"Today" cycling item update

[James Annan]

Jeremy Collins wrote:


> This argument makes perfect economic and environmental sense, but
> as someone who works from home most of the time it is not
> something I would force on anyone. Give people the choice, sure,
> but if they want to come to an office let them. The choice of
> *how* they get there is a separate issue.

I really have to worry about people who say these sort of things. Sure,
going to work _occasionally_ is probably a good thing (for some people,
that can be _very_ occasionally). But every day? Why? When I take a day
off, I can generally achieve twice as much in half the time, apart from
when I have to use the stupidly crippled computer system I mentioned
earlier. Just put on some good music, good coffee, and enjoy the lack of
distractions and saving of commute time.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[David Martin]

James Annan wrote:
> Jeremy Collins wrote:
>
>
>> This argument makes perfect economic and environmental sense, but
>> as someone who works from home most of the time it is not
>> something I would force on anyone. Give people the choice, sure,
>> but if they want to come to an office let them. The choice of
>> *how* they get there is a separate issue.
>
>
> I really have to worry about people who say these sort of things. Sure,
> going to work _occasionally_ is probably a good thing (for some people,
> that can be _very_ occasionally). But every day? Why? When I take a day
> off, I can generally achieve twice as much in half the time, apart from
> when I have to use the stupidly crippled computer system I mentioned
> earlier. Just put on some good music, good coffee, and enjoy the lack of
> distractions and saving of commute time.

Speaks the man without a toddler at home..

...d

 

[Danny Colyer]

James Annan wrote:
> going to work _occasionally_ is probably a good thing (for some people,
> that can be _very_ occasionally). But every day? Why? When I take a day
> off, I can generally achieve twice as much in half the time
<snip>
> ... enjoy the lack of distractions and saving of commute time.

There writes a man without a toddler at home! Mind you, Jenny probably
interrupts less often and with less stupid questions than some of my
colleagues...

Last time I spent a day working from home when the kids were out, I
seemed to spend half the day telling door-to-door salesmen where to go :-/

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[James Annan]

David Martin wrote:


>
> Speaks the man without a toddler at home..
>

Yes, it is noticeable that those with young children suddenly seem to
find the workplace irresistible, to the extent of spending 12 hours a
day, coming in at weekends, and even sleeping there...but it is an issue
that only covers a very small proportion of the population at any one time.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[JLB]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> Last time I spent a day working from home when the kids were out, I
> seemed to spend half the day telling door-to-door salesmen where to go :-/

Keep some books of raffle tickets handy, such as the ones the CTC sends
out. It's interesting to see how the sales reps (or evangelists etc.)
deal with it.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Tony Raven]

Tony W wrote:
>
> My other 'commutes' are electronically from my back bedroom to California,
> Virginia, Germany and Japan -- I have never met most of my colleagues face
> to face.
>

That may work for you but there is no substitute for that horrible
USAian phrase of Facetime IMO. Video conferencing is part way there but
some issues need to be dealt with face to face.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

James Annan wrote:
>
> I really have to worry about people who say these sort of things. Sure,
> going to work _occasionally_ is probably a good thing (for some people,
> that can be _very_ occasionally). But every day? Why? When I take a day
> off, I can generally achieve twice as much in half the time, apart from
> when I have to use the stupidly crippled computer system I mentioned
> earlier. Just put on some good music, good coffee, and enjoy the lack of
> distractions and saving of commute time.
>

It depends whether your job is task oriented or people oriented. Its
tough to manage, counsel and support people through a network
connection. You have to interact with them in person for many issues.
If its just doing a task without needing to interact other than for
information exchange you can do that from a desk anywhere.

Tony

 

[JLB]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tony W wrote:
>
>>
>> My other 'commutes' are electronically from my back bedroom to
>> California,
>> Virginia, Germany and Japan -- I have never met most of my colleagues
>> face
>> to face.
>>
>
> That may work for you but there is no substitute for that horrible
> USAian phrase of Facetime IMO. Video conferencing is part way there but
> some issues need to be dealt with face to face.

This is true. You cannot get your hands around the throat of someone who
is merely an image on a screen.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Nick Kew]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> Given the specialist nature of my work I understand that I'm either going
> to have to work at home, commute a long way or move house if I change job.
> Is everyone such as specialist that they have to commute, say, 20 miles to
> get to their work?

You are a specialist? All the more reason to use the IT infrastructure
to provide your services where your specialist skills are required.

I'm on track to make most of my this year's income from a 'merkin
company, who had to convince their management I was better than any
available merkin for the job. Doesn't mean I'n going there.
Does mean I have a 'phone, email and IRC, all of which are essential
to the work. And VOIP, which is useful but not quite indespensible.

--
Nick Kew

 

[LSMike]

David Martin wrote:
>
> Speaks the man without a toddler at home..
>
> ..d

LOL, so true. Now that mine goes to nursery school I can get a load
more done before I fetch him at lunchtime. Assuming that is I'm not
tempted to spend too much time on the delights of urc, msn or one of
the forums I frequent.

 

[Michael MacClancy]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:40:33 +0000, Nick Kew wrote:

> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> Given the specialist nature of my work I understand that I'm either going
>> to have to work at home, commute a long way or move house if I change job.
>> Is everyone such as specialist that they have to commute, say, 20 miles to
>> get to their work?
>
> You are a specialist? All the more reason to use the IT infrastructure
> to provide your services where your specialist skills are required.
>

I do use the IT infrastructure working from home most of the time.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[James Annan]

Tony Raven wrote:

> That may work for you but there is no substitute for that horrible
> USAian phrase of Facetime IMO.

um..."meeting people"?



James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[dkahn400]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> There writes a man without a toddler at home! Mind you, Jenny
> probably interrupts less often and with less stupid questions than
> some of my colleagues...

Starting from a low base Jenny has acquired and organised a truly
astonishing amount of knowledge in 3 years and is still soaking it up
like a sponge. With that in mind what percentage of her questions are
stupid really?

--
Dave...

 

[Danny Colyer]

I wrote:
>>There writes a man without a toddler at home! Mind you, Jenny
>>probably interrupts less often and with less stupid questions than
>>some of my colleagues...

and dkahn400 responded:
> Starting from a low base Jenny has acquired and organised a truly
> astonishing amount of knowledge in 3 years and is still soaking it up
> like a sponge. With that in mind what percentage of her questions are
> stupid really?

I could have worded that better. Of course, none of her questions is
stupid [1]. However, if she were 30 years older and still asked the
same questions then I would be worried, because most of them she should
know or easily be able to work out the answer to. The same is true of
many of the questions that I get asked at work, by people who are 30-40
years older than Jenny and who really should know the answers.

[1] Someone recently told me, after hearing me answering a string of
"why?"s, of a friend who had stopped his kids asking "why?" by only
answering once and making it clear that any "why?" immediately following
the answer would be ignored. The chap who told me about it seemed to
think it was a great idea, but I was horrified. Of course it can get
frustrating when I say something, Jenny asks why, I explain why, she
asks why again, I add some further explanation to my previous answer,
she asks why again ... but I have always been determined to answer all
of my kids' questions to the best of my ability. With a little thought
it's usually possible to provide clear and concise answers to a string
of "why?"s, and the effort certainly seems to pay off in developing her
understanding of the world.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Velvet]

James Annan wrote:
> Jeremy Collins wrote:
>
>
>> This argument makes perfect economic and environmental sense, but
>> as someone who works from home most of the time it is not
>> something I would force on anyone. Give people the choice, sure,
>> but if they want to come to an office let them. The choice of
>> *how* they get there is a separate issue.
>
>
> I really have to worry about people who say these sort of things. Sure,
> going to work _occasionally_ is probably a good thing (for some people,
> that can be _very_ occasionally). But every day? Why? When I take a day
> off, I can generally achieve twice as much in half the time, apart from
> when I have to use the stupidly crippled computer system I mentioned
> earlier. Just put on some good music, good coffee, and enjoy the lack of
> distractions and saving of commute time.
>
> James

Yep, seconded. I get more done by working at home than in any office.
Of course, this means I get asked to do more, too. There's no 5 minute
chats over making coffee. Lunch breaks are that much more unlikely to
actually happen. No distractions from office banter/footie whinging.

Unfortunately this is balanced out by the rest of my time being spent
driving vast distances in order to do what's needed on site at a
customer where it can't be done remotely, but that would still be the
same whether I worked in an office or not. And I don't waste an hour
either side of the day in a commute to/from a regional (and
non-existant) office. Which saves the company money (be expensive to
have one in the south east).

They(we) could do with having some more engineers though, and making
sure they locate them in such a way that I'm not driving quite so daft
distances.

Of course, not everyone's got the discipline to work from home. People
with families often find it difficult (distractions from kids who don't
understand mum/dad *has* to work and can't play with them). And of
course your employer is no longer paying for the
heating/lighting/furniture of your office, so it does cost you a bit
more from that respect.

Me, I think that's a small price to pay for being able to fall out of
bed at 8:59 and be at work at 9:00 after a hard day's work the day
before. Of course, maybe I'd not be asked to work that sort of day so
often if I was expected to be in the office every day...

Oh, and I'm in the business of providing the sort of IT infrastructure
for companies that allow their employees (or some of them) to work from
home. It's nice to see some (but disappointing how few still) companies
are waking up to this being a good idea.

--


Velvet

 

[Epetruk]

Danny Colyer wrote:

<snip>

> [1] Someone recently told me, after hearing me answering a string of
> "why?"s, of a friend who had stopped his kids asking "why?" by only
> answering once and making it clear that any "why?" immediately
> following the answer would be ignored. The chap who told me about it
> seemed to think it was a great idea, but I was horrified. Of course
> it can get frustrating when I say something, Jenny asks why, I
> explain why, she asks why again, I add some further explanation to my
> previous answer, she asks why again ... but I have always been
> determined to answer all of my kids' questions to the best of my
> ability. With a little thought it's usually possible to provide
> clear and concise answers to a string of "why?"s, and the effort
> certainly seems to pay off in developing her understanding of the
> world.

Good on you. Any action that increases the amount of shared knowledge in the
world is a Good Thing.

Do you sometimes get her to work out the answer to the why herself, or is
that too frustrating a route to take?

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

 

[Tony W]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That may work for you but there is no substitute for that horrible
> USAian phrase of Facetime IMO. Video conferencing is part way there but
> some issues need to be dealt with face to face.

Yes -- but these can be infrequent.

YMMV

T

 

[Danny Colyer]

Epetruk wondered:
> Do you sometimes get her to work out the answer to the why herself, or is
> that too frustrating a route to take?

If I think she might be able to then I'll try to lead her to work things
out for herself. At only just 3 years old, though, that's seldom
possible with her whys at the moment.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[the.Mark]

Tony Raven wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>>
>> I really have to worry about people who say these sort of
>> things. Sure, going to work _occasionally_ is probably a good
>> thing (for some people, that can be _very_ occasionally). But
>> every day? Why? When I take a day off, I can generally
>> achieve twice as much in half the time, apart from when I
>> have to use the stupidly crippled computer system I
>> mentioned earlier. Just put on some good music, good coffee,
>> and enjoy the lack of distractions and saving of commute
>> time.
>
> It depends whether your job is task oriented or people
> oriented. Its tough to manage, counsel and support people
> through a network connection. You have to interact with them
> in person for many issues. If its just doing a task without
> needing to interact other than for information exchange you
> can do that from a desk anywhere.
> Tony

It seems to me that this group is populated by desk jockeys.
Excluding those who frequent this group most of the people I know don't have
desk jobs[1]. In my role as supervisor in a QC lab I have to physically be
in the lab to hand out and check work carried out.

[1] Probably down to me being a chemist and knowing a lot of other chemists.
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to the.Mark:
> It seems to me that this group is populated by desk jockeys.
> Excluding those who frequent this group most of the people I know don't have
> desk jobs[1]. In my role as supervisor in a QC lab I have to physically be
> in the lab to hand out and check work carried out.

That'll be because desk jobs and cycling both correlate with
intelligence. ;-)


As for me, I can hardly wait for the day when we get some decent remote-
working technology and some *serious* bandwidth, and I can get Elvis
Costello's lighting rig flown without having to leave my desk at home.
That feels *very* desirable, the morning after.

--
Mark, UK.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it
with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."