I think your difficulty is that your current work flow obfuscates two roles. You are using your Stakeholders (the users of your software) as the individuals in charge of acceptance. They're likely not motivated, or possibly not qualified, to do so really. Remember they're just interested in getting THEIR work done. If their workflow were "enlightened" like yours, then they might care about process... but probably not.
The missing piece of the puzzle here is the role of Product Owner. An individual that works with your team in close proximity that prioritizes your work and helps you determine what the acceptance criteria are before you start. Your work is not done until that person accepts the work according to the criteria.
That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.
It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.
Even this statement doesn't make money appear out of thin air. It still doesn't explain how Uber loses money after they take their cut of the transaction.
They don't have to take it to court. They'll just ruin your credit score by reporting it and sell the debt to a collector who will hound you day and night.
If you want a judge to ever see it you're the one ponying up the cash to take it there.
Agreed, the professor overreacted at the end. It's obvious he reacted out of frustration.
When a student cheats one of two things should happen. If the school has an honor code, then there needs to be an ethical hearing by the school to determine the punishment. I think it would be a good idea if the student were also automatically be dis-enrolled from that course. The professor should have the option to fail that student immediately for the entire course or, at minimum, the professor should be authorized (maybe required?) to give that student a zero for the assignment with no opportunity to make it up.
I wouldn't find it too far out to allow the professor to lower a grade for disrespect either but that's a weaker argument. Part of being a professional is figuring out how to play well with others, even difficult teachers.
Interesting. I noticed just the other day than, when I dimmed the dash light intensity on my rental that the speedometer disappeared. So it appears that lots of cars "violate federal law." So I looked up the standards (not laws) you cited and couldn't find the reference to "at all times."
So, I see two scenarios are possible:
A. It appears this is a chronic problem across the industry and none of the engineers, regulators, or lawyers has caught it until slashdot anonymous coward saved the world with his post.
B. This particular AC is a egotistical blowhard who wants to sound authoritative.
Let me think for a moment... which is the more likely scenario?
Well... of course you can sell it if you want. It would not be against the law to do so. You did buy the hardware. It will, however, stop working for the new owner at some point in the future.
Let's be clear. "You're not allowed" does not mean men from black helicopters coming through your skylight denying you your resale rights.
Part of the condition was her carrying the badge around anyway (no battery) and never talking about or objecting to the program.
A lie.
The letter from the district, posted on Infowars no less, showed no such condition for stopping the disenrollment. She merely had to wear the [chipless] id.
The family's story has since changed, upon further questioning by real journalists, to that they believe carrying the [chipless] id would be the same as condoning the program.
Bullshit. That is what the father may have claimed initially. His story, after subsequent interviews by actual journalists who cared to ask the right questions, changed to [paraphrased] "carrying the non-chipped ID would be equivalent to our endorsement of the RFID program." He lied to the initial reporter to get media traction and is backtracking.
The letter from the district, posted on Infowars, whack-a-doodle site itself, made it quite clear how she could stop disenrollment and outlined the specific steps required. Stop objecting and publicly support the program were nowhere to be found in those conditions.
A lawsuit really isn't for the money, but to force the mall authority and the police to refresh their officer training on laws of photography, trespass, and private property.
I can see how the police got here though. 99% of the time the person the security guards have detained is a complete ___hole who probably did do something illegal. They got complacent and forgot to ask the right questions to the security guards.
Disobeying authority would have been is she said "no" and walked away. The TSA agents are supposed to be fine with that. The lawsuit is because she did not do that. She decided to make a scene and stage a protest right in the security screening area. She needed to pick her location and time a bit better.
The fact that they aren't law enforcement doesn't invalidate the analysis of what happened. Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout?
The poster is right. This woman could have said "no" and walked away. She chose instead of cause a scene and has now been called out on it. Protest all you want out in public, not while in front of me in line while I'm trying to make my flight.
It sure would work! The US phone company that made the connection would pay the fine if the foreign one didn't. This would then cause a renegotiation of that contract between US-co and non-US-co that requires enforcement on their end or no further calls will be connected.
Like I said, the dead-end pays the fine. After that, the free market sorts it out.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your difficulty is that your current work flow obfuscates two roles. You are using your Stakeholders (the users of your software) as the individuals in charge of acceptance. They're likely not motivated, or possibly not qualified, to do so really. Remember they're just interested in getting THEIR work done. If their workflow were "enlightened" like yours, then they might care about process... but probably not.
The missing piece of the puzzle here is the role of Product Owner. An individual that works with your team in close proximity that prioritizes your work and helps you determine what the acceptance criteria are before you start. Your work is not done until that person accepts the work according to the criteria.
That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.
It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.
Even this statement doesn't make money appear out of thin air. It still doesn't explain how Uber loses money after they take their cut of the transaction.
Naive.
They don't have to take it to court. They'll just ruin your credit score by reporting it and sell the debt to a collector who will hound you day and night. If you want a judge to ever see it you're the one ponying up the cash to take it there.
It did have the subtle taste of an ambush, didn't it? The attackers arriving by stagecoach would have been fitting.
Agreed, the professor overreacted at the end. It's obvious he reacted out of frustration.
When a student cheats one of two things should happen. If the school has an honor code, then there needs to be an ethical hearing by the school to determine the punishment. I think it would be a good idea if the student were also automatically be dis-enrolled from that course. The professor should have the option to fail that student immediately for the entire course or, at minimum, the professor should be authorized (maybe required?) to give that student a zero for the assignment with no opportunity to make it up.
I wouldn't find it too far out to allow the professor to lower a grade for disrespect either but that's a weaker argument. Part of being a professional is figuring out how to play well with others, even difficult teachers.
This just in. My turkey sandwiches are absolute the best in the world! No one beats my turkey sandwich.
How do I know? i made 3 and my family ate them all! Every single one!
The courts have consistently upheld that position, yes. You might have to go through some hassle with that specific officer, however.
What problem is this technology suppose to solve again? Do we have a use case?
They are leased but the rights to the lease are owned and sold.
You really have to try hard to come up with a headline that makes even the most hardcore slashdotter scream "OMG what a NERD" when reading it.
As if having more dissenting opinions changes the truth. That stance sounds familiar.
You think a man-in-the-middle attack is particularly likely when I'm plugging my laptop into my Tesla in my driveway?
Interesting. I noticed just the other day than, when I dimmed the dash light intensity on my rental that the speedometer disappeared. So it appears that lots of cars "violate federal law." So I looked up the standards (not laws) you cited and couldn't find the reference to "at all times."
So, I see two scenarios are possible:
A. It appears this is a chronic problem across the industry and none of the engineers, regulators, or lawyers has caught it until slashdot anonymous coward saved the world with his post.
B. This particular AC is a egotistical blowhard who wants to sound authoritative.
Let me think for a moment... which is the more likely scenario?
Well... of course you can sell it if you want. It would not be against the law to do so. You did buy the hardware. It will, however, stop working for the new owner at some point in the future.
Let's be clear. "You're not allowed" does not mean men from black helicopters coming through your skylight denying you your resale rights.
Part of the condition was her carrying the badge around anyway (no battery) and never talking about or objecting to the program.
A lie.
The letter from the district, posted on Infowars no less, showed no such condition for stopping the disenrollment. She merely had to wear the [chipless] id.
The family's story has since changed, upon further questioning by real journalists, to that they believe carrying the [chipless] id would be the same as condoning the program.
Bullshit. That is what the father may have claimed initially. His story, after subsequent interviews by actual journalists who cared to ask the right questions, changed to [paraphrased] "carrying the non-chipped ID would be equivalent to our endorsement of the RFID program." He lied to the initial reporter to get media traction and is backtracking.
The letter from the district, posted on Infowars, whack-a-doodle site itself, made it quite clear how she could stop disenrollment and outlined the specific steps required. Stop objecting and publicly support the program were nowhere to be found in those conditions.
Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.
Then, somehow, got Score 5: Informative for it too. ___ you slashdot.
... says the father. The district response letter informing them of the disenrollment, and how to stop it, contained no such condition.
The father claims this to a reporter. None of the paperwork from the district carried any such language as a condition of her disenrollment.
A lawsuit really isn't for the money, but to force the mall authority and the police to refresh their officer training on laws of photography, trespass, and private property.
They need a refresher, yes.
I can see how the police got here though. 99% of the time the person the security guards have detained is a complete ___hole who probably did do something illegal. They got complacent and forgot to ask the right questions to the security guards.
Disobeying authority would have been is she said "no" and walked away. The TSA agents are supposed to be fine with that. The lawsuit is because she did not do that. She decided to make a scene and stage a protest right in the security screening area. She needed to pick her location and time a bit better.
The fact that they aren't law enforcement doesn't invalidate the analysis of what happened. Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout?
The poster is right. This woman could have said "no" and walked away. She chose instead of cause a scene and has now been called out on it. Protest all you want out in public, not while in front of me in line while I'm trying to make my flight.
It sure would work! The US phone company that made the connection would pay the fine if the foreign one didn't. This would then cause a renegotiation of that contract between US-co and non-US-co that requires enforcement on their end or no further calls will be connected.
Like I said, the dead-end pays the fine. After that, the free market sorts it out.