Vision 2016 H1

[kldjlkd via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:02:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:37:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> The name isn't that bad, but the authority question is... 
>> lieutenants would need enough documentation to make decisions 
>> on their own that they can be confident are correct and 
>> accepted by the leadership. We don't have that, so appointing 
>> someone to the title would be meaningless, regardless of what 
>> it is called.
>>
>> General is a bit different because there's more autonomy there 
>> and such an individual may be ok making up their own rules.
>
> Well, as a former soldier serving at a national military HQ the 
> terminology comes through as extremely childish and pushing all 
> the wrong buttons.
>
> The military is a rigid blind bureaucracy per excellence with 
> absolutely no other purpose than being able to execute fast and 
> predictable in a future crisis moving thousands of units. 
> Outside that crisis it is slow, expensive, inefficient and the 
> activities are pointless and non-negotiable. :-/

You deny the whole modern history with such a speech. The current 
state of human being, with all its history and experience, is 
that so far we haven't found any better solution than being 
organized and prioritized (or specialized).

In the past, people tried to adopt a more horizontal system but 
it didn't work.