Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Idle

Better Factories Through Role Playing 160

Posted by samzenpus
from the +1-or-better-to-hit-boss dept.
pacopico writes "A former Ford executive has taken his unique brand of factory training to the public. According to Businessweek, Hossein Nivi has set up a new company called Pendaran that forces people to endure a week-long, manic training simulation that's meant to produce safer, better workers. The participants — lots of people from the tech and military fields — get yelled at by actors while they try to assemble things like golf carts and airplanes in a simulation that mixes virtual tasks on computers with real world tasks. After their spirits get broken, the workers actually start functioning as a well-oiled team. It sounds both awesome and bizarre."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Better Factories Through Role Playing

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    they are lunatics and assholes

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:21PM (#44313115)

    Getting yelled at until your spirit is broken? You think that sounds awesome?

    This isn't new or unique, we've been whipping slaves as long as we've had them. Dehumanize people, then work them like animals. Woo hoo sign me up.

    • by black3d (1648913) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:45PM (#44313287)

      Ya, same thought crossed my mind. Chain gangs work like a well-oiled machine too, once you've broken their spirits. I'm not sure why breaking people's spirit is considered "awesome". Submitter must be in management? Probably sounds awesome to them, since "workers" aren't really people after all..

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:07PM (#44313437) Journal

        I'm not sure why breaking people's spirit is considered "awesome".

        If you RTFA, you'd see that they break people of their independent streak.
        By forcing them into shitty conditions and allowing them to fail over and over, flaws are exposed and eventually self-recognized
        The psychological pressure is there just to speed up the process.

        There's nothing special about this course, other than it's being done to white/blue collar workers instead of raw military recruits at boot camp.

        • by black3d (1648913) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:41PM (#44313671)

          >If you RTFA

          Heresy!

          • >If you RTFA

            Heresy!

            Even worse, he's standing out in the otherwise well-oiled chain gang of people who don't RTFA.

        • by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:16PM (#44313867) Homepage

          Of course if you read reality into the lie, those people with and independent resistive streak, fail the course and are excluded from employment. Basically testing to ensure those people employed are meek, obedient and will accept abuse. That is all one week provides, the opportunity to exclude those not born to be slaves.

          • by Seumas (6865)

            On the other hand, this is already done and has been for decades. It is called requiring a college degree. That's why it often doesn't matter what your degree is in or if it is related to the job -- just having the degree proves that you can sit down and shut up and do what you're told and buy into the institution for four or five years straight.

        • by epyT-R (613989)

          Some people are unbreakable..and that's because they've spent most of their lives in situations like this course, being mistreated and manipulated. There is such a thing as going too far to save a buck as it can cause more damage than it fixes. While some people might benefit from this course, others could be made more resistant to hierarchy.. It's usually the latter who are actually smart enough to not need the training and who are the better employees. This 'course' is a one-size-fits-all attempt at we

          • by Seumas (6865)

            This sort of effort is likely to turn an otherwise hard worker with a great work ethic who just happens to think for themselves instead of being an obedient sheep into someone who plays along on the outside, but harbors a seething hatred on the inside and therefore constantly sabotaged and undermines your system at every turn they can.

        • They do this in the Army and it works great.

          Until you realize what a buerocratic juggernaut the army is, and how its fraught with waste, ineffeciencies, miscommunication, very rarely works with great co-ordination as a whole. To the point is a joke.

          Thinking for oneself never gets further than thinking on how to cheat the buerocracy or advance further. Technical correctness is admired, while failure to achieve broader goals is often met with amusement, because you can hide behind the buerocratic tape of "its
          • This sounds about right.

            There are times when this instinct to work together and sacrifice personal agenda and initiative is useful. Times of crisis, ins war zone or natural disaster for instance. Any other time and its counterproductive. You lose all the best qualities of people and merely suppress the worst.

            Well defined boundaries are good for children until they are ready to explore beyond them. Mature adults have already been through this.

        • There's nothing special about this course, other than it's being done to white/blue collar workers instead of raw military recruits at boot camp.

          No kidding. I was wondering about the comments until now. :)

      • by dargaud (518470)
        In addition to that, it's one thing to be yelled at by your lathe instructor "don't put your finger there!" and then look at his own missing fingertip, and then another entirely to be yelled at by... actors ?!? WTF.
    • by CODiNE (27417) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:11PM (#44313457) Homepage

      That's what the summary makes it sound like, but that's not actually what they're doing.

      The workers have access to help, safety information, proper procedures, etc...

      Instead of using their resources to work correctly and efficiently they do what people tend to do which is ignore all the rules and safety training as much as possible until disaster strikes.

      The course simulates disaster striking when procedures aren't followed. By forcing an instantaneous cause/effect environment they're making the workers see the effects of their actions. They fight and they fight until after a few days they stop running around cleaning up their messes and start to check the rules and do things the right way in the first place.

      Yeah it's a bit pavlovian, but it's not crushing anyone's spirit, it's teaching them personal responsibility.

      • by causality (777677)

        Yeah it's a bit pavlovian, but it's not crushing anyone's spirit, it's teaching them personal responsibility.

        So it's an instant quick-fix band-aid remedy for poor parenting?

      • by skids (119237)

        This. The summary was sensationalized, probably to stoke just such a "discussion" as above. Which is too bad because the TFA provides plenty of fodder without embellisment.

        While coping with stressful situations is a valuable skill to be teaching the workforce, I found it a bit ironic that one of the things the trainees were criticised for was not working to find the root causes of problems by cleaning up oil slicks instead of finding out how to prevent them, while apparently the management that sent these

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by asmkm22 (1902712)

      Depends. An awful lot of people really do need to have some fears, insecurities, and other walls broken down in order to really reach their potential. Without that, whenever something bad happens to them, like actually getting yelled at, or missing a deadline, or whatever, they just revert back to the good old human standard of denial and blaming others. Because that's what we do when confronted with something we aren't used to or comfortable with.

      It's kind of like how anyone who wants to get into boxing

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      Sounds like an MMO raid to me.

    • Exactly. "awesome and bizarre" sounds about as detached from the reality of having to actually experience it as possible.
    • by g0bshiTe (596213)
      Am I the only one that found it funny the guy worked at Ford and they mention yelling and role playing. Isn't that the intro to the movie Gung Ho?
  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:22PM (#44313123)
    just pay them better and give them better health benefits. But using military grade training and manipulation techniques works too I guess...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    • by brainboyz (114458)

      Given how shitty American-built cars tend to be despite great pay and benefits, I think the training and manipulation might work better.

      • Europe's a big enough market that we started building them a bit better. Mostly because it was too expensive to run one production line for crap American Cars and one for Decent Euro cars. They're not great, but they'll do 140,000 miles.
        • by mjwx (966435)

          Europe's a big enough market that we started building them a bit better. Mostly because it was too expensive to run one production line for crap American Cars and one for Decent Euro cars. They're not great, but they'll do 140,000 miles.

          The problem with trying to break into Europe is extreme protectionism. No barriers between Germany and France, but between Germany and anywhere outside the EU is a 25% tax barrier.

          This is why Europeans have to get a Euro car that does 200,000 K's instead of a Japanese car that does 500,000 K's (I sold my EK Civic at 300,000 K's, if the next owner takes care of it it'll run for another 300,000 K's, hell if he runs it into the ground it'll reach 400,000 K's before it dies).

          It's also why Ford has differe

          • This is why Europeans have to get a Euro car that does 200,000 K's instead of a Japanese car that does 500,000 K's

            That must be why I've never ever seen a Honda or a Toyota, or a Hyundai.

            OK, the latter are Korean, but I doubt you'd know the difference.

            • by mjwx (966435)

              This is why Europeans have to get a Euro car that does 200,000 K's instead of a Japanese car that does 500,000 K's

              That must be why I've never ever seen a Honda or a Toyota, or a Hyundai.

              OK, the latter are Korean, but I doubt you'd know the difference.

              I'd know the difference being a connoisseur of JDM cars but I think it's clear you dont.

              In case you missed the point, it's because of Europe's protectionism. Toyota manufactures the Euro Yaris in Fracne, the Auris and Avensis in the UK, the Dyno, Hiace and Optimo in Portugal to get around this.

              Germany pays EUR 29,990 (US$39,396) for a Toyota 86 (Scion FR-S for the 'Muricans) where as Americans pay around US$25-29,000 depending on the model, options and local taxes and Australia (the land of overpriced

        • Yeah... Pretty much every one I know who drives a recent American car routinely gets 100k+ miles. Hell, warranties running 150k+ miles aren't exactly uncommon anymore.

          Pull your head out of your ass and leave the 1960's and join us here in the 21st century.

      • Really? Which ones? Once upon a time that may well have been true, but you can buy a pretty decent car from anyone nowadays, even the British.(*)

        Also, said great pay and benefits are no longer available in many cases. People who were grandfathered in may still have them but the people joining up now certainly don't.

        (*) FYI, Gung Ho [wikipedia.org] wasn't intended as a documentary.
      • There isn't such a thing a 100% American built car.

        Most cars perceived as being built in America are mostly made in Mexico.

  • by kwiqsilver (585008) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:41PM (#44313257)
    Oh...is that not what they meant by role playing? I guess the dice could pose a safety hazard on the factory floor.
  • by hedgemage (934558) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:42PM (#44313261)
    Sure, it may work, despite the dubious methodology, but who is actually going to pay to have their workers go through this? Since the bubble days of the 90's, training is an area that has been eliminated from virtually all budgets in favor of hiring only 'experienced' workers. No organization wants to pay for training anymore even when there is a shortage of experienced labor. I worked for a chip manufacturer that in the early-mid 90's put new production staff through a MONTH of 8-hour-a-day classroom training before they even got into the fabrication facility. After a couple years, it was down to 3 weeks, then 2, then 1, then layoffs. The modern management culture says that there is a limitless pool of cheap, experienced labor, so why train?
  • by bughunter (10093) <<ten.knilhtrae> <ta> <retnuhgub>> on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:44PM (#44313269) Journal

    After their spirits get broken, the workers actually start functioning as a well-oiled team. It sounds both awesome and bizarre.

    This has otherwise been known as "Boot Camp" or "Basic Training" for generations of soldiers.

    • Attempts to apply military methods to civilian business tend to fail dramatically, because:

      1. Business is not war.

      2. Corporations are not armies.

      3. Corporate imitations of military training are almost invariably done by and for spoiled brat MBA types who love to think of themselves as macho warriors, but wouldn't last five minutes humping a pack and a rifle.

      • by Ignacio (1465) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:07PM (#44313433)

        1. Business is not war.

        It's (generally) bloodless and unarmed, but the basics are all there.

        2. Corporations are not armies.

        Would it really be such a bad thing to view them as such?

        3. Corporate imitations of military training are almost invariably done by and for spoiled brat MBA types who love to think of themselves as macho warriors, but wouldn't last five minutes humping a pack and a rifle.

        So then have them go through the training as well. The top military had to go through it to get where they are, so why not the top corporate?

        • by tragedy (27079)

          So then have them go through the training as well. The top military had to go through it to get where they are, so why not the top corporate?

          The top military are officers, not enlisted men. While enlisted soldiers can later go through officer's training, or even be promoted in extraordinary circumstances in wartime, generally military organizations aren't actually absolute meritocracies that promote people in stages all the way from the bottom to the top. Not that officers don't go through their own tough training, but some of the expectations are fundamentally different.

          • by mjwx (966435)

            So then have them go through the training as well. The top military had to go through it to get where they are, so why not the top corporate?

            The top military are officers, not enlisted men. While enlisted soldiers can later go through officer's training, or even be promoted in extraordinary circumstances in wartime, generally military organizations aren't actually absolute meritocracies that promote people in stages all the way from the bottom to the top. Not that officers don't go through their own tough training, but some of the expectations are fundamentally different.

            This,

            With all three branches of (Australia's) military you can enlist as a regular soldier (seaman or airman) or as an officer. Regulars can be promoted or can opt to officer training (you'll need your CO's approval though). I.E. A regular enters the navy as a seaman an officer enters the academy as a Midshipman and is promoted to Acting Sub Lieutenant when they graduate. For a Seaman to get to Acting Sub Lieutenant without going through the academy (Read: on merit) they need to go through the NCO and wa

          • The OP is correct, the top military generally went through pretty much the same training as the enlisted ranks. When they were junior officers it's wasn't just the same training - it was the same training right beside the enlisted ranks. And it's the type of training described in the article.

            Most civilians don't realize that when a miltary member says 'training' he means a lot more than just sitting in a lecture. It also includes simulators, drills, paper exercises, field exercises, a wide variety of han

            • by tragedy (27079)

              I never said that officers don't go through their own similar training and I recognized that there is a path for enlisted men to some day become one of the chiefs of staff. In the corporate world, you can similarly, in theory, start in the mail room and become CEO, but that sort of thing is the exception, not the rule. This isn't the old days any more where an officer's commission required a relative with a title, or at least a hefty sum of money, but there's still one door for enlisted men and another for

              • In other words, you either didn't read a word I wrote, or lack the intelligence to understand what I write, or are just utterly fucking clueless.

                Because your reply does nothing but repeat your original ignorance.

                • by tragedy (27079)

                  Yes, I did repeat myself because you seemed to not have grasped what I was saying the first time, Your hostility isn't particularly useful or needed. My point still stands: top military brass typically haven't gone through the same training as typical enlisted men. I didn't say that they didn't get training, or that their training was easier or that they have never been through the same training. There's nothing in your post that materially disagrees with that statement.

                  I should also point out that my comme

        • by Anonymous Coward
          1. War is hell
          2. Everyone has to work

          If corporations are allowed to pretend business is war, then logically, we will all be in hell every day until we retire or die.

          Chicago let business and war mix for a while in the twenties. Ask them how that worked out.
        • It's (generally) bloodless and unarmed, but the basics are all there.

          No they're not. Not even close. The defining aspect of war is two (or more) large armed groups trying to kill each other. Not in the metaphorical "we're going to kill the competition" way, but in the actual piles-of-corpses, starving-refugees, survivors-crippled-for-life way. If you think that's what business looks like, it's because you have no idea what war looks like, and I envy you your ignorance.

          The other basics of military life, like honor, discipline, and mutual respect? Only if you're very, ver

        • So then have them go through the training as well. The top military had to go through it to get where they are, so why not the top corporate?

          Because the Marines are under the direct command of the government, and the corporate heads are those steering the wheels of government. What could possibly go wrong?

        • by mjwx (966435)

          It's (generally) bloodless and unarmed, but the basics are all there.

          Not really, it's more like politics (lots of talking, some shouting but nothing ever gets done). MBA's like to pretend that business is war because it makes them feel like important generals, not just the douchebag with a nice suite they really are.

          Business is not war precisely because it lacks the destruction and death that acompanies war. Even cold wars claim 1000's of lives.

          Would it really be such a bad thing to view them as such?

      • by ethanms (319039)

        Attempts to apply military methods to civilian business tend to fail dramatically, because:

        1. Business is not war.

        2. Corporations are not armies.

        3. Corporate imitations of military training are almost invariably done by and for spoiled brat MBA types who love to think of themselves as macho warriors, but wouldn't last five minutes humping a pack and a rifle.

        #1 is all you need for this argument.

        In the US, and most of the western world, there is no reason to allow yourself to be brutalized mentally and physically for a job unless that job is saving lives (either your own or others).

        But having it do to you while working to make Ford vehicles slightly faster so that the company can turn a (larger) profit? No thanks.

        I could see something like this working if they tied incentives to both your individual performance and the performance of your "unit", people might b

  • Oh, bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:50PM (#44313323) Homepage Journal

    The Pendaran method, designed to force participants to rise above chaos and develop problem-solving techniques, is diametrically opposed, a sort of indictment of Six Sigma and other beloved corporate training regimes.

    No, it's just yet another stupid "corporate training regime" designed to separate MBAs from their and everyone else's money. Which wouldn't be a problem, except for the "everyone else" part--companies actually spend money on this kind of crap instead of on things like, you know, salary and benefits for the people who actually do the work that keeps the company in business. And there are more and more of these parasites infecting the corporate world every year, which ought to be enough to convince the Invisible Hand cultists that maybe there's something wrong with their cherished idea that the market weeds out inefficient management ... except they're all too busy congratulating themselves on buying into the latest bullshit fad to pay attention.

    • Commie. My skepticism about the invisible hand totally fucking vanished when I learned that I could spend other people's money to pay it to give me invisible handjobs.

      Clearly, you are just a envy-driven agent of class warfare and collectivism.

      • Okay, you caught me. Guess I'll have to find some other group of running-dog lackeys to subvert to the cause of the glorious peoples' revolution of the international brotherhood of the proletariat. ;)

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      No, it's just yet another stupid "corporate training regime" designed to separate MBAs from their and everyone else's money.

      FTFA

      Lasleyâ(TM)s company, Edw. C. Levy Co., helps steel companies turn slag material into cement, road paving, and other products. It has sent a few dozen people through the Pendaran program and noted a 60 percent to 70 percent safety improvement among those teams, which translated into a $1 million annual savings from higher productivity. Now the company looks to put the majority of its 1,800 people through the course. âoeThe first three days may be the worst thing you can imagine, but then the clouds part and real change happens,â Lasley says.

      Injuries and safety violations are measurable metrics.

      Actually teaching people how to work as a team is not bullshit.
      Bullshit is when a program claims to teach teamwork, but doesn't.

      • by tragedy (27079)

        So, they sent a few dozen people through the program and got a $1 million annual savings out of it. So we're talking what? $20,000 to $40,000 savings per person? Just how many accidents are these people getting into in the first place? Frankly, it sounds like hyperbole or fishy accounting to me.

      • Every con man trying to sell you on the latest management fad will show you "measurable metrics" (and will often use silly phrases just like that) to prove that their Latest And Greatest will make things better. Which means, of course, that last year's Latest And Greatest, and the one from the year before that, and the year before that, are all bullshit--but this Latest And Greatest is the real deal! Trust me! We've got metrics!

        Whatever. As a statistician, I smell cherry-picking. And it's amazing how e

    • by adolf (21054)

      instead of on things like, you know, salary and benefits for the people who actually do the work that keeps the company in business

      In the past ten years, my hourly pay (with the same company) has literally quadrupled.

      Has my work improved because of this? No, not at all: I'm still the same asshole as before. I just know more stuff than I used to, and I'm more expensive than I used to be.

      But having been through the Army's basic training at Fort Gordon, I can see the merit of breaking people down: At the b

      • Rather than repeat myself, I'll just say that I give my reasons for rejecting the idea that this will reap any of the same benefits as military basic training does here [slashdot.org]. Short version: business isn't war, and the corporate world's half-assed attempts to play soldier are doomed to failure.

        • by adolf (21054)

          Because...why? Because you say so?

          • For the reasons I gave in the post I linked to, and which other posters expanded on in the thread. If you don't want to bother reading through it [shrug] that's not my problem.

            • by adolf (21054)

              I did read your post.

              The question stands.

              • Okay, I'll try to explain it again. My three main points:

                1. Business is not war, because under normal circumstances, business does not involve killing people. Microsoft is not going to bomb Google's headquarters. Target submarines are not going to stalk ships carrying goods for Wal-Mart. Ford is not going to dispatch a battalion to move into a GM plant, kill or take prisoner all the GM employees found there, and hold the plant against attempts to take it back.

                2. Corporations are not armies. The most

                • One word: Clausewitz.

                • by adolf (21054)

                  1. Not all military action involves killing people. Sure, war does connotate killing; but not all militaries are at war.

                  2. I quit the US Army. They even paid for my ticket home. I did not go to jail, I was not threatened, and nobody shot me for doing so. I am not the only person who has done this.

                  3. I think that you just attempted to differentiate two personality types, but actually only managed to show that they're not really very different at all.

                  • 1. Not all military action involves killing people. Sure, war does connotate killing; but not all militaries are at war.

                    A military is either at war, training for war, or a lousy military. I don't know of any fourth option.

                    2. I quit the US Army. They even paid for my ticket home. I did not go to jail, I was not threatened, and nobody shot me for doing so. I am not the only person who has done this.

                    How exactly did you do that? If you mean you just put in your time and didn't re-enlist, you have to know that's not the same thing as walking off the job.

                    3. I think that you just attempted to differentiate two personality types, but actually only managed to show that they're not really very different at all.

                    My point is that people like this are a minority in the military, and are generally despised by those who have to put up with them, whereas they absolutely dominate corporate culture.

  • more simulation / hands on training is needed all over.

    Six Sigma and other beloved corporate training regimes. are seem to be that PHB stuff run by people who don't know much about the real work.

  • "After their spirits get broken, the workers actually start functioning as a well-oiled team."

    I'm pretty sure that after how corporations have been treating workers for the last couple of decades, and especially during the past five years, any spirits the workers have don't need much to be broken.

  • by Mirar (264502) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:19PM (#44313519) Homepage

    I believe I did this in the military, in the basic training (you know, the part where a drill sergeant shouts at you a lot).

    It was called "team building exercises".

    It did wonders to make us see all officers as idiots.

    Sure, it also made us help each other along the exercises and get to see the worst sides of each other. But I don't think it made us a more lean team. Really not worth the cost of how much we learned to hate the military and it's idiots.

    Doing that kind of crap to team up factory workers? Eh.

    Send them out on a week long survival course (one where you actually learn something and get to enjoy the nature) or even better, have them team up in paintball teams for a week. Or build fighting robots together, why not, without the shouting.
    Don't even have to involve actors. That would be enough to have them work together as a team, and they wouldn't actually hate the bosses' guts for the rest of their life.

    Only idiots deserve to get shouted at. Ever.

    • Really not worth the cost of how much we learned to hate the military and it's idiots.

      You're an outlier - experience proves that in the real world, over the long run, it does work for the vast majority of the trainees.

  • by PPH (736903) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:30PM (#44313589)

    Over the factory gates.

  • by d'baba (1134261)
    Is that you?
  • I've always wondered about these sorts of worker training programs. The boot camps, the firewalking, paintball, etc. If they're mandatory, how are they not a form of hazing?

  • Parent managed to get Role Playing, manic, simulation, broken, and well-oiled into one article. Google is going to be sending some seriously confused people to this article.

  • by Flere Imsaho (786612) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:45PM (#44314041)

    " After their spirits get broken, the workers actually start functioning as a well-oiled team"

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    L Torvalds

  • by TechyImmigrant (175943) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:32PM (#44314303) Journal

    >After their spirits get broken, the workers actually start functioning as a well-oiled team.

    You should know you can learn to work as a well oiled team without breaking anyone's spirits.
    Usually it involves good communication, clear roles, sensible motivation structures and weeding out the dickheads.

  • Take away someones humanity and you take away human error?

  • by some old guy (674482) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @04:37AM (#44315563)

    Wow, just what we need to stay competitive...another "flavor of the month" management scheme.

    Add this to Quality Circles, TQM, 5-S, Six-Sigma, LEAN, and all the rest of the psychobabble bullshit. This is what happens when MBAs and HR types try to do what engineers are taught to do.

    Maybe if the bean-counters didn't fuck the process up in the first place with impossible OE and COMG KPI's, revolving-door personnel policies, zeroed-out training budgets, and Run to Fail maintenance programs, they wouldn't need to piss money aware on ludicrous self-congratulation seminars.

  • I would probably hit the virtual or real person screaming at me. What really would work is forcing everyone to come to work as a traditional D&D role playing class. I work much better as an archer or wizard.
  • by emaname (1014225) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @10:18AM (#44317281)

    This sounds too much like the robber barons are regaining control. Workers are simply a resource (like water or electricity) meant to be consumed while incurring as little cost as possible and ultimately discarded.

    Having been in the military, I can say without fear of contradiction, that this is what boot camp was back during the Vietnam "conflict." It also was my son's experience during Desert Storm. Now, from what I hear, the DI's have been backed off somewhat. Nothing like the scene from "Full Metal Jacket."

    Just wait until someone with a sketchy psych profile is in the mix and somebody gets killed or commits suicide.

  • The expression is a well-oiled machine.

    A well-oiled team? Well, that's just kinky.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...