Having taken the A+, Network+ and Security+ as a requirement for my current job, I can tell you that they're not worth a damn thing.
Emphasis mine.
Apparently they were worth a damn thing, that thing being your job. The worth of a certification isn't simply what it tests you for, it's what job it can get you. If you're not going to have a job unless you get that certification, how much is that certification really worth?
As well, just because A+ covers basic ground level knowledge doesn't make it pointless either. You wouldn't believe how many people I've encountered working in various positions of technology that have a finely honed knowledge of a subject that would be considered "advanced" around the IT world, but wouldn't have the slightest idea how to work out a simple quick on their computer. I remember working under these people, they were called "programmers", and they were some of the most inept people I've met.
(There were other programmers among these that were quite capable, sadly they were also relegated to the minor tasks while the software continued to break at my evil hands. Yes, I was QA, and worked my way up in the company shortly before it went belly up).
A+ is one the most useless certifications out there. Can you plug in a mouse? Then your A+ certified!
Quoth the un-certified. Some certifications are good for some things, but no certification is good for all things. A+ has it's place, and it's quite a bit more then certified mouse installer. An A+ certificate and knowing how to use Google should be enough to get you an interview for the help desk. Depending on the company, that can be better then Wal-Mart greeter, and (again, depending on the company) the options for growth can be much better.
You will always find naysayers about any certification, and these naysayers are often in positions that make it easy to ignore these certifications. I was hired at my current place of employment because of an A+ certification. Granted I was interviewing for a help desk position, but I've worked my way up over time. If you are planning to interview for a help desk position, a current A+ Cert can help push you above the other more ignorant or lazy applicants.
It's worth also depends on your perspective. Are you against taking a help desk\basic IT position? Then A+ is worthless to you. If you plan to be hired directly into a programming position, again A+ is worthless to you.
It has about the same odds as getting the/. editor to include the state for which this law actually applies in the summary. (It's California in this case.)
It was in the unedited (and admittedly inflammatory) title.
DO NOT bring the alternative straight into a board meeting - that's a really dumb idea.
It's a gamble if you bring it to him directly. It sounds like Vanderhoth isn't quite sure how Bob will react, so using the board to do what it's designed to do (examine proposals and choose a direction) isn't a really dumb idea. Trying to get a vote on a new system in the same board meeting you proposed the idea is a really dumb idea, but raising the idea for later consideration isn't. If you bring it to him directly and he refuses it, then you have to make a choice between him and the new product. There will be no question in his mind that you are attempting to undermine him since you are now attempting to over-power a decision you allowed him to make outside of the board.
At least with "I saw this this while browsing my favorite news aggregate, it looks like it could be pretty awesome, is this something we would like to look into?" makes it appear more like you're looking out for the best interests of the board and less like you're trying to assault Bob's position. Heck, if you can get a friend to tell you about their board meeting solution, that makes it less "I was looking for something" and more "this was brought to my attention". This allows the Board to function as, a Board (imagine that?!). Avoid derogatory remarks about the old system, instead play up the new features. Practice your statements beforehand, and examine them with a critical eye (get a friend to help!). This will help you to avoid offending Bob.
If Bob wants to head up the new system, let him. If you're clever and he's not completely opposed, you can maneuver things so he can be the hero again by getting the new system online. He can still own it! Ideally though, he should have some "assistance" so other people are familiar with the system.
At worst there will be shouting and old grievances long put to bed will be brought out for another run up the flagpole.
You might want to turn off the telly every once in a while. Next thing you'll be telling us how courtroom battles play out just like in "Law and Order".
Your problem is that one person in a leadership role in the organization has strayed from board consensus, and as a result has assumed command responsibilities he does not legitimately hold. That's what you and the board must address.
Just re-read the summary, it appears that Bob hasn't necessarily "strayed from board consensus", it's sounds more like this is an item that has been neglected, and the members aren't quite sure how Bob will react to change. Bob may respond with defensive anger, or with thankful cheer that someone is offering to help with his overgrown monster. To me the problem is how to broach the subject with the least chance of causing offense to a valued member of the board who's loss would be felt.
I work for an school district that employs a web based product that manages board meetings. It handles agendas, attachments, motions and voting, as well as keeping a measure of the minutes. I would suggest examining the options available and getting some demos. Once you've seen something that grabs your interest, involve Bob. Tell him you just found this think that you think would make everyone's job easier. But don't involve Bob alone, introduce it as "something you saw" to the whole board. This will make it so you aren't pointing out how horrible Bob's system is, you're pointing out how wonderful the new system is. Perhaps Bob is buried and doesn't know a way out, or perhaps he's clutching onto this thing as his personal feeling of self-worth(which would be sad).
1) Identify a new possible(needs to be MUCH better then the current) solution
2) Bring it to the attention of the board as a whole
3) Let the whole board carry the conversation, and let Bob make his defense if he really wants to. If he's shut out of the decision making process, he'll probably want to leave. If he makes an obviously stupid defense in the face of overwhelming benefit, then thats on him, and he'll see it at some point (even if he never admits it).
No Microsoft is more bully; bribe; lie; outlast, and still do!
I think Apple meets all but one of these criteria as shown in their recent dealings with Google/Motorola (or Googlerola as I prefer), and it's likely that the bribery (not in the Googlerola instance) simply hasn't been reported yet. Perhaps their dealings with iFone will bring this to light.
And how would Google put Apple to the screws, other than going through a long drawn out lawsuit?
Logic fail...
A)Why do you consider Google dragging Apple through a long drawn out lawsuit that Apple is likely to lose (even Apple's recognizing this through the threat of pursuing every possible appeal) as not putting Apple to the screws? It's what Apple is trying to avoid, as they realize it can be quite costly to them. Perhaps you think Google is so small a company that they couldn't hang through a long drawn out lawsuit?
B)If your logic fails, it's usually better to click "Cancel" instead of "Post"... =D
Oh, so you know every gradual dip on every road in vicinity of your house? Doubt it. In many cases, what appears to be a puddle can be several more inches deep. And unless you brake quickly (as in slam on the brakes; not a good idea in rainy or wet conditions), hitting even 6 inches of water quickly will splash up enough water to stall the engine. Or, hey, maybe everyone else is just stupid.
Nice leap there. I didn't say "every" road, but in my case there are particular paths that I take multiple times every day, and yes, I do know there the dips are, gradual or sudden. I also know where the water builds during the rain, and which corners to take wider in such situations. It's called learning and it's something "everyone else" is quite capable of.
These are also short paths as well so memorizing them isn't the arduous task you make them out to be. You however, did use the term "NEVER", so don't be upset when I poke at the obvious holes in your statement. If you meant to state that it's good practice to act like you never know the depth of the water, then you should say so, as that distinction can be appreciated. But taking your personal experience and saying that it's the exact same for everyone else, bar none, is quite foolish to say the least.
If you are a local and you know the road, you do know the depth of the water. Not down to the measurements, but well enough to judge for safety's sake.
If you've ever driven through a puddle, count yourself as an idiot. That could have been much deeper, and you wouldn't have known.
That statement should be measured in perspective. Driving a slammed-to-the-ground vehicle through puddles on unknown roads is just asking for a wreck, and yes, idiotic. Driving a vehicle that has good road clearance and is equipped for inclement weather and/or off-road conditions through puddles, while being foolish, can also quite fun. Of course these statements can be further adjusted by the traffic and surroundings of the situation.
But they're not recognizing that the patents are valid... I'm sure they're even saying "we believe the patents are invalid but will pay you $1 per device to go away." In fact, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, settlement offers can't be used as evidence of liability, precisely because they want to encourage this sort of non-liability admitting settlements that make suits go away.
I was operating under statements made in the article, but I do see your point sir.
Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use, but not willing to pay way more than other companies who also licence the same technology which is what Motorola has been demanding.
By perfectly willing, you of course mean willing to make a lowball offer in an attempt to avoid being found guilty of willful infringement (or whichever the proper terming would be here). Of course, neither of us have actual numbers to compare either companies offer to, but this does show your eagerness to paint Apple in a favorable light.
The judge has ALREADY realized Motorola has possibly been trying to do exactly that.
Nice phrasing. Attempting to make it appear as if Motorola is already guilty while not technically saying anything incorrect. You should work in politics. Of course you are digging heavily into "maybes", as nothing has been decided in that case, outside of the Judge deciding to look into it.
Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here?
While I don't particularly take Google's side (I see both companies as a plague at times), one could apply the adage: "The best defense is a good offense".
Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...
Realizing that apple is offering quite a bit less then even half a pecent, and while recognizing that the patents are valid they refuse to be responsible for the past, it doesn't take much sanity to see Apple is trying to leverage the threat of a long drawn out lawsuit to avoid paying for their past infringement. It's exactly the kind of behavior that Googlerola should be putting them to the screws for, and seeing that they both have disposable lawyers sitting around, it's not unlikely either.
Slashdot Mirror
Having taken the A+, Network+ and Security+ as a requirement for my current job, I can tell you that they're not worth a damn thing.
Emphasis mine.
Apparently they were worth a damn thing, that thing being your job. The worth of a certification isn't simply what it tests you for, it's what job it can get you. If you're not going to have a job unless you get that certification, how much is that certification really worth?
As well, just because A+ covers basic ground level knowledge doesn't make it pointless either. You wouldn't believe how many people I've encountered working in various positions of technology that have a finely honed knowledge of a subject that would be considered "advanced" around the IT world, but wouldn't have the slightest idea how to work out a simple quick on their computer. I remember working under these people, they were called "programmers", and they were some of the most inept people I've met.
(There were other programmers among these that were quite capable, sadly they were also relegated to the minor tasks while the software continued to break at my evil hands. Yes, I was QA, and worked my way up in the company shortly before it went belly up).
A+ is one the most useless certifications out there. Can you plug in a mouse? Then your A+ certified!
Quoth the un-certified. Some certifications are good for some things, but no certification is good for all things. A+ has it's place, and it's quite a bit more then certified mouse installer. An A+ certificate and knowing how to use Google should be enough to get you an interview for the help desk. Depending on the company, that can be better then Wal-Mart greeter, and (again, depending on the company) the options for growth can be much better.
Should I get Certification "X"?
You will always find naysayers about any certification, and these naysayers are often in positions that make it easy to ignore these certifications. I was hired at my current place of employment because of an A+ certification. Granted I was interviewing for a help desk position, but I've worked my way up over time. If you are planning to interview for a help desk position, a current A+ Cert can help push you above the other more ignorant or lazy applicants.
It's worth also depends on your perspective. Are you against taking a help desk\basic IT position? Then A+ is worthless to you. If you plan to be hired directly into a programming position, again A+ is worthless to you.
Do they even think about the problem beyond pandering to a misguided vocal minority?
Their view of "the problem" and your view of "the problem" are quite different.
Do they even think about the innocent people it will catch in its wake?
Their view of "the innocent" and your view of "the innocent" are quite different.
Do they even think AT ALL??
Maybe I'm just naive to think that they actually care about anyone outside of their rich cronies club.
Yes.
Don't try to tell me that the mere sight of a human penis will irreversibly damage a child.
But you haven't seen my.....nevermind.
Exactly my point, except without the humor =D
It has about the same odds as getting the /. editor to include the state for which this law actually applies in the summary. (It's California in this case.)
It was in the unedited (and admittedly inflammatory) title.
What is wrong with geeks...
DO NOT bring the alternative straight into a board meeting - that's a really dumb idea.
It's a gamble if you bring it to him directly. It sounds like Vanderhoth isn't quite sure how Bob will react, so using the board to do what it's designed to do (examine proposals and choose a direction) isn't a really dumb idea. Trying to get a vote on a new system in the same board meeting you proposed the idea is a really dumb idea, but raising the idea for later consideration isn't. If you bring it to him directly and he refuses it, then you have to make a choice between him and the new product. There will be no question in his mind that you are attempting to undermine him since you are now attempting to over-power a decision you allowed him to make outside of the board.
At least with "I saw this this while browsing my favorite news aggregate, it looks like it could be pretty awesome, is this something we would like to look into?" makes it appear more like you're looking out for the best interests of the board and less like you're trying to assault Bob's position. Heck, if you can get a friend to tell you about their board meeting solution, that makes it less "I was looking for something" and more "this was brought to my attention". This allows the Board to function as, a Board (imagine that?!). Avoid derogatory remarks about the old system, instead play up the new features. Practice your statements beforehand, and examine them with a critical eye (get a friend to help!). This will help you to avoid offending Bob.
If Bob wants to head up the new system, let him. If you're clever and he's not completely opposed, you can maneuver things so he can be the hero again by getting the new system online. He can still own it! Ideally though, he should have some "assistance" so other people are familiar with the system.
At worst there will be shouting and old grievances long put to bed will be brought out for another run up the flagpole.
You might want to turn off the telly every once in a while. Next thing you'll be telling us how courtroom battles play out just like in "Law and Order".
It's purpose-built for school districts, not sure if it will fit your needs but here you are.
Your going down... as a member of anonomous and being responsible for the majority of all comments made on slashdot.
FTFY
Username: Anonymous Coward
Your problem is that one person in a leadership role in the organization has strayed from board consensus, and as a result has assumed command responsibilities he does not legitimately hold. That's what you and the board must address.
Just re-read the summary, it appears that Bob hasn't necessarily "strayed from board consensus", it's sounds more like this is an item that has been neglected, and the members aren't quite sure how Bob will react to change. Bob may respond with defensive anger, or with thankful cheer that someone is offering to help with his overgrown monster. To me the problem is how to broach the subject with the least chance of causing offense to a valued member of the board who's loss would be felt.
Google docs for board meetings? *facepalm*.
I work for an school district that employs a web based product that manages board meetings. It handles agendas, attachments, motions and voting, as well as keeping a measure of the minutes. I would suggest examining the options available and getting some demos. Once you've seen something that grabs your interest, involve Bob. Tell him you just found this think that you think would make everyone's job easier. But don't involve Bob alone, introduce it as "something you saw" to the whole board. This will make it so you aren't pointing out how horrible Bob's system is, you're pointing out how wonderful the new system is. Perhaps Bob is buried and doesn't know a way out, or perhaps he's clutching onto this thing as his personal feeling of self-worth(which would be sad).
1) Identify a new possible(needs to be MUCH better then the current) solution
2) Bring it to the attention of the board as a whole
3) Let the whole board carry the conversation, and let Bob make his defense if he really wants to. If he's shut out of the decision making process, he'll probably want to leave. If he makes an obviously stupid defense in the face of overwhelming benefit, then thats on him, and he'll see it at some point (even if he never admits it).
Sounds like Bob has found a way to ensure his continued employment and everyone around is too spineless to play that game of chicken with him.
"member of a board for a not for profit organization."
"Not for Profit" does not always mean "unpaid volunteer", and that includes the board.
No Microsoft is more bully; bribe; lie; outlast, and still do!
I think Apple meets all but one of these criteria as shown in their recent dealings with Google/Motorola (or Googlerola as I prefer), and it's likely that the bribery (not in the Googlerola instance) simply hasn't been reported yet. Perhaps their dealings with iFone will bring this to light.
Dude me and my friends made the mud hole with our trucks. Getting stuck is half the fun. It doesn't even count as mud unless it's a foot deep.
It's raining in the Sierra right now. WTF am I doing posting on /.? There's mud and snow in them thar hills. I wish it were Friday already.
And me still saving money for my future jeep...the shame...
And how would Google put Apple to the screws, other than going through a long drawn out lawsuit?
Logic fail...
A)Why do you consider Google dragging Apple through a long drawn out lawsuit that Apple is likely to lose (even Apple's recognizing this through the threat of pursuing every possible appeal) as not putting Apple to the screws? It's what Apple is trying to avoid, as they realize it can be quite costly to them. Perhaps you think Google is so small a company that they couldn't hang through a long drawn out lawsuit?
B)If your logic fails, it's usually better to click "Cancel" instead of "Post"... =D
Oh, so you know every gradual dip on every road in vicinity of your house? Doubt it. In many cases, what appears to be a puddle can be several more inches deep. And unless you brake quickly (as in slam on the brakes; not a good idea in rainy or wet conditions), hitting even 6 inches of water quickly will splash up enough water to stall the engine. Or, hey, maybe everyone else is just stupid.
Nice leap there. I didn't say "every" road, but in my case there are particular paths that I take multiple times every day, and yes, I do know there the dips are, gradual or sudden. I also know where the water builds during the rain, and which corners to take wider in such situations. It's called learning and it's something "everyone else" is quite capable of.
These are also short paths as well so memorizing them isn't the arduous task you make them out to be. You however, did use the term "NEVER", so don't be upset when I poke at the obvious holes in your statement. If you meant to state that it's good practice to act like you never know the depth of the water, then you should say so, as that distinction can be appreciated. But taking your personal experience and saying that it's the exact same for everyone else, bar none, is quite foolish to say the least.
You NEVER know the depth of water.
If you are a local and you know the road, you do know the depth of the water. Not down to the measurements, but well enough to judge for safety's sake.
If you've ever driven through a puddle, count yourself as an idiot. That could have been much deeper, and you wouldn't have known.
That statement should be measured in perspective. Driving a slammed-to-the-ground vehicle through puddles on unknown roads is just asking for a wreck, and yes, idiotic. Driving a vehicle that has good road clearance and is equipped for inclement weather and/or off-road conditions through puddles, while being foolish, can also quite fun. Of course these statements can be further adjusted by the traffic and surroundings of the situation.
But they're not recognizing that the patents are valid... I'm sure they're even saying "we believe the patents are invalid but will pay you $1 per device to go away." In fact, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, settlement offers can't be used as evidence of liability, precisely because they want to encourage this sort of non-liability admitting settlements that make suits go away.
I was operating under statements made in the article, but I do see your point sir.
Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use, but not willing to pay way more than other companies who also licence the same technology which is what Motorola has been demanding.
By perfectly willing, you of course mean willing to make a lowball offer in an attempt to avoid being found guilty of willful infringement (or whichever the proper terming would be here). Of course, neither of us have actual numbers to compare either companies offer to, but this does show your eagerness to paint Apple in a favorable light.
The judge has ALREADY realized Motorola has possibly been trying to do exactly that.
Nice phrasing. Attempting to make it appear as if Motorola is already guilty while not technically saying anything incorrect. You should work in politics. Of course you are digging heavily into "maybes", as nothing has been decided in that case, outside of the Judge deciding to look into it.
it says 'Apple’s offer makes it clear they accept Motorola’s patents are valid, so now it’s just a squabble over their value.'
Not really, maybe they just figured it was cheaper to pay $1 going forward than pay lawyers to get a fair agreement.
I wonder what the patent number is?
At this level of cooperate greed, the lawyers were already getting paid just to be there.
Just that $1 a phone is cheaper than court. Apple seems to willing to pay to get rid of pests.
So when it's someone going after Apple, they're a "pest". What is it when Apple goes after someone?
Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here?
While I don't particularly take Google's side (I see both companies as a plague at times), one could apply the adage: "The best defense is a good offense".
Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...
Realizing that apple is offering quite a bit less then even half a pecent, and while recognizing that the patents are valid they refuse to be responsible for the past, it doesn't take much sanity to see Apple is trying to leverage the threat of a long drawn out lawsuit to avoid paying for their past infringement. It's exactly the kind of behavior that Googlerola should be putting them to the screws for, and seeing that they both have disposable lawyers sitting around, it's not unlikely either.