'd be
happy to get under contract if I had written authorization from his
thesis advisor, and could he please supply me with contact details?

The reason that we won't do this is twofold. First, we're not rats.
Second, even if our consciences had been surgically removed, most really
competent engineers don't like working for incompetent managers, and
intensely dislike working for incompetent managers who cheat. If you
can't do your technical homework at all, then you probably aren't cut out
for engineering. If you know this, and you try to get it done for you,
then you'll only be fit for management, and then you'll only be the kind
of manager with a reverse-midas touch who turns everything he touches
into raw sewage.

3: Ask for specific answers

"I need to design a filter in the z domain. How do I do it?" You might
think "take three years of signal processing courses at an accredited
engineering school" or "read this pile of books" followed by "then do
what comes naturally" is a facetious answer -- but it's not that far off
track. Some questions just have answers that are book-length or longer,
and you're not going to get an answer in a newsgroup posting.

When that happens you either need to narrow your question down, or go
away and start studying. Incidentally, one good way to narrow down your
question is to respond with "clearly I need to narrow down my question --
what do I need to tell you?"

4: Don't get too obscure/don't ask us to do too much work

Asking some specific question about a hearing-aid processor, or asking a
question about equation 73 in some obscure scientific paper generally
means -- unless you're very lucky -- two things: one, that no one knows
the answer, and two, that figuring out the answer will take an inordinate
amount of time.

If you can phrase the question in more general terms, then you'll bring
it more in line with guideline 1.

5: Work with us

If you ask a question and someone comes back with a request for
clarification, be polite and informative. Don't get all bent out of
shape. Don't assume that everyone is against you -- we don't know who
the hell you are, we're only judging by the questions you ask and your
responses to our posts.

Sometimes you'll ask a question and it'll turn out to be entirely the
wrong thing to ask ("how do I patch a hole in a tire", for instance, may
have the answer FOR YOUR SITUATION to "stop driving over the spike
strip"). I do this myself, and it can be frustrating to be told that I'm
asking the wrong thing -- but on the other hand, finding out that I don't
need $500 worth of electronics or machine tools that can be solved with a
Popsicle stick and a whack with a big hammer really is to my benefit.

6: Stay engaged

This will get lost in the smoke, but one of the more frustrating USENET
phenomena is when someone whose never posted asks a question, gets a
bunch of responses on the order of "that's interesting, tell us these
exact particulars", and then never responds.

We're working for you, but we're not working for money. We're working
for satisfaction -- even coming back on and saying "thanks for your
effort, guys, I found the answer somewhere else" will give us more
satisfaction than not saying anything.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 14:39:30 -0500, Tim Wescott <seemyw...@myfooter.really>
wrote:

Yes.

Good questions have value, because they make us look into things we might not
have thought much about before; that sure works for me.

I agree about bad/fuzzy questions, and people who post once and never respond
afterwards. Posting a schematic is immensely clarifying, both about the content
and about the poster. You can tell a lot about a person from his schematic.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

[Tom Miller]

"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fgucu9h5p9cq8pi31...@4ax.com...

And don't ask questions that can easily be answered with google. Example -
What is the maximum collector voltage of a 2N3904?

tm

[Tim Wescott]

Good point! Google is your friend. lmgtfy.com is _my_ friend, at least
when I'm feeling snarky.

[Tom Miller]

"Tim Wescott" <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote in message
news:YJOdnVEbrOrVH3vO...@giganews.com...

I like Ixquick.com for searches. It uses google but no google hands in your
pocket.

tm

[Mook Johnson]

Very happy to have you guys around. SED is the reason I actually pay
for usenet instead of using the free versions. best investment I make.
I talk to my colegues and they dont even know what a usenet is.

Is it like facebook? :) yeah its like facebook without the pictures. :)

[George Herold]

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 3:39:30 PM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote:
> Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his
> questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always
> makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and
> rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
>
> If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may
> not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or
> entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop
> up.
>
> So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought I'd
> publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and why I

<snip>

>
> Tim Wescott
>
> Wescott Design Services
>
> http://www.wescottdesign.com

That's nice Tim, I read this somewhere else... Some of the same ideas,
(About software, but it applies to any field.)
http://mattgemmell.com/what-have-you-tried/

George h.

[mrob...@att.net]

In sci.electronics.design Tim Wescott <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote:
> So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought
> I'd publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and
> why I appreciate seeing them.

You might know about this, but a guy named Eric Raymond has published a
similar guide. It's a little bit more geared to programming and
software questions (he writes a lot of open-source software) but lots of
it applies to hardware design as well, IMHO.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Jeff Liebermann in s.e.d has a short list of questions that is in this
direction as well. Try <i93bl9pefshm1oc62...@4ax.com> ,
or one of...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.electronics.design/SLZkev2ZDwc/dsG89aacLUQJ
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.electronics.design/SLZkev2ZDwc/dsG89aacLUQJ>
http://is.gd/S6PEMF

> I guess I should mumble something about how to get a sane answer on
> Usenet. Please supply:
>
> 1. What problem are you trying to solve? One or two sentences is
> sufficient. For example, start with "I'm trying to design a
> turbo-encabulator and am having trouble stabilizing the unilateral
> phase detractors".
>
> 2. What do you have to work with? Hardware, software, VERSION
> NUMBERS, expertise level, spares, documentation, patents, etc.
>
> 3. What have you tried so far and what happened?
>
> There are plenty of other details that would be useful to disclose,
> but the above are the minimum.

One item I would add to any of these lists is to not be afraid to say if
you're running up against non-disclosure agreements or similar legal
things. Sometimes people can't supply too much detail for commercial
reasons, but it can be hard to distinguish "I can't give you that
detail because I don't know" from "I can't give you that detail even
though I know it" without a statement like that.

Another piece of information that sometimes is helpful is volume. Are
you making one or two widgets by hand for some special need, or maybe
to learn how that widget works? Or are you going to make a couple
hundred of these a year? Or are you selling it to GM or Dell, millions
a year, and every nanopenny/square millimeter counts? (The guy doing
one or two by hand probably doesn't want to know about a $300 FPGA that
only comes in a 500-ball BGA package and needs $5000 of dev tools, and
the guy counting nanopennies doesn't want to know how to do it with DIP
op-amps and 74xx TTL.)

Matt Roberds

[David Brown]

On 09/08/14 21:39, Tim Wescott wrote:
> Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his
> questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always
> makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and
> rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
>
> If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may
> not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or
> entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop
> up.
>
> So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought I'd
> publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and why I
> appreciate seeing them. I'm about to push "send" and I'm not entirely
> happy with what I've written -- but what the heck, it's drooled out of my
> cerebrum, through my fingertips and onto my editor screen, and I don't
> want to just delete it now. So here goes:
>

<snip for brevity>

Those are good guidelines.

I'd add another:

Ask in clear, correct English (or whatever language is appropriate for
the forum in question) - or as close as you can manage. We are all
aware that English is not everyone's first language, and are quite happy
to make allowances for difficulties with the language. But when asking
a question, you should do your best, and not make obvious mistakes -
that means using a spell-checker, avoiding SMS abbreviations, and
getting capitalisation and punctuation roughly correct. If the question
is easy to read and understand, it will get more answers.

And ask politely!

[upsid...@downunder.com]

I still think that your requirements are a bit harsh.

I am working with companies with offices all over the world, in which
practically none (including me) are native English speakers. The main
point is getting the message through, not the linguistically correct
constructs.

I would encourage to use simple item lists instead of trying to make
correct sentences like

* the schematic is this kind (e.g a URL)
* voltage is ...
* current is ...
* shall I do this ...
* shall I do that ...

Also when answering such requests, avoid long and complicated
sentences and idiomatic phrases, use numbered item lists etc instead.
if the OP (original poster) is not very comfortable in English.

[Charles Edmondson]

>And don't ask questions that can easily be answered with google.
Example >-
>What is the maximum collector voltage of a 2N3904?

>tm

Unless it is one of those where Google turns up three different values,
differing by two orders of magnitude, and you need some explanation as
to the differences!

Charlie

[Spehro Pefhany]

Like SPICE model parameters for the same part.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Phil Hobbs]

And never, ever, say "lol".

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

[David Brown]

I agree on that - but some people write in a way that very much hinders
the message.

>
> I would encourage to use simple item lists instead of trying to make
> correct sentences like
>
> * the schematic is this kind (e.g a URL)
> * voltage is ...
> * current is ...
> * shall I do this ...
> * shall I do that ...
>
> Also when answering such requests, avoid long and complicated
> sentences and idiomatic phrases, use numbered item lists etc instead.
> if the OP (original poster) is not very comfortable in English.
>

Lists like this are not a bad idea - and I agree that keeping things
simple is a good plan for people who are not strong in English (or when
replying to people with limited English). Some posters like long,
rambling messages that are hard to comprehend for native speakers (I
have probably been accused of that myself!).

What I /really/ detest is people who write things like:

i have a problm!!!! cn U pls help???

I don't care how much detailed information they give - when people write
like that, the only help they will get from me is advice on writing
correctly. Such posters could well be native English speakers.

It is a very different issue from not mastering the English language - I
too deal with non-experts every day (and I live in Norway, speaking good
but imperfect Norwegian). Occasionally a poster will write something
incomprehensible because of language difficulties, and we should try our
best to help out with that.

[David Brown]

On 09/08/14 21:39, Tim Wescott wrote:

> Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his
> questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always
> makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and
> rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
>
> If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may
> not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or
> entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop
> up.
>
> So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought I'd
> publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and why I
> appreciate seeing them. I'm about to push "send" and I'm not entirely
> happy with what I've written -- but what the heck, it's drooled out of my
> cerebrum, through my fingertips and onto my editor screen, and I don't
> want to just delete it now. So here goes:
>

<snip>

After noticing another post by the famous "Skybuck Flying", I have
another rule:

Think about what you are going to ask, and what you are going to write.
And after writing it, read through it again before posting, to see if
it actually makes sense. Don't just let every random thought in your
head dribble out onto the keyboard.

[Tom Miller]

"David Brown" <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
news:ls7ng3$h2l$1...@dont-email.me...

Add one more - do not drink while internetting (is that a word?).

[Tom Miller]

"Charles Edmondson" <edmondso...@ieee.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.2e5111e06...@news.eternal-september.org...

Yes, that is a good point. But at least the OP has put some small amount of
effort for his part.

tm

[Tom Miller]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:53E7978...@electrooptical.net...

LOL

[Tom Miller]

"David Brown" <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote in message

news:ls88du$6fp$2...@dont-email.me...

Or just put "Skybuck Flying" in your noise filter.

[Tim Wescott]

I knew that what I was writing had been done before, but I thought I'd
throw out my own twist on it.

Your additions are on-point and welcome.

Your comment about volume is actually one of the first things that I'll
ask a prospective customer -- if space and power consumption is
unlimited, and they're building one, I tell them they'll get a very
different answer than if they need to build 100,000 of them, or if they
need to fit the whole solution into one cubic inch.

In fact, I recently wrote a chapter on systems design for a handbook on
project management, and we made sure to devote some space to cost/benefit
trade-offs for large-volume production vs. low-volume production.

(And I had this same sort of exchange with a customer recently, who shall
remain nameless. They have a product that's going to have volumes in the
tens or maybe hundreds a year, and they wanted to hand-build a PC board
to do some heavy-duty number crunching, in a box where there was plenty
of room for a PC-104 or similar board. We eventually all agreed that my
algorithms would live on a PC, but only after investigating both custom-
built hardware and semi-custom hardware.)

[Tim Wescott]

There's a wide, and easily detectable, gulf between someone who's native
language isn't English and someone who grew up in an English-speaking
country but can't be bothered to put a decent sentence together. The
difference between a native English speaker who can't be bothered to
write well and one who is just a poor writer is narrower, but (I think)
usually still detectable.

Really crappy word choice, spelling, and syntax, embedded in a document
that presents ideas in a clear, complete, and logical order is a lot
easier to read than perfectly spelled, impeccably constructed language
that can't keep to the same thesis from one sentence to the next.

[Tim Wescott]

Oh, too funny, LOL.

(eh, couldn't resist).

[Tim Wescott]

Oh damn.

[Tim Wescott]

By definition, then, it's not a question that can be easily answered by
Googling.

I try to preface my questions in such cases with "I Googled but came up
with all these contradictions".

What really leaves me shamefaced is when I Google for something that
ought to be easy and don't come up with anything. Then I'll get on here
with "I Googled, but..." I generally include my search terms, sometimes
what I'll get in response is someone's _good_ set of search terms on the
subject, and then I'll be off and running.

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:02:15 -0400, Phil Hobbs

LOL!

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

[Tim Williams]

"Tim Wescott" <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote in message

news:rMadnTV9WoNrMnrO...@giganews.com...

> There's a wide, and easily detectable, gulf between someone who's native

> language isn't English and ...

Whose* :-p

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

[Tim Williams]

"Tom Miller" <tmille...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ls8a57$jl6$1...@dont-email.me...

> Add one more - do not drink while internetting (is that a word?).

Or do: it's possible the greater fluidity of thought will help bring about
solutions.

Probably depends on the person though. I write impeccable English when
drunk, because by the time you see the finished product, you don't have a
clue how much backspacing and proofing and editing has gone on. In general,
I write with large amounts of global NFB, a structural constraint which
alcohol can attempt to impede, but not circumvent. ;-)

[Tim Williams]

I wrote this a long time ago,

'Answering questions is a tricky subject to practice. Not due to the
difficulty of formulating or locating answers, but due to the human
inability of asking the right questions; a skill that, were one to possess,
would put them in the "answering" category.'

Sucks, man. If we all knew enough to answer our own questions, we wouldn't
need to ask others; and it would be futile anyway, because no one would have
any answers anyway. I've asked a few like that before... it happens..

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

"Tim Wescott" <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote in message

news:YJOdnVYbrOpv5XvO...@giganews.com...

> Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his
> questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always
> makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and
> rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
>
> If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may
> not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or
> entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop
> up.
>
> So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought I'd
> publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and why I
> appreciate seeing them. I'm about to push "send" and I'm not entirely
> happy with what I've written -- but what the heck, it's drooled out of my
> cerebrum, through my fingertips and onto my editor screen, and I don't
> want to just delete it now. So here goes:
>

[Tim Wescott]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:49:37 -0500, Tim Williams wrote:

> "Tim Wescott" <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote in message
> news:rMadnTV9WoNrMnrO...@giganews.com...
>> There's a wide, and easily detectable, gulf between someone who's
>> native language isn't English and ...
>
> Whose* :-p

Yes. Exactly. A non-native speaker would have almost certainly gotten
that one correctly.

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 11 August 2014 08:59:17 UTC+10, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:49:37 -0500, Tim Williams wrote:
> > "Tim Wescott" <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote in message
> > news:rMadnTV9WoNrMnrO...@giganews.com...
> >>
> >> There's a wide, and easily detectable, gulf between someone who's native language isn't English and ...
> >
> > Whose* :-p
>
> Yes. Exactly. A non-native speaker would have almost certainly gotten that one correctly.

Whereas a I knew one dyslexic native speaker of English who wouldn't have seen it as a problem.

As long as the word in the text sounded right, he couldn't see any point in spelling it differently.

For him "their", "there" and "they're" were the same word. He would admit that they were different character strings, and that a computer might have trouble with them, but he could not see how a real human being could.

He was - as it happened - one of the cleverest engineers I've known, so it was a bit weird.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[boB]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:52:32 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:

>"Tom Miller" <tmille...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:ls8a57$jl6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Add one more - do not drink while internetting (is that a word?).
>
>Or do: it's possible the greater fluidity of thought will help bring about
>solutions.
>
>Probably depends on the person though. I write impeccable English when
>drunk, because by the time you see the finished product, you don't have a
>clue how much backspacing and proofing and editing has gone on. In general,
>I write with large amounts of global NFB, a structural constraint which
>alcohol can attempt to impede, but not circumvent. ;-)
>
>Tim

Well, I hear it's real close to birthday time so drink up, Tim !

boB
K7IQ

[Tim Williams]

<boB> wrote in message news:jb3gu91rbsaotii7o...@4ax.com...

> Well, I hear it's real close to birthday time so drink up, Tim !

Had a Captain and Coke earlier ;-)

[Spehro Pefhany]

That's what I heard too!

--sp

[Rick Lyons]

[Snipped by Lyons]

Hello mysterious upsidedown,
Using correct language and using correct grammar
*ARE* important!

Three days ago I bought a special bottle of German
Hofbrauhaus beer. On the back of the bottle is
a paper label that said, "This beer has a harsh aroma."

The word "harsh" has a negative, unpleasant,
connotation. What they should have written was:
"This beer has a strong aroma." or maybe "This
beer has a powerful aroma." In any case, one wrong
word, "harsh", sends the wrong message!!!

Even punctuation is critical. For example, what's
the difference between the following two sentences?

"Let's eat, grandpa."

and

"Let's eat grandpa."

Mr. upsidedown, set your standards high, not low.

[-Rick-]

[Don Y]

Hi Rick,

On 8/11/2014 11:49 AM, Rick Lyons wrote:

[attributions and text elided]

> Hello mysterious upsidedown,
> Using correct language and using correct grammar
> *ARE* important!
>
> Three days ago I bought a special bottle of German
> Hofbrauhaus beer. On the back of the bottle is
> a paper label that said, "This beer has a harsh aroma."
>
> The word "harsh" has a negative, unpleasant,
> connotation. What they should have written was:
> "This beer has a strong aroma." or maybe "This
> beer has a powerful aroma." In any case, one wrong
> word, "harsh", sends the wrong message!!!
>
> Even punctuation is critical. For example, what's
> the difference between the following two sentences?
> "Let's eat, grandpa."
> and
> "Let's eat grandpa."
>
> Mr. upsidedown, set your standards high, not low.

+42

Remember, as well, that there are lots of subtle cultural
differences that can come into play in a reference.

E.g., on my first visit to England, I kept seeing signs
around the "hotel" (the Brits apparently distinguish between
B&B type hotels and more modern "plastic" hotels) tacked up
in seemingly haphazzard fashion: "Way Out".

As this hotel was more of a sprawling home repurposed as a
"commercial" hotel, I was stumped as to what the signs could
mean -- scattered about seemingly willy-nilly.

When I asked my host, he said, "That's the WAY OUT" (i.e., EXIT).
Of course, in US hotels, "EXIT" signs are placed in a very
conspicuous manner that draws attention to them -- not "fastened
to the face of a doorway"!

[Drive on the parkway, park on the driveway, etc.]

There are lots of entertaining mistranslations that have popped
up over the years. Years ago, reading a user's manual prepared
by an Asian manufacturer was almost guaranteed to leave you
scratching your head: "Why would a company of this size not
hire a REAL 'native speaker' to perform -- or assist in -- the
translation of these materials?"

[Randy Yates]

Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> writes:
> [...]

> Even punctuation is critical. For example, what's
> the difference between the following two sentences?
>
> "Let's eat, grandpa."
>
> and
>
> "Let's eat grandpa."

Absolutely. Or how about:

"Don't, stop, don't, stop!"

and

"Don't stop, don't stop!"

?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Don Y]

Hi Randy,

On 8/11/2014 12:38 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
> Rick Lyons<R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> writes:
>> [...]
>> Even punctuation is critical. For example, what's
>> the difference between the following two sentences?
>>
>> "Let's eat, grandpa."
>> and
>> "Let's eat grandpa."
>
> Absolutely. Or how about:
> "Don't, stop, don't, stop!"
> and
> "Don't stop, don't stop!"

Blast from the past:

"Tom while Bob had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the teacher"

(I hope I counted right!)

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.dsp Randy Yates <ya...@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Absolutely. Or how about:

> "Don't, stop, don't, stop!"

> and

> "Don't stop, don't stop!"

Or the one someone actually wrote a book about:

"Eats, shoots, and leaves."

(There is a picture of a panda walking through the forest,
carrying a rifle.)

-- glen

[Al Clark]

Tim Wescott <seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote in

news:YJOdnVYbrOpv5XvO...@giganews.com:

> Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for
> answering his questions over the years. It happened to be
> someone whose name always makes me perk up, because even
> though he nearly always asks questions and rarely answers,
> he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
>
> If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET,
> then this may not have occurred to you, but there are
> certain people who mostly or entirely ask questions, yet
> are still welcome names to me when they pop up.
>

Tim

For the record, I would like to thank you for years of helpful
responses to perhaps thousands of queries (including even a few
of mine).

Al Clark
Danville Signal

[Eric Jacobsen]

Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation

In the book it was a joke:

A panda walks into a caf�. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a
gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the
panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated
wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough,
finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal,
native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com

[Anand P. Paralkar]

On 10-08-2014 01:09, Tim Wescott wrote:
> Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his
> questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always
> makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and
> rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
>
> If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may
> not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or
> entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop
> up.
>

> So, even though the subject has been gone over in length, I thought I'd
> publish _my_ guidelines for what makes a good question to me, and why I
> appreciate seeing them. I'm about to push "send" and I'm not entirely
> happy with what I've written -- but what the heck, it's drooled out of my
> cerebrum, through my fingertips and onto my editor screen, and I don't
> want to just delete it now. So here goes:
>

Points taken. I am one of those "leechers". Sadly so, but I must
confess. Mostly, I have asked questions, but never answered questions
from someone.
Unfortunately, neither my know-how nor my bandwidth allow me to do so.

Not that it makes-up for being a leech - but I would like to say thanks
to all those of you who make forums like these a superb resource for any
engineer. And that too for free!

Heart felt thanks,
Anand

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 17:04:27 UTC+10, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:
> On 10-08-2014 01:09, Tim Wescott wrote:
> >
> > Someone sent me an email this morning thanking me for answering his questions over the years. It happened to be someone whose name always makes me perk up, because even though he nearly always asks questions and rarely answers, he nearly always asks really GOOD questions.
> >
> > If you're not addicted to answering questions on USENET, then this may not have occurred to you, but there are certain people who mostly or entirely ask questions, yet are still welcome names to me when they pop up.

<snip>

> > We're working for you, but we're not working for money. We're working for satisfaction -- even coming back on and saying "thanks for your effort, guys, I found the answer somewhere else" will give us more satisfaction than not saying anything.
>
> Points taken. I am one of those "leechers".

You aren't any kind of leech. Without a regular supply of questions, this forum would be entirely devoted to the regulars being rude about one another, which isn't an edifying spectacle.

> Sadly so, but I must confess. Mostly, I have asked questions, but never answered questions from someone.

So far.

> Unfortunately, neither my know-how nor my bandwidth allow me to do so.

You'll learn. Eventually you will find the niche where you are the only expert in the world. There won't be many questions that you can answer, but you will be the only person who can answer those questions properly. That won't stop some of our less inspired members from trying, but Sturgeons Law says the 90% of everything is rubbish, as are many of the "answers" posted here. One of the skills developed around here is that of learning to detect rubbish.

> Not that it makes-up for being a leech - but I would like to say thanks
to all those of you who make forums like these a superb resource for any engineer. And that too for free!
>
> Heart felt thanks,

Those of us who feel (perhaps unjustly) that we deserve some occasional thanks are suitably grateful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Rick Lyons]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:34:27 +0530, "Anand P. Paralkar"
<anand.p...@gnospammale.com> wrote:

[Snipped by Lyons]

>
>Points taken. I am one of those "leechers". Sadly so, but I must
>confess. Mostly, I have asked questions, but never answered questions
>from someone.
>Unfortunately, neither my know-how nor my bandwidth allow me to do so.
>
>Not that it makes-up for being a leech - but I would like to say thanks
>to all those of you who make forums like these a superb resource for any
>engineer. And that too for free!
>
>Heart felt thanks,
>Anand

Good job Anand!

[-Rick-]

[Tim Wescott]

Ah, but if they're GOOD questions then they have value in themselves.

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/11/2014 07:52 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:16:54 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
> <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> In comp.dsp Randy Yates <ya...@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>> Absolutely. Or how about:
>>
>>> "Don't, stop, don't, stop!"
>>
>>> and
>>
>>> "Don't stop, don't stop!"
>>
>> Or the one someone actually wrote a book about:
>>
>> "Eats, shoots, and leaves."
>>
>> (There is a picture of a panda walking through the forest,
>> carrying a rifle.)
>
> Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
>
> In the book it was a joke:
>
> A panda walks into a caf�. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a
> gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
>
> "Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the
> panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated
> wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
>
> "Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."

I think he shoots into the ceiling, not the other patrons. Pandas are
cuddlier than that. ;)

>
> The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough,
> finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal,
> native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[John S]

That's the G-rated version.

[Anand P. Paralkar]

Now that we are on the topic, I would like to voice a perpetual question
that I have had in my mind (for some years now).

I see most of the people who respond to questions are practicing
experts. Their job/consultancy/business is in the domain of the forum
where we post questions.

(Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you people have
the time?

Sometimes I post a question and I have to make a (strong) mental note of
going back and checking-in on the replies. (Besides the fact that I
take time to digest all the replies that come in. I am still digesting
the responses that came in on my Class D Commutation of SCRs post!)
While I don't seem to find the time to check back on replies that are
actually helping me, I always wonder how you experts have the time to
keep on serving these forums.

My guesses are as follows:

a. The experts are so damn expert that what takes me an hour could
take a minute for the expert. Thus, they are able to "serve" and they
can do so in about fraction of the time.

b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they
don't mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.

c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to
be rude.)

Once again, thank you so much for being the lifeline of these forums,
Anand

[Eric Jacobsen]

I think that happens a fair amount. I generally don't spend much
time on an answer, although sometimes that shows. ;)

> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they
>don't mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.
>
> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to
>be rude.)

That's me, too, although that has actually led to me spending less
time here.

Well, that and Facebook. ;)

>Once again, thank you so much for being the lifeline of these forums,
>Anand

Even when I was working full time comp.dsp has always been a nice
distraction for me, as well as informative and educational.

[Paul E Bennett]

Anand P. Paralkar wrote:

> Now that we are on the topic, I would like to voice a perpetual question
> that I have had in my mind (for some years now).
>
> I see most of the people who respond to questions are practicing
> experts. Their job/consultancy/business is in the domain of the forum
> where we post questions.
>
> (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you people have
> the time?
>
> Sometimes I post a question and I have to make a (strong) mental note of
> going back and checking-in on the replies. (Besides the fact that I
> take time to digest all the replies that come in. I am still digesting
> the responses that came in on my Class D Commutation of SCRs post!)
> While I don't seem to find the time to check back on replies that are
> actually helping me, I always wonder how you experts have the time to
> keep on serving these forums.
>
> My guesses are as follows:
>
> a. The experts are so damn expert that what takes me an hour could
> take a minute for the expert. Thus, they are able to "serve" and they
> can do so in about fraction of the time.

I am one who has been in the Systems Engineering game (from humble
Electronics Tech through to becoming a Consultant) for over 40 years
(started in 1969). So I have amassed a great deal of knowledge. I like
helping out and it is good to help the less experienced.

> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they
> don't mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.

I am operating three different contract threads at present so there is no
in-between for me. Checking Usenet is easy for me as my newsreader is within
the same organisational package as my email. I use Kontact which gives me
the scheduling, task-lists, email, Usenet, RSS feeds and journaling
facilities under one banner. I can scan all over breakfast but I will be
using Kontact at several ponts during the day and so it is always running
for me. It just becomes part of my breakfast routine to read Usenet.

> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to
> be rude.)

I am also in semi-retirement but so far running my own consultancy is
occupying slightly more hours than my previous full-time position. The only
difference is that what I am doing now is more fun and more rewarding. I
think those who remain passionate about engineering in general will probably
never fully retire.

> Once again, thank you so much for being the lifeline of these forums,
> Anand

Glad to help where we can.

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E....@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

I'm guessing skipping the n'th rerun of some old movie or keeping up with the kardashian, will give most people time for usenet etc.

-Lasse

[Tim Wescott]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:02:48 +0530, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:

<< snip >>

> Now that we are on the topic, I would like to voice a perpetual question
> that I have had in my mind (for some years now).
>
> I see most of the people who respond to questions are practicing
> experts. Their job/consultancy/business is in the domain of the forum
> where we post questions.
>
> (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you people have
> the time?
>
> Sometimes I post a question and I have to make a (strong) mental note of
> going back and checking-in on the replies. (Besides the fact that I
> take time to digest all the replies that come in. I am still digesting
> the responses that came in on my Class D Commutation of SCRs post!)
> While I don't seem to find the time to check back on replies that are
> actually helping me, I always wonder how you experts have the time to
> keep on serving these forums.
>
> My guesses are as follows:
>
> a. The experts are so damn expert that what takes me an hour could
> take a minute for the expert. Thus, they are able to "serve" and they
> can do so in about fraction of the time.
>
> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they
> don't mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.
>
> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to
> be rude.)
>
> Once again, thank you so much for being the lifeline of these forums,
> Anand

You forgot (d): they do it instead of watching television.

I try to spend no more than a few minutes on each response. Sometimes
someone will be doing something that is interesting, or that will need
some research that pertains to a current project, and then I'll dig a bit
deeper.

My only problem is that I think that I can give decent answers before
I've had breakfast (which implies that I'm also not yet caffeinated for
the day). This means that I tend to be grumpier and less accurate.

But hey -- all my responses are worth at least what the OP paid, and very
often more!

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

[Rick Lyons]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 04:54:06 GMT, eric.j...@ieee.org (Eric
Jacobsen) wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:02:48 +0530, "Anand P. Paralkar"
><anand.p...@gnospammale.com> wrote:
>

[Snipped by Lyons]

>
>>Once again, thank you so much for being the lifeline of these forums,
>>Anand
>
>Even when I was working full time comp.dsp has always been a nice
>distraction for me, as well as informative and educational.
>
>
>Eric Jacobsen

Hi,
It was with the guys on comp.dsp in mind that
I wrote the following Dedication in my second
DSP book:

This book is dedicated to all the signal processing
engineers who struggle to learn their craft, and
willingly share that knowledge with their engineering
brethren--people of whom the English poet Chaucer would
say, "Gladly would he learn and gladly teach."

[-Rick-]

[Phil Hobbs]

Well, it's the version that's in the book (which I have).

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Phil Hobbs]

Partly. Once you've fallen into a pothole, you remember it next time.
There's a lot of breadth to electronics, but not so much depth--each
individual bit is usually pretty simple when you've seen it before. It
isn't like doing philosophy, say, or even nontrivial computer
programming, where you have to keep 50 things in your head at once.

>
> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they
> don't mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.

Nope. Doesn't happen too often round my shop.

> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to
> be rude.)

Nope again. Although you're correct that there are a lot of retired
folks on SED, as there will be on Facebook in 30 years for the same
reason. I expect to be fully employed for the next 15 years or so, and
maybe a bit longer than that.

>
> Once again, thank you so much for being the lifeline of these forums,

I mostly work by myself, so SED is sort of a virtual watercooler and
white board. The two things I miss about Corporate America, as I said a
day or two ago, are (1) colleagues, and (2) vacations. I need a bit of
goofing-off time in the average day, and most other folks do, too.

I generally manage to stay out of the flame wars, except when one goes
on too long and I start teasing the parties involved. That sometimes
helps people redirect the energy. I'm actually pretty fond of some of
the folks who post here, and have met a few of them in person, and
collaborated with one or two.

It also turns out that posting on SED is a decent search engine
optimization strategy for consultants. Stuff that gets posted here
winds up high in the search engine results, along of course with the
name of the person who posted it. (I discovered this after having been
a regular for some years.) Thus even my goofing-off time is
productive, you see. Devilish clever, these consultants. ;)

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

[Don Y]

Hi Anand,

On 8/12/2014 9:32 PM, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:

> I see most of the people who respond to questions are practicing

----------------------------------------------------^^^ or, "were".
Don't discount retirees, etc.

> experts. Their job/consultancy/business is in the domain of the forum
> where we post questions.
>
> (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you people have
> the time?

For folks in their own business, you have control over your own time.
No PHB to "force" a 9-5 on you. E.g., I can work as little or as
much as I want on any given day, EVERY day. I'm answerable to myself
only.

In the US, I've seen figures claiming as much as 2 hrs per day is
"wasted" at the typical job -- answering email, surfing the web,
chatting on the phone, chatting by the water cooler, etc. (all
"personal" tasks unrelated to work)

[I know this seems excessive! But, every time I've looked into it,
the figure remains uncontested! :< ]

For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction time";
their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that
differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something
engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current
workload"?

> My guesses are as follows:
>
> a. The experts are so damn expert that what takes me an hour could take
> a minute for the expert. Thus, they are able to "serve" and they can do
> so in about fraction of the time.

Or, they may have already *done* what you are asking -- or, something
close enough that they can easily offer guidance/opinion.

> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they don't
> mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.

Even on "down" time, you're not sitting around twiddling your thumbs!
Preparing proposals, maintaining/purchasing equipment/software,
"cleaning up" after previous project(s), investigating other fields
of interest/technologies, etc.

But, again, your time is your own. Perhaps reading/posting something
here helps you prepare that proposal. Or, gives you an idea as to
a new tool/equipment investment. Or, allows you to peek into other
folks' past experiences to glean a bit of info about a new technology
that you want to explore, etc.

> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to be
> rude.)

Or *real* retirement! :> But, that doesn't mean they can't still
be spending as many weekly hours applying their skills to other
projects -- for pay, investment or otherwise!

One thing I've been surprised to learn (though find it "obvious" in
hindsight!) is how long it takes to disengage yourself from your
"formal" career as you retire from a consultancy. For a 9-to-5,
you just *retire* -- on a particular day and at a particular time.
The "business" persists without you. The *business* has obligations
to its customers, shareholders, etc. -- those obligations don't
translate to being *your* obligations!

Not so in a consultancy, etc. Its a lot harder to "disentangle"
yourself from clients and customers that have been *your* clients
and customers -- without feeling like you are leaving them with a
"problem" (finding a replacement for your services). The 9-to-5
scenario skips over that! "It's not my problem..."

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 14 August 2014 04:07:44 UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> Hi Anand,
> On 8/12/2014 9:32 PM, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:
>
> > I see most of the people who respond to questions are practicing
----------------------------------------------------^^^ or, "were". Don't discount retirees, etc. experts. Their job/consultancy/business is in the domain of the forum where we post questions.
> >
> > (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you people have the time?
>
> For folks in their own business, you have control over your own time. No PHB to "force" a 9-5 on you. E.g., I can work as little or as much as I want on any given day, EVERY day. I'm answerable to myself only.
>

> In the US, I've seen figures claiming as much as 2 hrs per day is"wasted" at the typical job -- answering email, surfing the web, chatting on the phone, chatting by the water cooler, etc. (all "personal" tasks unrelated to work).

My take on that is that having a job is as much being a colleague of your co-workers as being an employee of your boss. It took me a while to get used to "wasting" time at work being sociable with the people I worked with, but it didn't take me all that long to realise that if you didn't like and trust the people you worked with, you weren't going to collaborate effectively with them to get the stuff done that the boss (and the shareholders) wanted done.

Once you get embedded in an industry, you start having to be a colleague of people working at ostensibly competitive organisations as well.

> [I know this seems excessive! But, every time I've looked into it,
the figure remains uncontested! :< ]
>
> For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction time";
their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current workload"?

It's not "distraction time" but rather "realtionship maintenance time".

> > My guesses are as follows:
> >
> > a. The experts are so damn expert that what takes me an hour could take a minute for the expert. Thus, they are able to "serve" and they can do so in about fraction of the time.
>
> Or, they may have already *done* what you are asking -- or, something
close enough that they can easily offer guidance/opinion.
>
> > b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they don't
mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.

> Even on "down" time, you're not sitting around twiddling your thumbs! Preparing proposals, maintaining/purchasing equipment/software, "cleaning up" after previous project(s), investigating other fields
of interest/technologies, etc.

S.e.d. is a place where you can keep track of what other people are doing.

> But, again, your time is your own. Perhaps reading/posting something
here helps you prepare that proposal. Or, gives you an idea as to a new tool/equipment investment. Or, allows you to peek into other folks' past experiences to glean a bit of info about a new technology that you want to explore, etc.
>
> > c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to be rude.)
>
> Or *real* retirement! :> But, that doesn't mean they can't still be spending as many weekly hours applying their skills to other projects -- for pay, investment or otherwise!
>
> One thing I've been surprised to learn (though find it "obvious" in hindsight!) is how long it takes to disengage yourself from your
"formal" career as you retire from a consultancy. For a 9-to-5, you just *retire* -- on a particular day and at a particular time.
> The "business" persists without you. The *business* has obligations to its customers, shareholders, etc. -- those obligations don't translate to being *your* obligations!
>
> Not so in a consultancy, etc. Its a lot harder to "disentangle" yourself from clients and customers that have been *your* clients and customers -- without feeling like you are leaving them with a "problem" (finding a replacement for your services). The 9-to-5 scenario skips over that! "It's not my problem..."

The 9-to-5 scenario didn't work like that for me. Once you've got involved with your colleagues, you tend to remain involved. You aren't in a position to do much to help them after you've changed jobs, but there is always something that you can do, from time to time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Chris]

Quite disconcerting that the version describing a multiple violent homicide can be considered 'G-rated'...

--
Chris

[josephkk]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:07:44 -0700, Don Y <th...@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Anand,
>
>On 8/12/2014 9:32 PM, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:
>
>> I see most of the people who respond to questions are practicing
>----------------------------------------------------^^^ or, "were".
>Don't discount retirees, etc.
>> experts. Their job/consultancy/business is in the domain of the forum
>> where we post questions.
>>
>> (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you people have
>> the time?
>
>For folks in their own business, you have control over your own time.
>No PHB to "force" a 9-5 on you. E.g., I can work as little or as
>much as I want on any given day, EVERY day. I'm answerable to myself
>only.
>
>In the US, I've seen figures claiming as much as 2 hrs per day is
>"wasted" at the typical job -- answering email, surfing the web,
>chatting on the phone, chatting by the water cooler, etc. (all
>"personal" tasks unrelated to work)
>
>[I know this seems excessive! But, every time I've looked into it,
>the figure remains uncontested! :< ]

IME it is growing to an even higher percentage.

>
>For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction time";
>their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that
>differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something
>engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current
>workload"?
>
>> My guesses are as follows:
>>
>> a. The experts are so damn expert that what takes me an hour could take
>> a minute for the expert. Thus, they are able to "serve" and they can do
>> so in about fraction of the time.
>
>Or, they may have already *done* what you are asking -- or, something
>close enough that they can easily offer guidance/opinion.
>
>> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they don't
>> mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.
>
>Even on "down" time, you're not sitting around twiddling your thumbs!
>Preparing proposals, maintaining/purchasing equipment/software,
>"cleaning up" after previous project(s), investigating other fields
>of interest/technologies, etc.
>
>But, again, your time is your own. Perhaps reading/posting something
>here helps you prepare that proposal. Or, gives you an idea as to
>a new tool/equipment investment. Or, allows you to peek into other
>folks' past experiences to glean a bit of info about a new technology
>that you want to explore, etc.

That is part of why i am here.

>
>> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to be
>> rude.)
>
>Or *real* retirement! :> But, that doesn't mean they can't still
>be spending as many weekly hours applying their skills to other
>projects -- for pay, investment or otherwise!
>
>One thing I've been surprised to learn (though find it "obvious" in
>hindsight!) is how long it takes to disengage yourself from your
>"formal" career as you retire from a consultancy. For a 9-to-5,
>you just *retire* -- on a particular day and at a particular time.
>The "business" persists without you. The *business* has obligations
>to its customers, shareholders, etc. -- those obligations don't
>translate to being *your* obligations!
>
>Not so in a consultancy, etc. Its a lot harder to "disentangle"
>yourself from clients and customers that have been *your* clients
>and customers -- without feeling like you are leaving them with a
>"problem" (finding a replacement for your services). The 9-to-5
>scenario skips over that! "It's not my problem..."

In my current job i am an internal consultant (a subject matter expert)
for a lot of the electronic things done at my current employer. This
gives me an obvious path to exploit when i retire and go consulting
instead.

?-)

[Don Y]

Hi Bill,

On 8/13/2014 4:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 August 2014 04:07:44 UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/12/2014 9:32 PM, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:
>>> (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you
>>> people have the time?
>>
>> For folks in their own business, you have control over your own
>> time. No PHB to "force" a 9-5 on you. E.g., I can work as little
>> or as much as I want on any given day, EVERY day. I'm answerable
>> to myself only.
>>
>> In the US, I've seen figures claiming as much as 2 hrs per day
>> is"wasted" at the typical job -- answering email, surfing the web,
>> chatting on the phone, chatting by the water cooler, etc. (all
>> "personal" tasks unrelated to work).
>
> My take on that is that having a job is as much being a colleague of
> your co-workers as being an employee of your boss. It took me a while
> to get used to "wasting" time at work being sociable with the people
> I worked with, but it didn't take me all that long to realise that if
> you didn't like and trust the people you worked with, you weren't
> going to collaborate effectively with them to get the stuff done that
> the boss (and the shareholders) wanted done.

Updating your facebook page, watching YouTube videos, sending and
receiving personal email, playing with your phone, bathroom breaks,
etc. probably doesn't count as "being sociable with the people you
work with".

Note the 2 hr figure is an average -- it says nothing about particular
industries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to be in far more
meetings than "factory workers", administrative staff, etc. And,
those meetings tend to be less formal -- more "brainstorming" and
interactive.

When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were the
typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT
"on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company for
time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside
of the workplace)

Since first seeing that figure, I have become far more sensitive to
observing "regular employees" at clients' facilities, etc. I can
see how easy it would be to "lose" two hours a day! (which is
amazing as it translates to ~12 weeks of "vacation" over the course
of a year!)

> Once you get embedded in an industry, you start having to be a
> colleague of people working at ostensibly competitive organisations
> as well.

>> For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction time";
>> their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that
>> differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something
>> engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current
>> workload"?
>
> It's not "distraction time" but rather "realtionship maintenance
> time".

No. See above. Relationships are handled in project meetings,
collaborations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's
shoulder to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.

>>> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they
>>> don't mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.
>
>> Even on "down" time, you're not sitting around twiddling your
>> thumbs! Preparing proposals, maintaining/purchasing
>> equipment/software, "cleaning up" after previous project(s),
>> investigating other fields of interest/technologies, etc.
>
> S.e.d. is a place where you can keep track of what other people are
> doing.

Yes. It can be a good barometer to see where "industry" is headed
especially if your expertise lies in a more narrowly defined domain.

>>> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want
>>> to be rude.)
>>
>> Or *real* retirement! :> But, that doesn't mean they can't still
>> be spending as many weekly hours applying their skills to other
>> projects -- for pay, investment or otherwise!
>>
>> One thing I've been surprised to learn (though find it "obvious" in
>> hindsight!) is how long it takes to disengage yourself from your
>> "formal" career as you retire from a consultancy. For a 9-to-5, you
>> just *retire* -- on a particular day and at a particular time.
>> The "business" persists without you. The *business* has
>> obligations to its customers, shareholders, etc. -- those
>> obligations don't translate to being *your* obligations!
>>
>> Not so in a consultancy, etc. Its a lot harder to "disentangle"
>> yourself from clients and customers that have been *your* clients
>> and customers -- without feeling like you are leaving them with a
>> "problem" (finding a replacement for your services). The 9-to-5
>> scenario skips over that! "It's not my problem..."
>
> The 9-to-5 scenario didn't work like that for me. Once you've got
> involved with your colleagues, you tend to remain involved. You
> aren't in a position to do much to help them after you've changed
> jobs, but there is always something that you can do, from time to
> time.

Ties to friends/colleagues are different than *business* relationships
that the organization has with its customers. There are many people
that I've met and spent considerable time with *through* employers.
But, if they have a problem with something *supplied* by a (past)
employer, their problem lies *with* that employer, not me.

OTOH, if *I* developed a product for them and they want to take it in
a new direction (or, want to develop an entirely different product),
their relationship is with *me*, not "Don Y, Inc." It is often
harder for them (and me) to recognize/respect when the *business*
aspect of that relationship draws to a close (regardless of the
*personal* relationship that may also exist).

I.e., their "current problem" can shift from being a "new/continuing
contract" (with Don Y, Inc) to a "personal favor", of sorts (with
Don Y). This has proven to be the most expeditious means of bringing
that business relationship to a close -- dealing with that last,
lingering request *as* a "favor" instead of yet another billable task.
This seems to leave an unspoken message in both minds: there is a
limit to the number and sorts of "favors" you can request from a
particular *personal* (*outside* the business) relationship.

I often ask for favors from past colleagues (but, rarely from past
*clients*!). At the same time, frequently provide /pro bono/ services
to those same colleagues (effectively making these exchanges /quid
pro quo/). "Relationship maintenance". Yet, in each case (asking or
giving), we each realize we are under no obligation to provide what
is being sought.

Three weeks ago, I had to "disinfect" a laptop for a colleague.
Last week, upgrade another's XP laptop to Windows 7 (driver issues).
Today, I replaced a defective power jack in yet another colleague's
laptop ("never again!" <frown>). Tomorrow, I have to assemble
a prototype for another colleague (iff parts arrive from Digikey).
Saturday, help another assemble a small (300 sq ft) greenhouse
on his property.

[It's been an unusually busy month :< ]

Each effort strengthens those already existing relationships. Folks
tend not to waffle when *I*, in turn, need a little help on something.

[Don Y]

Hi Joseph,

On 8/13/2014 8:36 PM, josephkk wrote:

[attrs elided]

>>> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they don't
>>> mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.
>>
>> Even on "down" time, you're not sitting around twiddling your thumbs!
>> Preparing proposals, maintaining/purchasing equipment/software,
>> "cleaning up" after previous project(s), investigating other fields
>> of interest/technologies, etc.
>>
>> But, again, your time is your own. Perhaps reading/posting something
>> here helps you prepare that proposal. Or, gives you an idea as to
>> a new tool/equipment investment. Or, allows you to peek into other
>> folks' past experiences to glean a bit of info about a new technology
>> that you want to explore, etc.
>
> That is part of why i am here.

I think for folks with narrow application domains or "niche" skillsets,
there isn't as much appeal, here. Chances are, they may already know
a good deal of what needs to be known in that narrow field.

OTOH, if you (like me) are "all over the place" withthe variety of
problems you are called on to (or interested in!) address, then the
variety, here, is an asset. Particularly if you are good at abstract
thought -- being able to *imagine* how a particular technology can
be exploited in a different manner to address a problem in which you
have an interest. (sadly, many people seem incapable of this level
of abstract thought: "Why do you want to do that?" being their
response to your queries)

>>> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to be
>>> rude.)
>>
>> Or *real* retirement! :> But, that doesn't mean they can't still
>> be spending as many weekly hours applying their skills to other
>> projects -- for pay, investment or otherwise!
>>
>> One thing I've been surprised to learn (though find it "obvious" in
>> hindsight!) is how long it takes to disengage yourself from your
>> "formal" career as you retire from a consultancy. For a 9-to-5,
>> you just *retire* -- on a particular day and at a particular time.
>> The "business" persists without you. The *business* has obligations
>> to its customers, shareholders, etc. -- those obligations don't
>> translate to being *your* obligations!
>>
>> Not so in a consultancy, etc. Its a lot harder to "disentangle"
>> yourself from clients and customers that have been *your* clients
>> and customers -- without feeling like you are leaving them with a
>> "problem" (finding a replacement for your services). The 9-to-5
>> scenario skips over that! "It's not my problem..."
>
> In my current job i am an internal consultant (a subject matter expert)
> for a lot of the electronic things done at my current employer. This
> gives me an obvious path to exploit when i retire and go consulting
> instead.

For me, retirement is choosing my *own* projects/problems to solve;
not waiting for someone to be willing to pay me to solve one of
*theirs* (in which I may/maynot have an interest). I.e., taking
the skills others have *paid* me to learn/refine and appying those
to problems that *I* find interesting!

[Don Y]

On 8/13/2014 8:40 PM, Don Y wrote:

> I often ask for favors from past colleagues (but, rarely from past
> *clients*!). At the same time, frequently provide /pro bono/ services
> to those same colleagues (effectively making these exchanges /quid
> pro quo/). "Relationship maintenance". Yet, in each case (asking or
> giving), we each realize we are under no obligation to provide what
> is being sought.
>
> Three weeks ago, I had to "disinfect" a laptop for a colleague.
> Last week, upgrade another's XP laptop to Windows 7 (driver issues).
> Today, I replaced a defective power jack in yet another colleague's
> laptop ("never again!" <frown>). Tomorrow, I have to assemble
> a prototype for another colleague (iff parts arrive from Digikey).
> Saturday, help another assemble a small (300 sq ft) greenhouse
> on his property.
>
> [It's been an unusually busy month :< ]

And, to prove that no good deed goes UNPUNISHED: I now find a
request (in my inbox) for a multitasking executive for Arduino!

(sigh) I guess I'll be reading up on Arduino's, now...

[Phil Hobbs]

You also have to count the time people spend doing work stuff outside
office hours. People are expected to be on call, and deadlines keep
getting shorter, so lots of stuff has to be done in the evening or on
weekends. IME Americans are pretty hard working in general.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 14 August 2014 13:40:16 UTC+10, Don Y wrote

> On 8/13/2014 4:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 August 2014 04:07:44 UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2014 9:32 PM, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:
>
> >>> (Without being rude and with no other intention) How do you
> >>> people have the time?

<snip>

> >> In the US, I've seen figures claiming as much as 2 hrs per day is"wasted" at the typical job -- answering email, surfing the web, chatting on the phone, chatting by the water cooler, etc. (all "personal" tasks unrelated to work).
> >
> > My take on that is that having a job is as much being a colleague of your co-workers as being an employee of your boss. It took me a while to get used to "wasting" time at work being sociable with the people I worked with, but it didn't take me all that long to realise that if you didn't like and trust the people you worked with, you weren't going to collaborate effectively with them to get the stuff done that the boss (and the shareholders) wanted done.

> Updating your facebook page, watching YouTube videos, sending and

receiving personal e-mail, playing with your phone, bathroom breaks, etc. probably doesn't count as "being sociable with the people you work with".

Nor did I suggest that it was. YouTube Videos, playing with your phone and bathroom breaks definitely don't. Personal e-mail could be a grey area.

> Note the 2 hr figure is an average -- it says nothing about particular industries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to be in far more meetings than "factory workers", administrative staff, etc. And, those meetings tend to be less formal -- more "brainstorming" and interactive.

Your two hour figure wasn't backed up by any obvious research so has to be understood as "a significant amount of time".

> When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were the typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside of the workplace).

Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of attention.

> Since first seeing that figure, I have become far more sensitive to observing "regular employees" at clients' facilities, etc. I can see how easy it would be to "lose" two hours a day! (which is amazing as it translates to ~12 weeks of "vacation" over the course of a year!).

Why bother? Getting excited about how employees structure their work is the kind of moronic make-work that personnel departments tend to get excited about - when they aren't busy with their proper job which seems to be rejecting well-qualified job applicants and scheduling obvious no-hopers for job interviews.

> > Once you get embedded in an industry, you start having to be a colleague of people working at ostensibly competitive organisations as well.
>
> >> For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction time"; their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current workload"?
> >

> > It's not "distraction time" but rather "relationship maintenance time".

>
> No. See above. Relationships are handled in project meetings, collaborations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's shoulder to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.

That's more where relationships come apart. Putting them back together again requires a less driven environment.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[David Eather]

Ahh you forgot...

Once you fix, repair or modify something for free they expect expect a
lifetime warranty on the item no matter what goes wrong.

[Don Y]

Hi David,

Actually, that hasn't been the case for me! Most of these "favors"
are either for "professional colleagues" or "friends" (almost never
for "acquaintances").

Colleagues understand the significance of the effort -- i.e., I get
*paid* for similar types of work (just like THEY get paid for the
types of work I extract from *them* as "favors"). The fellow who's
laptop's power jack I repaired today would be chagrined if he knew
the extent of the effort (buying -- my expense -- the replacement
part, tearing the laptop down to *nothing*, machining the case for
the new/revised replacement part, reassembling the laptop, then
testing all of the laptop's functionality to ensure I haven't left
a WiFi antenna disconnected or damaged an internal speaker, etc.)

Similarly, friends understand that I am making a gift of my personal
time to them for <whatever>. "Friends" don't abuse this sort of
thing -- out of fear of *losing* it! It's a personal imposition and
making it lightly/too often is likely to find a future request
(which may be VERY IMPORTANT) met with a polite, "Sorry, I'm busy"
(after all, my time is *mine* to decide how to spend).

Of course, the same is true in reverse -- if I ask for a design of
a small power supply and *happen* to specify a particular mechanical
envelope that makes component selection unexpectedly difficult
(unforeseen at the time the favor is agreed to), I'm not going to
hear a lot of griping about how "big" the favor has turned out to be!
(just like you don't gripe to a client about a bad estimate on YOUR
part for one of their projects! Learn... remember for "next time"!)

"Acquaintances" usually have no idea of the effort involved (not
usually involved in similar industries). And, probably not as
willing to *reciprocate* -- THEIR time is ALWAYS more valuable
than *yours*! :>

(And, a "freebie" for a business often leads to requests for OTHER
freebies -- as they attempt to minimize their costs!)

[John S]

You didn't read the post for understanding, did you?

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/08/14 04:47, Don Y wrote:
> I think for folks with narrow application domains or "niche" skillsets,
> there isn't as much appeal, here. Chances are, they may already know
> a good deal of what needs to be known in that narrow field.
>
> OTOH, if you (like me) are "all over the place" withthe variety of
> problems you are called on to (or interested in!) address, then the
> variety, here, is an asset. Particularly if you are good at abstract
> thought -- being able to *imagine* how a particular technology can
> be exploited in a different manner to address a problem in which you
> have an interest. (sadly, many people seem incapable of this level
> of abstract thought: "Why do you want to do that?" being their
> response to your queries)

:), or should I mean ":("

> For me, retirement is choosing my *own* projects/problems to solve;
> not waiting for someone to be willing to pay me to solve one of
> *theirs* (in which I may/maynot have an interest). I.e., taking
> the skills others have *paid* me to learn/refine and appying those
> to problems that *I* find interesting!

Yes too true, but I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
I'll remember that!

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 8/9/14 3:39 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>
...

> We're working for you, but we're not working for money. We're working
> for satisfaction -- even coming back on and saying "thanks for your
> effort, guys, I found the answer somewhere else" will give us more
> satisfaction than not saying anything.

Tim, i will peak at some of the responses, but i don't have time to read
all 50 or so. so someone else may have already pointed this out (lemme
know):

sometimes, getting the question formed into a "Good question", is nearly
sufficient to get the OP to answer the question. the answer becomes
evident. that's sometimes where it is legit to ask poorly-formed
questions and get help by straightening out the question into a
well-formed question that them "experts" (whoever they are) will have
enough to know when each unanswered element of the question is actually
answered.

i've found use in reading (usually regarding communications engineering,
which i am not really involved in) responses to not-well-defined
questions that forced the OP to refine the question to a state where it
actually means something tangible and specific. so, even though these
OPs don't make our life easy by asking such questions, sometimes others
just as dumb as the OP (like me) can learn something seeing these
specific elements emerge in the nascent "good question".

i'm gonna select some answers (Eric et.al.) and if i miss a good
subthread of this thread, someone lemme know please.


--

r b-j r...@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[Don Y]

Hi Tom,

I honestly can't understand a mindset that sticks to one skillset,
application domain, etc. for an entire career. To me, it would be
like "digging ditches" -- regardless of the pay level and/or proficiency
attained, it's just "the same thing, over and over" ("Oooo! The soil
here has a high concentration of loam -- instead of clay!" <shrug>)

How many power supplies do you design before you say, "Um, I'm pretty
sure I've got this skill 'down'..." and ache to move onto something
new? How many different sort() routines? User interfaces? Math
packages, etc.?

Similarly, there's a point at which it gets harder and harder to find
folks who are willing to pay you to learn something "new" (to you).
At that point, it's inevitable that you become a "ditch-digger" (though
you now have a larger variety of "ditches" to choose between).

So, if you want continued variety and challenge, you have to resort
to your own imagination: "Gee, wouldn't it be great if...".

Of course, deciding when you can "afford" to do that is a matter of
personal comfort: how well you've saved/invested, how comfortable
you are in your assessment of your own future need$, life expectancy,
number and types of folks who "depend" on you and the extent of your
commitment to them, physical/mental condition and prognosis, etc.

On the flip side, how much capacity to undertake new ideas and concepts
do you expect to have as you get older? Given that you don't *already*
have something under your belt, are you confident that you'll have the
mental and physical skills to "pick it up" when you're 60? 65? 70?
What recourse will you have if the above proves NOT to be the case?
(blindness, tremor, stroke, fatigue, respiratory problems, memory,
hearing, dexterity, strength, etc.)

[Dunno about you, but I find the things that I want to learn get more
taxing -- perhaps because they *are* more complex! -- to pick up as
I get older! E.g., the idea of learning another foreign language at
my age would be far too frustrating! It's a challenge for me just to
resolve the subtle differences among the sounds of English speech in
order to understand fine differences in pronunciation rules at my
current "state of decay"^H^H^H age! :> ]

(sigh) Off to deliver some goodies...

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/08/14 18:28, Don Y wrote:
> I honestly can't understand a mindset that sticks to one skillset,
> application domain, etc. for an entire career. To me, it would be
> like "digging ditches" -- regardless of the pay level and/or proficiency
> attained, it's just "the same thing, over and over" ("Oooo! The soil
> here has a high concentration of loam -- instead of clay!" <shrug>)

Counterexample, probably apocryphal, but who cares...

A newly minted maths graduate got a job assembling
vacuum cleaners. After a few months they realised he
was capable of more, and repeatedly gently tried to
get him to move into management etc. Eventually they
asked him why not.

He replied that he deliberately got a job that he
could learn in 30mins and thereafter do mindlessly.
Why? Because while he was ostensibly assembling
vacuum cleaners, actually he was indulging in his
passion: playing games of chess.

I've always admired someone that can work out what's
/really/ important to them, and then find a way to
achieve it.

[Don Y]

Hi Tom,

Exactly! I'm not advocating folks follow *my* approach to
life, career, etc. Rather, indicating what I, early on,
realized was "really important to me" and how I went about
getting that out of my life, career, etc.

E.g., I have stubbornly resisted management roles beyond
"project management". And, even there, have limited my
"touch" to ensuring everyone on the team has what they
need to do their job (*my* view of a manager's true role!)
instead of "playing policeman".

I've a friend who was essentially "set for life" in his
20's. He's moved on -- but to more expensive versions of
what he was doing "back then". From my perspective, a
"waste of talent" -- as he was immensely capable of doing
anything he set his mind to! *But*, he is apparently happy
(and very $ucce$$ful!) doing it.

[*I* would rather trade potential $$ for the ability to reclaim
*my* time on the planet]

So, what "works" for one may not for another.

[Tim Wescott]

Well, yes. I had a coworker once who's professed ambition was to recharge
his unemployment and then start gently pissing off the boss until he was
laid off (the boss never fired anyone -- he laid them off, and then hired
a replacement. Anyone who's employed people knows how kosher that is).
Then when his unemployment ran out, he'd apply for work again.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[Spehro Pefhany]

Yeah, I hired a guy like that once. He gradually damaged more and more
expensive equipment and tools until he was laid off. Serially
unemployed.

--sp

[Tim Wescott]

OK, my guy just went up in my estimation. He never damaged equipment,
just mouthed off and got slower and slower until he was let go.

[Don Y]

Hi Tim,

A friend "periodically" sent his wife back to work... just long
enough to get through the probationary period. Wages were immaterial.
What he wanted was access to the health insurance policy (through
COBRA -- as her time working wouldn't cover the costs of day-care
for the kids). Then, convert to COBRA for 102% and 18months later
repeat the process.

[Don Y]

Hi Bill,

On 8/13/2014 11:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

>> Note the 2 hr figure is an average -- it says nothing about
>> particular industries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to be
>> in far more meetings than "factory workers", administrative staff,
>> etc. And, those meetings tend to be less formal -- more
>> "brainstorming" and interactive.
>
> Your two hour figure wasn't backed up by any obvious research so has
> to be understood as "a significant amount of time".

I wasn't trying -- or intending -- to defend it. Merely offering
it as an observation.

<http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200707/time.html> as one starting
point. You can feel free to use google to dig deeper.

"The 2007 Wasting Time Survey by Salary.com, which asked 2,000
employees across all job levels about how they spend their working
hours, found employees waste an average of 1.7 hours of an 8.5-hour
workday. This represents a decline from last year, when workers
reported wasting an average of 1.89 hours each day."

I.e., this suggests at least two such surveys.

Similar/elaborations:

<http://www.jobdig.com/articles/1345/How_Much_Personal_Business_At_Work_is_Reasonable%3F.html>
<http://officepulse.captivate.com/?page_id=1872&preview=true>

The phenomenon isn't, apparently, unique to the US:
<http://www.thelocal.se/20081215/16356>

My point (to Anand) was that folks *typically* don't work "8 hours
straight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of
"distraction"?

>> When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were the
>> typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on
>> the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company for time
>> on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside of
>> the workplace).
>
> Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of attention.

Work is for work. If you want to socialize, do it on your dime.

>> Since first seeing that figure, I have become far more sensitive to
>> observing "regular employees" at clients' facilities, etc. I can
>> see how easy it would be to "lose" two hours a day! (which is
>> amazing as it translates to ~12 weeks of "vacation" over the course
>> of a year!).
>
> Why bother? Getting excited about how employees structure their work
> is the kind of moronic make-work that personnel departments tend to
> get excited about - when they aren't busy with their proper job which
> seems to be rejecting well-qualified job applicants and scheduling
> obvious no-hopers for job interviews.

Because how your coworkers spend/waste their time has a direct impact
on the quality of *your* work experience:

Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with
co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were
among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making
personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.

Nearly 18% of employees reportedly waste time because they �don�t
have enough work to do,� while the second most popular response was
�my hours are too long� (13.9%).

While those surveyed were quick to admit wasting time at work, they
also complained about work-related activities that waste time:
Fixing someone else�s work and dealing with office politics were
the two most popular answers.

from <http://www.cnbc.com/id/19957771>.

A woman I know was recently formally reprimanded because her coworkers
were frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her "crime" was being
too polite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have anything to do but *I*
do! Could you please leave me to get my work done?"

Despite the fact that the woman is present on weekends, late nights,
etc. to ensure *her* work gets done!

>>>> For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction
>>>> time"; their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How
>>>> does that differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself
>>>> with something engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily)
>>>> germane to his "current workload"?
>>>
>>> It's not "distraction time" but rather "relationship maintenance
>>> time".
>>
>> No. See above. Relationships are handled in project meetings,
>> collaborations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's
>> shoulder to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.
>
> That's more where relationships come apart. Putting them back
> together again requires a less driven environment.

We obviously have very different experiences in the workplace!
I've found that team meetings are often the only chance you have
to REGULARLY meet with everyone associated with a project -- from
purchasing to sales/marketing to manufacturing to engineering!
If everyone visited each otehr team member individually over the
course of each week, you'd have little time to actually *do* any
work (on teams that have more than "a couple" of individuals).

Folks often don't know who might have an idea to get them out of
their current (design?) predicament. But, being able to express
their progress -- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them
to benefit from the ideas and expertise of their team-mates in a
more expeditious manner.

E.g., on a printer design many years ago, the mechanical folks were
having a tough time fitting a "ribbon (ink) sensor" in the design.
The initial approach -- an iso-optilator through which the ribbon
would pass -- required the operator to *thread* the ribbon through
the slotted detector (or, arrange for the detector/emitter to
magically "part" when the ribbon was accessed -- and similarly
realign itself when said access was complete).

Exposing the problem to the rest of the team yielded a simpler
and less costly solution (from a component cost and manufacturing
labor cost) -- as well as a more "fool-proof" solution: let the
ribbon come off the (supply) spool when it reaches the end and
then detect when the takeup spool starts "freewheeling" (due to
the sudden loss of a mechanical load). No alignment issues. No
cables to offboard sensors. Etc.

The end result is a *tighter* relationship: this person has
made my job *easier*!

[Don Y]

Something a bit more current:
<http://www.salary.com/wasting-time-at-work-2012/>

[Don Y]

Hi Phil,

Doesn't matter. My point to Anand (?) was that folks are able
to do these "non work" activities... why can't we similarly engage
in activities that *appear* NOT to be "work related"?

E.g., his question could just as easily have been posted on FACEBOOK
and been "How do you people find time to keep updating your facebook
profiles???"

(Or, on a "running" forum and been "How do you folks find the time
to run in all these marathons in various places around the country?")

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 15 August 2014 08:23:39 UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/13/2014 11:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> >> Note the 2 hr figure is an average -- it says nothing about particular industries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to be in far more meetings than "factory workers", administrative staff, etc. And, those meetings tend to be less formal -- more "brainstorming" and interactive.
> >
> > Your two hour figure wasn't backed up by any obvious research so has to be understood as "a significant amount of time".
>
> I wasn't trying -- or intending -- to defend it. Merely offering
it as an observation.
>
> <http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200707/time.html> as one starting point. You can feel free to use google to dig deeper.
>
> "The 2007 Wasting Time Survey by Salary.com, which asked 2,000 employees across all job levels about how they spend their working hours, found employees waste an average of 1.7 hours of an 8.5-hour workday. This represents a decline from last year, when workers reported wasting an average of 1.89 hours each day."
>
> I.e., this suggests at least two such surveys.

Both of them with a particular point of view.

There's a difference between wasting time at work, and spending time occupied in ways that don't immediately or obviously advance the employees perceived interest.

> Similar/elaborations:
>
> <http://www.jobdig.com/articles/1345/How_Much_Personal_Business_At_Work_is_Reasonable%3F.html>
>
> <http://officepulse.captivate.com/?page_id=1872&preview=true>
>
> The phenomenon isn't, apparently, unique to the US:
>
> <http://www.thelocal.se/20081215/16356>
>
> My point (to Anand) was that folks *typically* don't work "8 hours straight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of "distraction"?

If you called it "practice at problem appreciation and problem solving" it wouldn't be seen as a distraction.

> >> When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were the typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside of the workplace).
> >
> > Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of attention.
>
> Work is for work. If you want to socialize, do it on your dime.

Work is a collaborative activity. If you don't bother with social interactions with your co-workers, they'll be less willing - and effective - collaborators.

>
> >> Since first seeing that figure, I have become far more sensitive to observing "regular employees" at clients' facilities, etc. I can see how easy it would be to "lose" two hours a day! (which is amazing as it translates to ~12 weeks of "vacation" over the course of a year!).
> >

> > Why bother? Getting excited about how employees structure their workis the kind of moronic make-work that personnel departments tend to get excited about - when they aren't busy with their proper job which seems to be rejecting well-qualified job applicants and scheduling obvious no-hopers for job interviews.

>
> Because how your coworkers spend/waste their time has a direct impact on the quality of *your* work experience:

Sure.

>
Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with
co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were
among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.

It happens. It's better seen as spending time, rather than wasting it. Employees have an existence outside of work, and that regularly impacts on their behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly separate their work from the rest of their life might strike you as an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.

> Nearly 18% of employees reportedly waste time because they "don't have enough work to do" while the second most popular response was "my hours are too long" (13.9%).

If the employee hasn't got enough work to do, it's the employer who has wasted their time. "The hours are too long" is a less defensible explanation, but it probably wasn't actually offered as a serious justification.

> While those surveyed were quick to admit wasting time at work, they

also complained about work-related activities that waste time: Fixing someone else's work and dealing with office politics were the two most popular answers.

Neither is actually a waste of time. Nobody wants to do either, but since human beings are fallible, fixing up other people's mistakes is unvoidable, and office politics is mostly about preventing other peoples mistakes from doing too much damage.

Your obsession about "time wasting activities" is pure office politics.

>
> from <http://www.cnbc.com/id/19957771>.
>
> A woman I know was recently formally reprimanded because her coworkers were frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her "crime" was being too polite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have anything to do but *I* do! Could you please leave me to get my work done?"
>
> Despite the fact that the woman is present on weekends, late nights, etc. to ensure *her* work gets done!

Pointy-headed-bosses tend not to be present at weekends and after normal working hours, so they don't kow about that.

> >>>> For that hypothetical worker, this represents "distraction time"; their desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current workload"?
> >>>
> >>> It's not "distraction time" but rather "relationship maintenance time".
> >>
> >> No. See above. Relationships are handled in project meetings, collaborations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's shoulder to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.
> >
> > That's more where relationships come apart. Putting them back together again requires a less driven environment.
>
> We obviously have very different experiences in the workplace!
>
> I've found that team meetings are often the only chance you have
to REGULARLY meet with everyone associated with a project -- from purchasing to sales/marketing to manufacturing to engineering! If everyone visited each otehr team member individually over the course of each week, you'd have little time to actually *do* any work (on teams that have more than "a couple" of individuals).

On the electron beam tester project (1988 to 1991) I started copying my weekly reports to my boss to the rest of the team fairly early on, for reasons that made sense at the time.

By the end of the project - when the team was quite a bit bigger, some ten to fifteen people - the weekly reports had metamorphosed to a team newsletter. I'd spend Friday morning going around the team, having a few words with everybody, and put together a couple of pages of text in the afternoon, that got circulated to everybody. About a year before the project finally got cancelled, I'd pointed out to my boss that this was taking up a significant part of my time, but he told me to keep doing it - the benefits in terms of team morale were worth the time invested. And from time to time the information I picked up helped me do the systems engineer part of my job a little better.

>
> Folks often don't know who might have an idea to get them out of their current (design?) predicament. But, being able to express their progress -- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them to benefit from the ideas and expertise of their team-mates in a more expeditious manner.

Meetings aren't particularly open forums. Being honest about progress - or the lack of it - is often seen as playing office politics. People tend to be more open when there isn't an audience.

> E.g., on a printer design many years ago, the mechanical folks were

having a tough time fitting a "ribbon (ink) sensor" in the design. The initial approach -- an opto-isolator through which the ribbon would pass -- required the operator to *thread* the ribbon through the slotted detector (or, arrange for the detector/emitter to magically "part" when the ribbon was accessed -- and similarly realign itself when said access was complete).
>
> Exposing the problem to the rest of the team yielded a simpler and less costly solution (from a component cost and manufacturinglabor cost) -- as well as a more "fool-proof" solution: let the ribbon come off the (supply) spool when it reaches the end and then detect when the takeup spool starts "freewheeling" (due to the sudden loss of a mechanical load). No alignment issues. No cables to off-board sensors. Etc.

>
> The end result is a *tighter* relationship: this person has made my job *easier*!

There's a lot of that around. Most of it happens outside of meetings when one engineer is explaining a problem to another, who recognises it as a variant of a familiar problem with a familiar solution.

And your "iso-optilator" would seem to have been a photo-emitter/photodetector "fork". If you didn't want to run your ribbon through a slot, there's a "reflection" variant, where the emitter is mounted next to the detector, and only illuminated the detector is there's something in from of the emitter to reflect some of it's output.

The "free-wheeling" detection can be done with fewer extra parts, and is correspondingly more elegant, but it is less direct.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:59:15 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemyw...@myfooter.really> wrote:

I knew a plumber like that once. He was good enough at his job that
finding work was no problem but every time a contract completed he'd
always wait until UI ran out to go back to work. He "scheduled" it so
he was off summers.

However, in the case of your coworker, it's surprising he could find a
job at all. Word gets out and even if they don't say anything (good
reasons not to), people with such a poor record of employment tend to
stay unemployed.

[David Eather]

Yep, in my experience too, acquaintances are the bigger problem.

Cheers.

[Don Y]

Hi Bill,

On 8/14/2014 4:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>
>>>> Note the 2 hr figure is an average -- it says nothing about
>>>> particular industries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to
>>>> be in far more meetings than "factory workers", administrative
>>>> staff, etc. And, those meetings tend to be less formal --
>>>> more "brainstorming" and interactive.
>>>
>>> Your two hour figure wasn't backed up by any obvious research so
>>> has to be understood as "a significant amount of time".
>>
>> I wasn't trying -- or intending -- to defend it. Merely offering
>> it as an observation.
>>
>> <http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200707/time.html> as one

>> starting point.. You can feel free to use google to dig deeper.

>>
>> "The 2007 Wasting Time Survey by Salary.com, which asked 2,000
>> employees across all job levels about how they spend their working
>> hours, found employees waste an average of 1.7 hours of an
>> 8.5-hour workday. This represents a decline from last year, when

>> workers reported wasting an average of 1..89 hours each day."

>>
>> I.e., this suggests at least two such surveys.
>
> Both of them with a particular point of view.

From data SELF-REPORTED by the individuals (not gleaned from automation
of their workspaces). Will those reports be higher or lower than
"actual"?

> There's a difference between wasting time at work, and spending time
> occupied in ways that don't immediately or obviously advance the
> employees perceived interest.

I've yet to see how updating a facebook page is considered in anyone
OTHER than the individual's self-interest.

>> The phenomenon isn't, apparently, unique to the US:
>>
>> <http://www.thelocal.se/20081215/16356>
>>
>> My point (to Anand) was that folks *typically* don't work "8 hours
>> straight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of
>> "distraction"?
>
> If you called it "practice at problem appreciation and problem
> solving" it wouldn't be seen as a distraction.

But the aforementioned time *isn't* "problem appreciation" or
problem solving! It's just "goofing off".

If I choose to watch a movie in the middle of my work day, I
don't try to claim this helps me get my job done -- even if
it gives me a well-needed break/distraction. The difference
is, I can't do that at a 9-5 job -- without raising eyebrows
of my superiors and annoying (envious) my peers. EVEN IF I AM
*KNOWN* TO STAY AT WORK MANY HOURS PAST CLOSING!

>>>> When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were the
>>>> typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT
>>>> "on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company
>>>> for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities
>>>> outside of the workplace).
>>>
>>> Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of attention.
>>
>> Work is for work. If you want to socialize, do it on your dime.
>
> Work is a collaborative activity. If you don't bother with social
> interactions with your co-workers, they'll be less willing - and
> effective - collaborators.

I've been to coworkers (and employers/clients) weddings, funerals
(for family members), family barbeques, hospital bedsides, vacation
homes, etc. Had them at my home for home-cooked meals. Babysat
their children. Called on them to drive 30+ miles to fetch me and
bring me to a dentist on a weekend for an emergency root canal.
Invited them to make the 150 mile (each way) trip to *my* wedding
(paying for their hotel own accommodations). Been invited to fly
in their private aircraft, etc.

So, I guess our experiences are very different.

Or, perhaps I'm just way more gregarious than you?

>> Because how your coworkers spend/waste their time has a direct
>> impact on the quality of *your* work experience:
>
> Sure.
>
>> Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with
>> co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were
>> among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making
>> personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.
>
> It happens. It's better seen as spending time, rather than wasting

Would *napping* count as "spending time" as well?

> it. Employees have an existence outside of work, and that regularly
> impacts on their behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly
> separate their work from the rest of their life might strike you as
> an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.

IME, the separation often made for healthier relationships. You
could count on your fellows to get their job(s) done -- instead of
"goofing off" -- and also enjoy their company *outside* of that
environment. You didn't worry about them opting to "waste time"
when it was precious (to you and those around you).

> Your obsession about "time wasting activities" is pure office
> politics.

I don't think others have seen it as such. I found most "grumbling"
tended to come from folks who were trying to get work done -- while
someone else was obviously "goofing off". It breeds resentment and
gets folks thinking about poor management (how could this person
have "spare time"? Or, how could he be allowed NOT to make progress
on his portion of the project -- which will be part of the critical
path that we all share)

>> A woman I know was recently formally reprimanded because her
>> coworkers were frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her
>> "crime" was being too polite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have
>> anything to do but *I* do! Could you please leave me to get my
>> work done?"
>>
>> Despite the fact that the woman is present on weekends, late
>> nights, etc. to ensure *her* work gets done!
>
> Pointy-headed-bosses tend not to be present at weekends and after
> normal working hours, so they don't kow about that.

Ah, but her work was getting done! Why should she care? This
CLEARLY can't be "wasting time" if the workload is being met! :>

So, you spent much of your time doing what we did in a weekly meeting.
And, in our case, ANYONE who wanted elaboration on a particular issue
could freely ask -- and be heard by the person queried along with all
others present. They ask and are answered "in their own words" --
instead of words *you* have chosen to express that issue (ASSUMING
the issue is ever brought to your attention!)

>> Folks often don't know who might have an idea to get them out of
>> their current (design?) predicament. But, being able to express
>> their progress -- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them
>> to benefit from the ideas and expertise of their team-mates in a
>> more expeditious manner.
>
> Meetings aren't particularly open forums. Being honest about progress
> - or the lack of it - is often seen as playing office politics.
> People tend to be more open when there isn't an audience.

I guess you have a problem with "office politics". IME, meetings are
chances for all of the team members to share their experiences and
concerns. No one is out to "impress" anyone. Or, embarassed to
admit their problems/difficulties. If the project hits a snag, the
entire team feels the heat so it behooves everyone to identify
potential problem areas early rather than late.

> There's a lot of that around. Most of it happens outside of meetings
> when one engineer is explaining a problem to another, who recognises
> it as a variant of a familiar problem with a familiar solution.

No. That only happens when the engineers (drafstmen, purchasing agents,
etc.) *happen* to interact in the normal course of events.

E.g., the opto interrupter "problem" involved the mechanical folks
(the guys designing the case and packaging), the marketing folks
(for usability issues as well as "consumables"), the manufacturing
folks (who had to consider how they were going to assemble and
align the various bits), the guy who designed the main processor
(which would have to interface to "whatever" sensor), the guy who
designed the software (who would have to interpret the signal from
the sensor) and the guy who designed the ribbon transport mechanism
(motors, etc.)

*I* was "none of the above". Yet, it was *my* solution -- offered ONLY
because one of the above folks mentioned the problems they were having
addressing this "simple" issue IN A WEEKLY MEETING. Had someone written
it up in a "newletter"/status report, the problem would never have
risen to my attention.

Instead, having *all* of these people present, I could query the
mechanical guy about what they were trying to do and how they were
*currently* approaching the problem ("Gee, that's going to be a
real PITA for a user to replace the ribbon and get the sensor
aligned properly: 'Hmmm... it still says LOW INK'"). Then, in
the next breath (IN FRONT OF EVERYONE LISTENING IN TO OUR DISCUSSION),
query the guy who had designed the takeup motor driver: "Your driver
attempts to keep the ribbon under constant tension, right? As the
amount of ribbon decreases, the motor's speed appears to change to
ensure the same tension remains on the web. This is manifest as
a change in voltage across the motor. When the mechanical load
disappears, what will the motor see? What will the voltage across
the motor *do*?"

I.e., at this point, everyone in the room understands the idea -- and
why it works. The MechE's can see that the problem has been shifted
to the electrical domain. The software guy can see that the MOTOR
DRIVER will now be reporting "ink" status -- in a different manner
than a "simple" photointerrupter signal. The manufacturing guys know
they can skip the "remote sensor placement and alignment" steps.
The sales/marketing folks know they can now tout the EASE of
replacing consummables!

And, everyone can comment on other issues that could be consequential
to my approach. Everyone sees who is impacted by the change as well
as the relative benefit of the new approach. All in the course of a
couple of minutes out of a 60 minute meeting!

How many mini-meetings would have had to transpire if I had read that
in a "report"? How much more difficult to get a "meeting of the minds"
to come to a quick concensus -- and, have it *blessed* so it can be a
genuine action item and not something "up for review next week"!

[Tim Wescott]

Perhaps I didn't emphasize things enough -- this was all with JUST ONE
BOSS.

Mr. Employee could wrap Mr. Boss around his finger, whether it to get his
old job back, or to get laid off.

[Don Y]

Hi David,

On 8/14/2014 5:20 PM, David Eather wrote:

>> (And, a "freebie" for a business often leads to requests for OTHER
>> freebies -- as they attempt to minimize their costs!)
>
> Yep, in my experience too, acquaintances are the bigger problem.

<grin> Ages ago, the rule was "never tell anyone you work on TVs"!
Now, it's "never tell anyone you work on computers (etc.)"

(Just yesterday, approached by an acquaintance complaining about
a problem with his "computer running slow"... "Gee, maybe you need
a NEW ONE!" <frown>)

[David Eather]

Best answer I have ever heard - I'm going to use it. :-D

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 15 August 2014 10:44:06 UTC+10, Don Y wrote

> On 8/14/2014 4:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>

<snip>

> >> I.e., this suggests at least two such surveys.
> >
> > Both of them with a particular point of view.
>
> From data SELF-REPORTED by the individuals (not gleaned from automation
of their workspaces). Will those reports be higher or lower than
"actual"?

Labelling them as "wasting time surveys" does activate a particular point of view.

> > There's a difference between wasting time at work, and spending time
occupied in ways that don't immediately or obviously advance the employees perceived interest.
>
> I've yet to see how updating a facebook page is considered in anyone OTHER than the individual's self-interest.

Knowing what a "facebook" page is implies that you've wasted more time on finding out about "facebook" than I have. I'm on LinkedIn, because several of my nieces and nephews are, as well as a bunch of ex-colleagues, but I have managed to avoid facebook. Clearly you've wasted more time on it than I have.

> >> The phenomenon isn't, apparently, unique to the US:
> >>
> >> <http://www.thelocal.se/20081215/16356>
> >>
> >> My point (to Anand) was that folks *typically* don't work "8 hours straight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of "distraction"?
> >
> > If you called it "practice at problem appreciation and problem solving" it wouldn't be seen as a distraction.
>
> But the aforementioned time *isn't* "problem appreciation" or
problem solving! It's just "goofing off".

That's your opinion.

> If I choose to watch a movie in the middle of my work day, I don't try to claim this helps me get my job done -- even if it gives me a well-needed break/distraction. The difference is, I can't do that at a 9-5 job -- without raising eyebrows of my superiors and annoying (envious) my peers. EVEN IF I AM *KNOWN* TO STAY AT WORK MANY HOURS PAST CLOSING!

Choosing to watch a movie in the middle of a work day isn't something I've seen happen at work.

> >>>> When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were the typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside of the workplace).
> >>>
> >>> Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of attention.
> >>
> >> Work is for work. If you want to socialize, do it on your dime.
> >
> > Work is a collaborative activity. If you don't bother with social interactions with your co-workers, they'll be less willing - and effective - collaborators.
>

> I've been to coworkers (and employers/clients) weddings, funerals (for family members), family barbeques, hospital bedsides, vacation homes, etc. Had them at my home for home-cooked meals. Babysat their children. Called on them to drive 30+ miles to fetch me and bring me to a dentist on a weekend for an emergency root canal.Invited them to make the 150 mile (each way) trip to *my* wedding (paying for their hotel own accommodations). Been invited to fly in their private aircraft, etc.

So they have become friends. This can make for a good working environment.

> So, I guess our experiences are very different.

Probably not.

> Or, perhaps I'm just way more gregarious than you?

Impossible to say, but unlikely. I'm not wildly gregarious, but quite a few ex-colleagues are still friends.

> >> Because how your coworkers spend/waste their time has a direct impact on the quality of *your* work experience:
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >> Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.
> >
> > It happens. It's better seen as spending time, rather than wasting
>
> Would *napping* count as "spending time" as well?

Can be. Reading standards documents is definitely soporific.

> > it. Employees have an existence outside of work, and that regularly impacts on their behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly separate their work from the rest of their life might strike you as an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.
>
> IME, the separation often made for healthier relationships. You could count on your fellows to get their job(s) done -- instead of"goofing off" -- and also enjoy their company *outside* of that environment. You didn't worry about them opting to "waste time when it was precious (to you and those around you).

I didn't much care how my colleagues divided up their time provided that they got the job done.

What did upset me was a guy who spent weeks not getting anywhere on a project and failed to ask for help. When we finally found out where he'd got stuck someone else did that critical bit of high-level design (me) and he got on with turning it into detailed schematics and working out how to arrange the parts to meet the timing constraints.

If we'd been closer, I might have realised that he'd got stuck sooner.

> > Your obsession about "time wasting activities" is pure office politics.
>
> I don't think others have seen it as such. I found most "grumbling" tended to come from folks who were trying to get work done -- while someone else was obviously "goofing off".

"Obviously goofing off" is a political judgement.

> It breeds resentment and gets folks thinking about poor management (how could this person have "spare time"?

More office politics.

> Or, how could he be allowed NOT to make progress on his portion of the project -- which will be part of the critical path that we all share).

The critical path through a project is one of many. It tends to move around as one activity or another takes longer than expected. "Making progress" on an activity isn't necessarily a reflection of gross time spent. You often have to explore a lot of what turn out to be blind alleys before you can move on to the next activity.

>
> >> A woman I know was recently formally reprimanded because her coworkers were frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her "crime" was being too polite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have anything to do but *I* do! Could you please leave me to get my work done?"
> >>
> >> Despite the fact that the woman is present on weekends, late nights, etc. to ensure *her* work gets done!
> >

> > Pointy-headed-bosses tend not to be present at weekends and after normal working hours, so they don't know about that.

>
> Ah, but her work was getting done! Why should she care? This
CLEARLY can't be "wasting time" if the workload is being met! :>

It could be, but worrying about "wasted time" in that context is pure office politics.

> >>>>> It's not "distraction time" but rather "relationship maintenance time".
> >>>>
> >>>> No. See above. Relationships are handled in project meetings,
collaborations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's shoulder to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.
> >>>
> >>> That's more where relationships come apart. Putting them back together again requires a less driven environment.
> >>
> >> We obviously have very different experiences in the workplace!
> >
> > I've found that team meetings are often the only chance you have to REGULARLY meet with everyone associated with a project -- from purchasing to sales/marketing to manufacturing to engineering! If everyone visited each otehr team member individually over the course of each week, you'd have little time to actually *do* any work (on teams that have more than "a couple" of individuals).
> >
> > On the electron beam tester project (1988 to 1991) I started copying my weekly reports to my boss to the rest of the team fairly early
on, for reasons that made sense at the time.
> >
> > By the end of the project - when the team was quite a bit bigger,
some ten to fifteen people - the weekly reports had metamorphosed to a team newsletter. I'd spend Friday morning going around the team, having a few words with everybody, and put together a couple of pages of text in the afternoon, that got circulated to everybody. About a year before the project finally got cancelled, I'd pointed out to my boss that this was taking up a significant part of my time, but he told me to keep doing it - the benefits in terms of team morale were worth the time invested. And from time to time the information I picked up helped me do the systems engineer part of my job a little better.
>
> So, you spent much of your time doing what we did in a weekly meeting.

Where everybody was present and paying attention, using up our collective time budget fice times as fast.

> And, in our case, ANYONE who wanted elaboration on a particular issue
could freely ask -- and be heard by the person queried along with all others present. They ask and are answered "in their own words" -- instead of words *you* have chosen to express that issue (ASSUMING the issue is ever brought to your attention!)

Listening to somebody tell as story is a lot slower than reading an edited version of that story.

> >> Folks often don't know who might have an idea to get them out of their current (design?) predicament. But, being able to express their progress -- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them to benefit from the ideas and expertise of their team-mates in a more expeditious manner.

There's nothing expeditious about having the mechanical engineers sit there while the software guys ventilate their complaints about careless nomenclature.

> >
> > Meetings aren't particularly open forums. Being honest about progress - or the lack of it - is often seen as playing office politics. People tend to be more open when there isn't an audience.
>
> I guess you have a problem with "office politics". IME, meetings are chances for all of the team members to share their experiences and concerns.

I have a problem staying awake through long - and largely repetitive - expositions of much the same experiences and concerns. I've heard it all before, many times.

> No one is out to "impress" anyone. Or, embarrassed to
admit their problems/difficulties.

Dream on.

>If the project hits a snag, the entire team feels the heat so it behooves everyone to identify potential problem areas early rather than late.
>
> > There's a lot of that around. Most of it happens outside of meetings when one engineer is explaining a problem to another, who recognises it as a variant of a familiar problem with a familiar solution.
>
> No. That only happens when the engineers (drafstmen, purchasing agents,
etc.) *happen* to interact in the normal course of events.

In my experience that happened a lot.

> E.g., the opto interrupter "problem" involved the mechanical folk (the guys designing the case and packaging), the marketing folks (for usability issues as well as "consumables"), the manufacturing folks (who had to consider how they were going to assemble and align the various bits), the guy who designed the main processor (which would have to interface to "whatever" sensor), the guy who designed the software (who would have to interpret the signal from the sensor) and the guy who designed the ribbon transport mechanism (motors, etc.)

>
> *I* was "none of the above". Yet, it was *my* solution -- offered ONLY because one of the above folks mentioned the problems they were having addressing this "simple" issue IN A WEEKLY MEETING. Had someone written it up in a "newletter"/status report, the problem would never have
risen to my attention.

Depends who writes the newsletter.

> Instead, having *all* of these people present, I could query the mechanical guy about what they were trying to do and how they were
*currently* approaching the problem ("Gee, that's going to be a real PITA for a user to replace the ribbon and get the sensor aligned properly: 'Hmmm... it still says LOW INK'"). Then, in the next breath (IN FRONT OF EVERYONE LISTENING IN TO OUR DISCUSSION), query the guy who had designed the takeup motor driver: "Your driver attempts to keep the ribbon under constant tension, right? As the amount of ribbon decreases, the motor's speed appears to change to ensure the same tension remains on the web. This is manifest as a change in voltage across the motor. When the mechanical load disappears, what will the motor see? What will the voltage across the motor *do*?"
>

> I.e., at this point, everyone in the room understands the idea -- and why it works. The MechE's can see that the problem has been shifted to the electrical domain. The software guy can see that the MOTOR DRIVER will now be reporting "ink" status -- in a different manner than a "simple" photo-interrupter signal. The manufacturing guys know they can skip the "remote sensor placement and alignment" steps. The sales/marketing folks know they can now tout the EASE of replacing consummables!

Some of the people in the room might have understood the idea - obviously enough for it to be adopted. In any reality that I've lived in, most of them would have needed quite a bit of hand-holding before all the implications hit home.

> And, everyone can comment on other issues that could be consequential to my approach.

I've had to sit through those kinds of comments. Some of them have been consequential, but useful is rare.

> Everyone sees who is impacted by the change as well as the relative benefit of the new approach. All in the course of a couple of minutes out of a 60 minute meeting!

That only happens if the meeting has been carefully prepared. Are you sure that your boss wasn't trying to feed your ego or get you promoted out of his hair?

> How many mini-meetings would have had to transpire if I had read that in a "report"? How much more difficult to get a "meeting of the minds" to come to a quick concensus -- and, have it *blessed* so it can be genuine action item and not something "up for review next week"!

It seems likely that there were quite a few mini-meetings to prepare the way.

> > And your "iso-optilator" would seem to have been a photo-emitter/photo-detector "fork". If you didn't want to run your ribbon through a slot, there's a "reflection" variant, where the emitter is mounted next to the detector, and only illuminated the detector is there's something in from of the emitter to reflect some of it's output.

> >
> > The "free-wheeling" detection can be done with fewer extra parts, and is correspondingly more elegant, but it is less direct.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Don Y]

Hi David,

On 8/14/2014 6:50 PM, David Eather wrote:

>> (Just yesterday, approached by an acquaintance complaining about
>> a problem with his "computer running slow"... "Gee, maybe you need
>> a NEW ONE!" <frown>)
>
> Best answer I have ever heard - I'm going to use it. :-D

It's what THEY ARE THINKING! So, why disappoint them??

I worked at a non-profit that (among other things) provided
"free" computers for "folks of limited means".

The machines would inevitably come back a month or so later,
"broken".

No, it's not broken. It's just full of so much spyware and related
cruft that the CPU doesn't have time to do any REAL WORK! You'd
grumble and set about cleaning things up for these "unfortunate
folk". And, return a re-restored/"working" machine to them.

One day, I noticed the high speed CATV internet connection on the
machine I was working on: "Huh? They can't afford a computer OR
a repair service (for all the pron sites they are visiting, etc.)
yet they can afford cable TV *and* high speed internet?" Sorry
but I'll donate my time to more worthy causes! :-/

[Don Y]

Hi Bill,

On 8/14/2014 7:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, 15 August 2014 10:44:06 UTC+10, Don Y wrote

>> I've yet to see how updating a facebook page is considered in
>> anyone OTHER than the individual's self-interest.
>
> Knowing what a "facebook" page is implies that you've wasted more
> time on finding out about "facebook" than I have. I'm on LinkedIn,
> because several of my nieces and nephews are, as well as a bunch of
> ex-colleagues, but I have managed to avoid facebook. Clearly you've
> wasted more time on it than I have.

You're reasoning is specious, at best. For the record, I have NO
social media accounts -- not even LinkedIn (so, by your reasoning,
YOU have wasted more time than I!). AFAICT, I can't even *view*
Facebook pages!

I don't own a cell phone -- but that doesn't mean I don't know what a
cell phone *is* or how it is *used*!

>>>> The phenomenon isn't, apparently, unique to the US:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.thelocal.se/20081215/16356>
>>>>
>>>> My point (to Anand) was that folks *typically* don't work "8
>>>> hours straight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for
>>>> this sort of "distraction"?
>>>
>>> If you called it "practice at problem appreciation and problem
>>> solving" it wouldn't be seen as a distraction.
>>
>> But the aforementioned time *isn't* "problem appreciation" or
>> problem solving! It's just "goofing off".
>
> That's your opinion.

Please explain how updating a facebook page is "problem appreciation"?
Or, scheduling a doctor's appointment? Or stopping by the post office?
Bank? etc.

None of these needs to be done "during work hours". I've scheduled
outpatient surgery to occur during lunch breaks, etc. (clearly I
could have taken a day off for those)

>> If I choose to watch a movie in the middle of my work day, I don't
>> try to claim this helps me get my job done -- even if it gives me a
>> well-needed break/distraction. The difference is, I can't do that
>> at a 9-5 job -- without raising eyebrows of my superiors and
>> annoying (envious) my peers. EVEN IF I AM *KNOWN* TO STAY AT WORK
>> MANY HOURS PAST CLOSING!
>
> Choosing to watch a movie in the middle of a work day isn't something
> I've seen happen at work.

You've never seen a coworker watching a YouTube video? Or, streaming
video from some other source while at work?

*I* can watch a movie in the middle of my workday -- as I imagine any
of the other folks who are freelance workers can. Just like I can
choose to post to USENET during the middle of my workday (returning,
AGAIN, to Anand's question)

>>>>>> When I worked the 9-5 routine, lunch and coffee breaks were
>>>>>> the typical times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour
>>>>>> is NOT "on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging
>>>>>> the company for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't
>>>>>> count activities outside of the workplace).
>>>>>
>>>>> Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of
>>>>> attention.
>>>>
>>>> Work is for work. If you want to socialize, do it on your
>>>> dime.
>>>
>>> Work is a collaborative activity. If you don't bother with social
>>> interactions with your co-workers, they'll be less willing - and
>>> effective - collaborators.
>>
>> I've been to coworkers (and employers/clients) weddings, funerals
>> (for family members), family barbeques, hospital bedsides, vacation
>> homes, etc. Had them at my home for home-cooked meals. Babysat
>> their children. Called on them to drive 30+ miles to fetch me and
>> bring me to a dentist on a weekend for an emergency root
>> canal.Invited them to make the 150 mile (each way) trip to *my*
>> wedding (paying for their hotel own accommodations). Been invited
>> to fly in their private aircraft, etc.
>
> So they have become friends. This can make for a good working
> environment.
>
>> So, I guess our experiences are very different.
>
> Probably not.

They sure *seem* to be based on your reporting, here! People afraid to
speak up in meetings? I've seen that among the Brits (don't speak
until boss speaks to you) but it is definitely not a common practice
in any of the US firms that I've encountered! I've never seen a
technician afraid to voice a concern about a hard to test/service
design -- in front of the board's designer, project manager, sales/mktg
staff, etc. Better to address it -- and his concerns -- *now* than
catch a bunch of flack after it's released to production!

From what I have seen, coworkers tend to grumble when they see
someone else "not working" (or apparently being treated differently)
regardless of how well they have done their job.

"Lunch" and "after work" are never more than a few hours away on
any day of the week. You can defer your socializing, goofing off,
etc. until then.

Discussing "work" over lunch is fairly common. One particular client
would insist we always "lunch" at a particular sandwich shop in town.
While there, he would *forbid* me from "talking shop". Odd, why spend
lunch together if we're not going to get some business done? This is
NOT billable time so seems a perfect opportunity for him to "get
something for nothing"!

Actually, his purpose was to listen in on the conversations of the
employees of his competitor(s) who worked proximate to the sandwich
shop! Counting on *them* to chat casually about the projects they
were working on, the problems they were having, deadlines, pricing,
suppliers, etc. He'd just soak it up and file it away for later use.
NOT getting my time for free over lunch was a small price to pay
for that "recon"!

> What did upset me was a guy who spent weeks not getting anywhere on a
> project and failed to ask for help. When we finally found out where
> he'd got stuck someone else did that critical bit of high-level
> design (me) and he got on with turning it into detailed schematics
> and working out how to arrange the parts to meet the timing
> constraints.
>
> If we'd been closer, I might have realised that he'd got stuck
> sooner.

>>> Your obsession about "time wasting activities" is pure office
>>> politics.

> "Obviously goofing off" is a political judgement.

> More office politics.

> It could be, but worrying about "wasted time" in that context is pure
> office politics.

>> No one is out to "impress" anyone. Or, embarrassed to
> admit their problems/difficulties.
>
> Dream on.

(sigh) I truly feel sorry for you! Your work experiences seem
absolutely DREADFUL! You should try working somewhere where your
peers respect your efforts and are grateful for your assistance!
It is *far* more rewarding. And, usually, considerably more
innovative -- because the FRIENDLY competition pushes everyone
towards a better end result!

I know *I* enjoy being impressed by my peers -- and assume they
are equally pleased to learn something new/clever from me!

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:44:47 -0500, Tim Wescott

Any employer who hires this individual twice is nuts. Probably had
pictures of the boss and mistress.

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 15 August 2014 12:47:31 UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/14/2014 7:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 August 2014 10:44:06 UTC+10, Don Y wrote
>
> >> I've yet to see how updating a facebook page is considered in anyone OTHER than the individual's self-interest.
> >
> > Knowing what a "facebook" page is implies that you've wasted more time on finding out about "facebook" than I have. I'm on LinkedIn, because several of my nieces and nephews are, as well as a bunch of ex-colleagues, but I have managed to avoid facebook. Clearly you've wasted more time on it than I have.
>
> You're reasoning is specious, at best. For the record, I have NO social media accounts -- not even LinkedIn (so, by your reasoning, YOU have wasted more time than I!). AFAICT, I can't even *view* Facebook pages!

So you know even less about FaceBook than I do, but feel confident to assert that "updating a facebook page" is a waste of time from the employer's point of view.

> I don't own a cell phone -- but that doesn't mean I don't know what a
cell phone *is* or how it is *used*!

I do own a cell-phone, but it's not data-enabled, unlike my wife's which is paid for by her employers.

My grasp of what she does with it, and what her graduate students do with theirs, is correspondingly limited, but I do know enough to know that I don't know all that much. You seem to be less well-informed, and more confident that you know enough to pontificate about the subject.

<snip>

> > Probably not.
>
> They sure *seem* to be based on your reporting, here! People afraid to speak up in meetings? I've seen that among the Brits (don't speak
until boss speaks to you) but it is definitely not a common practice in any of the US firms that I've encountered! I've never seen a technician afraid to voice a concern about a hard to test/service design -- in front of the board's designer, project manager, sales/mktg staff, etc. Better to address it -- and his concerns -- *now* than catch a bunch of flack after it's released to production!

I worked in the UK for 22 years, but I'd worked in Australia before that - which is definitely more egalitarian than the the US or the UK - and I worked in the Netherlands - on and off - in the 1990's. Meetings are distinctly artificial environments.

> >> Or, perhaps I'm just way more gregarious than you?
> >
> > Impossible to say, but unlikely. I'm not wildly gregarious, but quite
a few ex-colleagues are still friends.
> >
> >>>> Because how your coworkers spend/waste their time has a direct impact on the quality of *your* work experience:
> >>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>>> Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.
> >>>
> >>> It happens. It's better seen as spending time, rather than wasting
> >>
> >> Would *napping* count as "spending time" as well?
> >
> > Can be. Reading standards documents is definitely soporific.
> >
> >>> it. Employees have an existence outside of work, and that regularly impacts on their behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly separate their work from the rest of their life might strike you as an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.
> >>
> >> IME, the separation often made for healthier relationships. You could count on your fellows to get their job(s) done -- instead of"goofing off" -- and also enjoy their company *outside* of that environment. You didn't worry about them opting to "waste time when it was precious (to you and those around you).
> >
> > I didn't much care how my colleagues divided up their time provided that they got the job done.
>
> From what I have seen, coworkers tend to grumble when they see someone else "not working" (or apparently being treated differently) regardless of how well they have done their job.

Most people seem to need something to grumble about. Other people's working conditions are prime grumble-fodder.

> "Lunch" and "after work" are never more than a few hours away on
any day of the week. You can defer your socializing, goofing off,
etc. until then.
>
> Discussing "work" over lunch is fairly common. One particular client
would insist we always "lunch" at a particular sandwich shop in town. While there, he would *forbid* me from "talking shop". Odd, why spend lunch together if we're not going to get some business done? This is NOT billable time so seems a perfect opportunity for him to "get something for nothing"!
>
> Actually, his purpose was to listen in on the conversations of the
employees of his competitor(s) who worked proximate to the sandwich shop! Counting on *them* to chat casually about the projects they
were working on, the problems they were having, deadlines, pricing, suppliers, etc. He'd just soak it up and file it away for later use. NOT getting my time for free over lunch was a small price to pay for that "recon"!

> > What did upset me was a guy who spent weeks not getting anywhere on a project and failed to ask for help. When we finally found out where
he'd got stuck someone else did that critical bit of high-level design (me) and he got on with turning it into detailed schematics and working out how to arrange the parts to meet the timing constraints.
> >
> > If we'd been closer, I might have realised that he'd got stuck sooner.
> >
> >>> Your obsession about "time wasting activities" is pure office politics.
>
> > "Obviously goofing off" is a political judgement.
>
> > More office politics. It could be, but worrying about "wasted time" in that context is pure office politics.
>
> >> No one is out to "impress" anyone. Or, embarrassed to admit their problems/difficulties.
> >
> > Dream on.
>
> (sigh) I truly feel sorry for you! Your work experiences seem absolutely DREADFUL! You should try working somewhere where your peers respect your efforts and are grateful for your assistance!

They always did. It didn't stop the office politics.

> It is *far* more rewarding. And, usually, considerably more innovative -- because the FRIENDLY competition pushes everyone towards a better end result!

Friendlier environments still contain people who want to look good to their co-workers and superiors. I've seen a few who took it more seriously than others - at least two of them went on to fairly stellar careers, but the others crashed and burned when reality caught up with them.

> I know *I* enjoy being impressed by my peers -- and assume they
are equally pleased to learn something new/clever from me!

That's fun, but it's rarely the whole of what's going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[tim]

Oh, Mr. boss is in the clear then -- it was way more than twice.

And no, it wasn't goat pictures.

(You have to know both of them. I couldn't stand working there, but
after I'd been away for a few years Mr. Boss and I became friends.)



--
www.wescottdesign.com

[josephkk]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:47:28 -0700, Don Y <th...@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Joseph,
>
>On 8/13/2014 8:36 PM, josephkk wrote:
>
>[attrs elided]
>
>>>> b. The experts are in between two consultancy contracts and they don't
>>>> mind tickling their fancy with newbie questions.
>>>
>>> Even on "down" time, you're not sitting around twiddling your thumbs!
>>> Preparing proposals, maintaining/purchasing equipment/software,
>>> "cleaning up" after previous project(s), investigating other fields
>>> of interest/technologies, etc.
>>>
>>> But, again, your time is your own. Perhaps reading/posting something
>>> here helps you prepare that proposal. Or, gives you an idea as to
>>> a new tool/equipment investment. Or, allows you to peek into other
>>> folks' past experiences to glean a bit of info about a new technology
>>> that you want to explore, etc.
>>
>> That is part of why i am here.

>
>I think for folks with narrow application domains or "niche" skillsets,
>there isn't as much appeal, here. Chances are, they may already know
>a good deal of what needs to be known in that narrow field.

Not sure if i am narrow or not. I am certainly uneven over the domain of
electrical engineering. Some licks in arc flash, medium voltage
switchgear, fiber optics, cellular data communication, CCTV, computer
programming and other areas.
>
>OTOH, if you (like me) are "all over the place" with the variety of

>problems you are called on to (or interested in!) address, then the
>variety, here, is an asset. Particularly if you are good at abstract
>thought -- being able to *imagine* how a particular technology can
>be exploited in a different manner to address a problem in which you
>have an interest. (sadly, many people seem incapable of this level
>of abstract thought: "Why do you want to do that?" being their
>response to your queries)

That is more like me. I tend to get drug in every time the going gets
rough. Kind of a specializing generalist (here learn this an a few days
though the person you are supposed to help had months).
>
>>>> c. Some of them are in semi-retirement. (No, no, no, I don't want to be
>>>> rude.)
>>>
>>> Or *real* retirement! :> But, that doesn't mean they can't still
>>> be spending as many weekly hours applying their skills to other
>>> projects -- for pay, investment or otherwise!
>>>
>>> One thing I've been surprised to learn (though find it "obvious" in
>>> hindsight!) is how long it takes to disengage yourself from your
>>> "formal" career as you retire from a consultancy. For a 9-to-5,
>>> you just *retire* -- on a particular day and at a particular time.
>>> The "business" persists without you. The *business* has obligations
>>> to its customers, shareholders, etc. -- those obligations don't
>>> translate to being *your* obligations!
>>>
>>> Not so in a consultancy, etc. Its a lot harder to "disentangle"
>>> yourself from clients and customers that have been *your* clients
>>> and customers -- without feeling like you are leaving them with a
>>> "problem" (finding a replacement for your services). The 9-to-5
>>> scenario skips over that! "It's not my problem..."
>>
>> In my current job i am an internal consultant (a subject matter expert)
>> for a lot of the electronic things done at my current employer. This
>> gives me an obvious path to exploit when i retire and go consulting
>> instead.

>
>For me, retirement is choosing my *own* projects/problems to solve;
>not waiting for someone to be willing to pay me to solve one of
>*theirs* (in which I may/maynot have an interest). I.e., taking
>the skills others have *paid* me to learn/refine and appying those
>to problems that *I* find interesting!

I am expecting to take a similar route. I can do the same thing for some
years running but it gets boring. I want to keep learning. This is a
good time for it as well.

?-)

[Don Y]

Hi Joseph,

On 8/14/2014 9:56 PM, josephkk wrote:

>>>> But, again, your time is your own. Perhaps reading/posting something
>>>> here helps you prepare that proposal. Or, gives you an idea as to
>>>> a new tool/equipment investment. Or, allows you to peek into other
>>>> folks' past experiences to glean a bit of info about a new technology
>>>> that you want to explore, etc.
>>>
>>> That is part of why i am here.
>>
>> I think for folks with narrow application domains or "niche" skillsets,
>> there isn't as much appeal, here. Chances are, they may already know
>> a good deal of what needs to be known in that narrow field.
>
> Not sure if i am narrow or not. I am certainly uneven over the domain of
> electrical engineering. Some licks in arc flash, medium voltage
> switchgear, fiber optics, cellular data communication, CCTV, computer
> programming and other areas.

I know people who have done THE SAME THING for 30+ years. Each
new version teaches them "nothing" -- but, it is "safe" and
"nonthreatening". I've been known to tell clients/employers who
would make comments like: "Maybe we'll do that in the NEXT version"
that "Well, I won't be here for that..."

(I don't learn anywhere near as much doing something AGAIN as I
do The First Time)

>> OTOH, if you (like me) are "all over the place" with the variety of
>> problems you are called on to (or interested in!) address, then the
>> variety, here, is an asset. Particularly if you are good at abstract
>> thought -- being able to *imagine* how a particular technology can
>> be exploited in a different manner to address a problem in which you
>> have an interest. (sadly, many people seem incapable of this level
>> of abstract thought: "Why do you want to do that?" being their
>> response to your queries)
>
> That is more like me. I tend to get drug in every time the going gets
> rough. Kind of a specializing generalist (here learn this an a few days
> though the person you are supposed to help had months).

Often, people can't see outside their own past experiences. So,
they instinctively want to repeat a previous design/approach to a
problem -- without thinking if there might be a better/different
way to approach it IN THIS SITUATION.

For example, pharmaceuticals are controlled by their dosages -- i.e.,
the weights of their active ingredients. "100mg Tylenol3", "10mg
Valium", etc. You obviously don't want a 120mg tablet dispensed as
if a 100mg tablet!

But, weighing individual tablets is virtually impossible. They are
produced at speeds of ~100 per second. Heck, you couldn't even weigh
a batch of 100 in the time the NEXT 100 were produced!

So, you don't look at "weight". Instead, you look at something
RELATED to weight... something that you can measure at ~100Hz!

Most tablets are produced on rotary tablet presses. A fixed geometry
"die" ("mold") is filled with "granulation" ("tablet in powdered form")
and then compressed (up to 10tons) to give the tablet its cohesive,
solid form. The die has fixed outer dimensions and a variable (servo
controlled) *depth*. Increase the depth, and there is more volume
available *in* the die for the granulation --> increased weight!

In one scheme, the cavity is compressed to a fixed final dimension
(essentially, the final dimensions of the tablet, more or less).
If you watch the pressure exerted on the tablet as it is compressed
to that size, you can correlate this with an actual mass/weight!
If the force is too high, that particular tablet is too heavy; too
low and it is too light. In each case, you can choose to discard
*that* tablet in real time.

In another scheme (e.g., patent issues!), the force exerted on the
powder is held constant and the dimensions are allowed to vary
(small amounts). If the measured dimensions of a tablet AT THE
TIME OF COMPRESSION are greater than expected, it's too heavy;
similarly, too small indicates too light!

In each case, you can use observations to control the depth of the
cavity so that FUTURE tablets trend to the correct target weight
(as indicated by size or force).

Someone focusing on weight will invest lots of effort trying to
come up with a scale that operates (and settles) in < 10ms. A
foolhardy goal! You need people who are able to step back and
look at other disciplines to see more realistic solutions in a
given set of circumstances.

>>> In my current job i am an internal consultant (a subject matter expert)
>>> for a lot of the electronic things done at my current employer. This
>>> gives me an obvious path to exploit when i retire and go consulting
>>> instead.
>>
>> For me, retirement is choosing my *own* projects/problems to solve;
>> not waiting for someone to be willing to pay me to solve one of
>> *theirs* (in which I may/maynot have an interest). I.e., taking
>> the skills others have *paid* me to learn/refine and appying those
>> to problems that *I* find interesting!
>
> I am expecting to take a similar route. I can do the same thing for some
> years running but it gets boring. I want to keep learning. This is a
> good time for it as well.

It's great because YOU set the goals, YOU set the criteria, YOU set
the timeframe, etc. YOU drive the process -- wherever you want it
to go! Instead of a boss/client/marketdroid/beancounter telling you
what/how to design!

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/08/14 01:14, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> I knew a plumber like that once. He was good enough at his job that
> finding work was no problem but every time a contract completed he'd
> always wait until UI ran out to go back to work. He "scheduled" it so
> he was off summers.

Half a lifetime ago I was backpacking around Europe and ended
up living in a cave (literally, albeit with all mod cons) at Oia
in Santorini looking down and across The caldera. Not buying such
a place was probably the biggest missed financial opportunity
in my life, but I digress.

The owner was away: he spent six months working his 'nads off
in Saudi during the winter, and six months recuperating in that
cave.

The reasons I didn't do something similar was that I enjoyed
my work more, and I have an aversion to working anywhere where
you need an exit visa.

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/08/14 07:29, Don Y wrote:
> I know people who have done THE SAME THING for 30+ years. Each
> new version teaches them "nothing" -- but, it is "safe" and
> "nonthreatening".

Whenever/wherever I've been an interviewer it has been
a priority to weed out people with "10 years experience"
that is really "10*1 years experience".

[Don Y]

Hi Tom,

I meet people with all sorts of "track histories". You can
find someone who's been stuck in a really lengthy project
for a LONG TIME; or, someone who has been dealing with little
"bite sized" projects.

I like to let them describe something they are comfortable/proud
of -- in enough detail taht I have a basic idea of what was
involved. Then, ask them what they did "wrong"... what they would
do *differently* if they started the same project, NOW.

If technology has changed in the intervening time (recall, I let
*them* pick the project to describe), then they might offer up
something like, "instead of a bunch if discrete TTL, I would
implement the entire machine in a fast MCU (or FPGA or full
custom or...)". If it was something coded in language X, they
might offer up doing it in a different language and/or programming
paradigm.

The point is to see what they have *learned* -- if they have developed
the skills necessary to criticize their past efforts... or, if they
just dismiss them and move on once they are "done".

[k...@attt.bizz]

I once became fairly good friends with a guy who became my boss. We
were out to diner one night and his wife asked how he was to work for.
I said he was a great guy but a terrible manager. She laughed and
said that she suspected as much. Neither of us wanted me in that
department, basically because I was working for his manager (who was
my previous manager) and always went around him. If there is
something keeping me from doing my job, it is my job to go around it,
even if it is my boss. ;-)