Post reply

The 36 Hour Day

  • April 10, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    #631851

    I look for periods where I know there's going to be "dead time." For instance, when you get into a meeting and you wait for everyone to show up... that's a few minutes to scan an article, answer an email or two, etc.

    Another thing I do is right before I leave the house in the morning I try to quickly scan through my emails and calendar. The days I do I can start putting together a workplan for the day as I drive in and I find myself more on task when I walk in the door. On my way home from work I do the same thing, but for what I need to do at home. More often than not I'm considering responsibilities and figuring out when I have to start on them in order to make as much time as possible for Kim and the boys. The boys go down at 8 and if I can get everything done starting sometime after then, I do so.

    K. Brian Kelley
    @kbriankelley

  • April 11, 2006 at 7:02 am

    #631902

    Being a traditionalist (I used to be a realist, but that is out of vogue), I reject the idea of more than 24 hours in a day, and manage my time accordingly.

    What always surprises me about time-management articles is that they claim to be driven by providing more time for "life," but in actuality are usually about dedicating more time to work. The entire premise is therefore wrong, because as soon as you start allowing work to bleed into life you end up being one of those people on call 24 by 7. (Admittedly the blog linked is rather good advice in general for the most part, and I find I naturally do a lot of those things.)

    I suppose my point, other than the sharp one on top my skull these days (first child is nearly here), is that it's fine to optimize your time, but only if the purpose is right-minded. Few people these days get paid enough to work constantly, be in touch constantly, etc. None of us remains useful very long if we do that.

    So, I'm proposing we stick to the 24-hour version of the day, tell a whole lot of people they are not nearly as important as they think (by ignoring them studiously), and all leave work early today just to prove it possible. I suspect the world will not stop turning, flowers may still grow (assuming they are in your area), and it might do everyone good to just take a few deep breaths of real air, clear their mind, and "waste" a few hours. In fact, now that I've written this, I like the idea so much I'm leaving immediately. Have a great one.

  • April 11, 2006 at 8:29 am

    #631937

    I get 37 hours a day...

    24 hours a day, 12 at night, and 1 for lunch

  • April 12, 2006 at 1:09 am

    #632012

    Wise words: live like that.

    Dewes van Lohuizen,
    DBA at CSC Netherlands
    Private interest: www.mikondo.nl

  • April 12, 2006 at 11:10 am

    #632155

    It all boils down to choice. The choice to state (and believe in) the words Yes or No.

    • Am I a realist - Yes.
    • Do I care that it is out of vogue - No.
    • Are there more than 24 hours in a day - No.
    • Do we need more than 24 hours in the day - No.
    • Do we need to make wiser choices related to time - Yes.

     

     

    RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."

  • April 13, 2006 at 5:41 am

    #632319

    I realize this was an editorial article, however, this seemed liked a very amateurish article (Jon's blog) to support and distribute. Some of the views in it certainly have some substance, but the half hearted plugs towards photo-reading and polyphasic sleep made the blog less than credible. Perhaps even irresponible. Anyone can claim to be an expert on anything when it comes to blogs. My opinion is stick to verifiable sources and report information that is worthy, not just something someone wanted to write about and possible make money by plugging certain products in the process.

    I would expect much more from a semi-professional tech e-zine on SQL!!!

  • April 13, 2006 at 9:15 am

    #632431

    What's a verifiable source? The NY Times? MSNBC? c|Net? While I tend to agree that sources in blogs are less vetted than traditional publishing, that's not necessarily the case. Many larger publications shade or bias their articles to showcase products. They live off advertising. And they claim to be experts often when they are not.

    I don't know that I think the article was "hawking products" but rather mentioning possibilities of how you might implement some strategies.

  • April 18, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    #632941

    Well said, Frank Buchan.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply