Re: Up the Organization!
Up the Organisation is indeed a superb book. One of the three management books anyone trying to run anything must - simply must - read.
The other two are The Peter Principle and Parkinson's Law.
1381 posts • joined 12 Feb 2008
As you say, regulations must be passed into domestic law. In the UK breach of this one carries a penalty of up to 6 months in jail and or a fine of up to £5,000. As with the jams, jellies, marmalades stuff and so on.
And you're specifically missing the point I did make. The problem is not that there are standards. The problem is that the standards become law.
Industry standards are industry standards, criminal law* is criminal law, the two are not the same and shouldn't be.
Which is actually the base complaint about the EU regulatory system. It's mixing those two things which should not be mixed.
*Yes, it's criminal, not civil, because you can't go to jail for civil things.
No, EU law applies across the EU. It's just that the UK - with a small assist from Ireland - is the only common law jurisdiction. Therefore the stupidity of this sort of detailed legislative regulation is more obvious to us than to those in the generally Roman system on the continent.
Apart from anything else we generally believe that anything important enough to be actual law must be obeyed. A charmingly civilised idea but not one that stands up to centuries of fonctionnaires.
He's not Tim Worstall, no, but I am.
It is actually true that the law stated that Class I bananas for direct human consumption must be free of excessive curvature. Breaching this was a criminal offence punishable by up to 6 months in jail and or a £5,000 fine.
That's not a myth at all.
The EU's defence of this was as follows. There exist industry standards as to what is Class I,Class II and so on. There are industry standards on all sorts of things, obviously enough. I even wrote one myself, the standardised scandium contract for the Minor Metals Traders Association.
Some part of the UN collects all those from the food industry into the Codex Alimentarus. This is entirely sensible. People trying to get into the industry can go look the standards up. Great.
The EU then went that one step further. They said that the industry standards must become, in detail, law. This is very stupid indeed.
Using the common law approach would be sensible. "If you say you're Class I 'nananananas and you're not then that's lying in trade which is an offence" and why not?
Saying that, "in the law, here's the entire and total definition currently used by industry and it's a criminal offence to do anything different" is stupid. Say people want to start eating not Cavendish but some or other of the hundreds of types of 'nanas? Which have more curvature? Say someone even just thinks about importing some to see? It's now necessary to go change the law in 28 countries plus a number of devolved administrations. Yes, the law must both be in Welsh and passed by the Senned.
What have we just done therefore? We set in stone the regulatory system as it was when written. We've entirely - because changing the law in 28 countries just to try an experiment and see if there's demand isn't going to work - closed off any adaptations, changes, moderations in those regulations.
The common law approach - if you say you meet Codex Alimentarus standards then you should - means that experimentation, growth, etc are possible. Because they can be changed just the once. Worth recalling that at some point, as a clone, the Cavendish is going to go the way of the Gros Michel and we'll all be eating some other cultivar.
The transposition of industry standards, in detail, into law entirely removes any adaptability. And we live in a world of changing tastes, changing technologies, therefore adaptability is the one thing that we must have.
Bendy bananas is actually a perfect example of the problem with EU regulation. It really is true that bendy bananas were a criminal offence. Then there's the claims from the EU that oh no they weren't. Followed by their complete incomprehension of the actual problem. We shouldn't have detailed, written, rules and laws at this level of detail. We need to regulate at a higher level of abstraction because we must have more adaptability in those details than using the legal system allows.
As I say, the perfect example of EU regulation. And why we must leave of course. Having the anal retentives writing the detailed rules which govern an economy of 500 million people just doesn't work over time. Therefore we shouldn't do that. The EU does and always will - Ceterum Censeo Unionem Europeam Esse Delendam.
"And in case you're wondering a "keiretsu" – which Byrne refers to repeatedly in the press release is a Japanese term meaning a group of companies that informally work together. It is often, though not always, equivalent to what Western nations would called a "cartel.""
More like a group of companies with shareholdings in each other and thus informally coordinated. They are often - usually - in wildly different industries, so it's not a cartel. Say, "Mistubishi Shipbuilding" and "Mitsubishi Cars" and "Mitsubishi Electronics " (I am only certain of the existence of one of those) as making up a Keiretsu. As opposed to a cartel, which would be more like "Mitsubishi Cars" and "Honda Cars" and "Nissan Cars" working together.
"Indium is going to run out in 20 years if we carry on using it the way we do," said professor David Cole-Hamilton, vice President of European nonprofit EUChem"
Yes, that's complete bollocks.
We don't have any recorded reserves of indium at all. From the USGS:
And we haven't had any reserves either. And yet we still get indium each and every year.
It's almost as if Wikipedia is correct here:
"Thus, the availability of indium is fundamentally determined by the rate at which these ores are extracted, and not their absolute amount."
Very slight correction. Titanium's pretty easy. Well, OK, but to explain.
To get to titania, titanium dioxide, is pretty simple. That's why it costs $400 or so a tonne. Take ilmenite (maybe $50 a tonne, thereabouts) and dissolve in sulphuric. Or, alternatively, add coal, chlorine, and light. Nice exothermic reaction - thus self sustaining - and TiCl is a gas at these temperatures, you can distill it out of the other stuff. For the varied gases solidify again at different temperatures, have a long tube that gradually cools and each one will pop out of the little holes along that temperature gradient. Convert back to TiO2 once separated. Used to be one of ICI's big things, plant still exists - or did 5 years ago - up on Teeside somewhere. Hunter Chemicals now maybe?
OK, a bit more complex but not really. But the point is it's pretty cheap. That's why TiO2 is used for simple and cheap stuff like the white in white paint.
Converting the TiO2 to Ti metal, no, that's expensive. Last I looked, years back, nice Ti metal was $14 to $20 a kg.
Units of Ti are easy and cheap to get. Getting them into the form you actually want can be expensive....
Slight technical point. The REs don't in fact preferentially concentrate in the fly ash nor clinker. Pity but there it is. The germanium concentrates beautifully in the fly ash which is why we get 50% of the world's supply from that source.
Ash will have, around and about, whatever concentration was in the original coal minus the carbon. Which isn't quite enough to produce a viable concentration to extract. A number of US schemes testing this out at present and absent some environmental case - say, cleaning up ash ponds - lifting some of the cost it doesn't work.
"TBH the content doesn't seem as well argued or convincing as the more in-depth and thought-provoking analysis he used to present here."
Entirely true, here I was well paid - for which thanks - to do so. There, not so much as yet. Thus volume and rather less in any particular piece.
As to this basic idea. Yes, lots of REs in that waste. I've talked, as part of other work, to a few people looking at it. It's entirely and absolutely possible to extract. Would be a reasonable place to get my beloved scandium. Heap leaching would be a good way. A new and different acid? Sure, might be better, might not be. It's the price of doing it that matters.
One thing, no, they're not saying that this new method is selective. Rather, they started with artificial simulacrums of the real material, each sample doped with an individual RE. Which was then extracted. Using this method on the real stuff would give you a concentrate of all the REs. You can peel off the Sc and Y easily by chemical means. But all the rest have to go through one of those girt big RE plants which cost a $ billion each, minimum.
There's also significant U and Th contamination, as noted above. Which doesn't worry so much, it's the daughter products of their breakdown which do. Radium is not nice stuff and it is indeed in there as a result. Yes, really, I've talked to such people.
The real and actual trick of RE extraction would be to find a new method of doing that separation of the lanthanides. If you could do it on a smaller scale (weird but true) in smaller batches then you could take wastes from a wide variety of industrial processes. Stuff that already exists and is just thrown away today. The problem being that if you need a billion $ plant to do it then you want an input stream that is large enough, homogenous enough, to feed into a billion $ plant. If you've smaller processing plant (s) then you can use smaller batches, more heterogenous ones, as your inputs.
There is a candidate technology to do this but no one really wants to spend $50 million to try it out.
"I really wish El Reg would let Tim Worstall re-explain his rainbows and unicorns once again in a guest article. Smart guy, but one wonders in this case."
I just think the EU is a terrible system which no one should belong to, let alone us. Entirely an arguable idea but that's where it all stems from. Centralised control of the lives of 500 million people just doesn't seem to work for me.
Chacon a son gout, obviously.
All that's been said about REs so far seems fair enough. It is true that finding a deposit large enough to make it worth exploiting is tough.
But this is to do with the separation process.
Yes, separating the 15 from each other (S and Y are easy with chemical means) requires a girt big plant. Last one built cost a $ billion at least. There's really no great way around this, it just has to be large to cover all the steps. And such a large plant wants a homogenous feed. Thus, natural size of the processing plant is girt big, desiring constant feed, deposit must be girt big.
At which point the conceptual error. Or, OK, the possible error and agreed, this is a little bugbear of mine own. Change the processing method. There are alternatives that are possible. Might even be economic too. No one's really done all that much looking in recent decades - since the, say, 1960s really.
I can think of one method that does work - whether it's economic I don't - and which could be set up to take hetergeneous feedstock. So, we could do the extraction in small lots from all those waste piles and off-feeds from other processes and so on. Which neatly solves our problem of a lack of large scale deposits worth pushing through a traditional plant.
All I need is the odd £20 million to go do the research....oh, all right, I'll test it in a lab first for £50,000 if you insist.
"I get the feeling Tim vanished because..." El Ed desired to spend his editorial budget - as is his absolute right - in a different manner. No complaints from me, that's how the industry works.
Fun discussion of a recent paper:
"Children Hurt Women’s Earnings, but Not Men’s (Even in Scandinavia)
Motherhood is the biggest cause of the gender pay gap. It might take fathers to change that."
Actually, children seem to raise men's pay. In a sexually dimorphic species the arrival of children produces asymmetric responses across genders. Remarkable that really.
"A major study of Americans has punched another hole in the official British government medical advice that there's no "safe level" of drinking.
The cohort study of around 100,000 individuals found that infrequent drinkers and teetotallers had an increased risk of mortality."
That official advice reached its conclusion by the interesting tactic of not recording the outcome for teetotallers at all. Thus only showing the increasing risk from increasing consumption and neatly excising the higher risk of no consumption.
No, really, that is what they did. The bastards.
"It would be really interesting to see Worstall's opinion now that the 'leave' vote has been hijacked by zealots who really want to walk away completely. I'd be genuinely interested if he still thinks the UK will be better off crashing out with no deal, than it would just staying in the EU."
I'm one of the zealots. Leave, get out entirely, allow them to sail off to perdition as they so obviously desire. I have no desire for us, nor anyone else, to stay in an organisation that can do something as stupid as the eruo.
There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules, our exports to them face those tariffs. We decide to go for unilateral free trade. We don't charge ourselves tariffs upon the things that we desire to import. Essentially, what we did in 1846, Corn Laws and all that.
Net effect is to grow the UK economy by 3%. Yes, grow.
But I really am a zealot. I think the very existence of the EU is a bad idea, that everyone should leave it. And I believe that near whatever the economic arguments about it. Proper, full on, zealotry I'm afraid.
All most kind but I fear I'm a touch unfashionable under the current editorial dispensation.
If I were to write here on this I'd add in these three facts:
1) We only need two numbers to explain all of the observed gender earnings gap. Mothers make less than non-mothers among women (about 9% for the first child, lesser extra amounts for each subsequent). On average, of course, with all these numbers. Fathers make more than non-fathers among men, about 8% or so. Yes, always controlling for all other factors like age, education and so on.
Sexually dimorphic species - one that started out as hunter gatherers with sexual division of labour - has division of labour in child rearing. Really?
2) The stat being used is of all men and women, part and full time, within each company. Back a decade Harriet Harman and the Fawcett Society started bandying about the pay gap of this unadjusted form, part and full timers together. The Statistics Authority, in the form of Sir Michael Scholar, wrote an open letter insisting they stop. To blend in this manner was extremely misleading and more likely to confuse than inform. One can and should use part time to part time, full time to full time. So, we then get a law insisting reporting is done in the misleading manner, do we?
3) Consider what must be true if this is about discrimination. Women are cheap compared to their skills, talents and output. It is therefore possible to make a fortune by discriminating in favour of hiring that cheaper female talent. Dame Steve did exactly this in the 60s and did make that fortune. No one is doing this today. We must therefore conclude that it isn't about discrimination, even that women are not being underpaid for their output.
Then, the bit in the next comment about women who might have children but don't getting lower pay. Actually (and this is just the way the stat was collected) never married childless women in their 40s enjoy a - small to be sure, 1 or 2% - pay premium over the average male. Lesbians do too, presumably something to do with the lower incidence of children. Interestingly, gay men have a pay gap against them in reference to hetero men. Quite possibly that influence of being or not a father affecting the averages.
Give it a bit more time and we'll have a really interesting piece of research that can be done. Same sex coupledom is clearly becoming more common, as is such same sex couples having children. We will therefore be able to study a population where gender (or even sex) is divorced from primary child carer entirely. Be great fun to see what the pay gap is then.
My bet is that primary child carers would face about the same gap as women do today. Meaning that the gap is about primary child carers nowt else. But then we all do hope for confirmation in the future of our own assertions today, don't we?
Take your point, yes, but that's not what is being alleged.
"The members of the conspiracy used stolen account credentials to obtain unauthorized access to victim professor accounts, which they used to steal research, and other academic data and documents, including, among other things, academic journals, theses, dissertations, and electronic books. The defendants targeted data across all fields of research and academic disciplines, including science and technology, engineering, social sciences, medical, and other professional fields."
I do read that as breaching the academic publishing paywalls more than anything else.
"If 30+TB of data cost $3.4B this implies a cost of about $1 per kB"
That's the DoJ lying through their teeth.
Their claim is that the US universities paid about $3.4 billion for the information. Most of which was actually subscriptions to academic journals, the papers from which the Iranians downloaded.
Loss to the universities, zero. They've still got all the information they started with, still got their subscriptions and haven't paid any more for them.
Loss to the publishers like Elsevier - not, clearly, the nominal cost of the downloaded papers. But rather the loss of revenue from those papers which would have been paid for in the absence of the data theft. Obviously, some sort of sum there but it's not $3.4 billion. Tending towards $0 would be my best guess.
Wealth and income is one of those difficult problems to which there is no correct answer. Take our footballer, makes a mint for a decade, then lives off it. If we tax both wealth and income then that pattern of lifetime earnings pays more tax than earning the same total amount over a lifetime but at a lower annual rate.
Is that a fair way to do it? Dunno myself but it is a problem, one with perhaps no right answer.
My own prejudice (and it is prejudice, this is not an economic point, it's a gut feel) is that people on less than median earnings should not be paying income tax. Pigou taxes (carbon, congestion etc) yes, sin taxes yes, VAT even, but not income taxes. Those on above median should be paying for society. There's a limit on how much you can get out of them meaning that government will be smaller than it is now. But, you know, there's prejudice for you.
Re Trump's tax bill. Some bollocks in it, the cut on pass through entities is bollocksy in a bad, bad way. They already pay much less than other forms of business organisation. The personal tax cuts being time limited is a result of the silly way they measure. It's the effect upon the deficit in a decade's time which is used as the benchmark. Thus tax cuts (like some of Bush's) have a roughly decade sunset clause. The clause to benefit Trump - weeeell....that's much more like making sure than an extant break (depreciation on buildings and yes, buildings do depreciate, even if land doesn't) stays on the code rather than inventing something new.
Good stuff too. Doubling the standard allowance takes many more on less than median earnings out of the Federal tax net (which is largely, not exclusively, taxes on incomes, sales and property tax are State or even more local) which accords with my above prejudice. Limiting the mortgage deduction is good. Reducing the state tax allowance is good (for you can deduct your state and local taxes from your taxable income, thus saving your marginal Federal tax rate on what you've paid more locally. This means that high tax states are being subsidised by lower tax ones at the Federal level, shouldn't be happening at all. People want a high tax state in NY? Great, you pay for it, why should Kentucky?).
All of those above are unremittingly good.
There are good arguments either way about the corporate tax cut. The US rate is waaaay too high (even if we're going to commit the mistake of thinking that companies pay tax, rather than the true mixture of shareholders and workers in some portion). You have to add the dividend tax rate (15%) to the corporate income tax rate of 35% (because dividends can only be paid from tax paid profits, that offshore cash etc cannot be used) and standard economics says returns to capital should be taxed lower, not higher, than labour income.
But what's really interesting here is that no economist - not even Paul Krugman who really doesn't like the idea at all - is saying that it won't boost growth. It will. Absolutely. The argument instead is over "How Much?" Some trivial amount we don't care about while the plutocrats make out like bandits (copyright P Krugman) or a substantial amount that will benefit all (Trump and friends and a few others but not many).
If the state and mortgage deductions had been abolished overall I would have supported this as being excellent, whatever else was going on. Limiting them is a benefit but, you know, Meh for the overall.
"On the Soviet side, the communist state was so paranoid that earlier that month it had shot down a Korean passenger jet that had accidentally wandered into Soviet airspace,"
I spent a decade as the business partner of the nephew of the bloke who ordered that. Mixed bag, Soviet military types.....
Been there since long before my labour was liberated from here.
And there's axes to grind and simple facts. Apple borrows inside the US in order to pay dividends and buy back stock. This means it does not have to repatriate foreign profits and then pay US corporate income tax to do so.
As to whether this is a good idea or not that can be axe grinding. But the simple facts are just that, the simple facts.
Pay varying as a result of life choices is an interesting definition of unfairness.
That I understand words rather than code is obviously unfair given that freelance journos don't earn like coders perhaps? Or is it only unfair if it's because I chose this route?
The two are using different definitions. DoL tends to think that pay should be the same for roughly similar positions. Google for the same positions. Thus both can be right by their own definitions.
So, managers should get paid the same, right? HR managers should be paid the same as coding managers? Well, umm.....OK, managers of those overseeing the Goog Algo itself should get paid the same as the manager of the Doodles? Err, well, ......OK, so managers of Python coders, the managers with the same education, experience and place of work, should be paid the same, regardless of gender (or melanin content, who they try to pick up on date night etc)?
Roughly speaking mind, the DoL is towards the beginning of that cry for equal pay, Google towards the end. Who you think is right about what equal pay should mean is up to you but that is where the argument is.
The interesting question is what is going to be defined as fake news?
For example, someone claiming that global inequality is increasing. Nope, it ain't, it's falling. Poverty increasing in UK? Nope, relative poverty is, that's inequality, is. Global inequality is falling, within country is rising.
Equally, globalisation only benefits the rich.....nope, the great gainers have been the global poor.
Companies must pay more tax! Companies never carry the burden of any tax.
And so on and so on. A true scrubbing of fake news would produce a very, very, different media.....doubt it will happen though.
Well, I wouldn't say that I'd specifically go out to get phones to recycle them for the gold. But there are people who do mine them and do so productively.
There're a couple of caveats though.
1) No one metal makes the process worthwhile. If you were doing 80s PCs with 200 nm Au plating on the pins them maybe that would be enough in revenue. And if anyone's got some old analogue telephone switches then it's worth hand clipping them for the gold content (have actually watched this being done).
For modern equipment you want the Sn, Cu, Au out and maybe they'll just about cover your costs. Add in not paying Landfill Tax and you're about there.
It might be possible to go further, take the Ta out, but not much more.
2) The other side of this is what are you allowed to throw away? If, once you've started mulching stuff this becomes chemicals waste or some such, with higher disposal costs, you might well find that landfilling the original phones makes more sense.
It's a delicate balance between the two, revenue and final disposal costs. Can go either way dependent.
What certainly doesn't get paid for is the cost of collecting widely dispersed waste into one place. Paying for that has to come from elsewhere. Could be like this. Or, the people who collect today usually try out those that still work and sell them in poor countries. That's the extra revenue that makes the whole system work. Just recycling for the metals costs will not and cannot pay for the costs of the whole system, including collection.
No, sorry, not true.
I'm sure someone or other has written an article about it around here too.
Male market working hours have fallen substantially, female market working hours have risen. Male household working hours have fallen, female household working hours have fallen substantially.
Leisure hours for men and women have risen strongly over the past century.
That Keynes and only working 15 hours a week thing has in fact happened. It's the household working hours that have fallen.
"Under capitalism, technological progress results in more products, not in more leisure. Factories that improve their efficiency don’t shut down and send workers home early – workers keep the same hours and crank out more goods."
Oddly, the most remarkable change in human life over the past couple of centuries of capitalism has been the massive expansion of leisure time.
The reason being that as we get richer we take some part of our greater wealth as more leisure. The substitution effect.
But then that's what you get when you've philosophers trying to do economics.
What with given the past here and the present at Forbes. However:
"Forbes also only included companies that had more than seven years' worth of public financial data and a market value of over $10bn – thereby removing 99 per cent of the companies that do the bulk of the innovation in the world."
That last isn't really quite right. In economic terms we try to make a distinction between invention and innovation. The first is the creation of some new thing. The second is the general improvement of some thing through multiple iterations.
Small companies are generally more inventive than large. And large generally more innovative than small.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020