Like everyone else here, IANAL. It has also been a long time since I temporarily fell from grace and went to B-school for an MBA. Nonetheless, I do recall something about relative power and control bearing on the validity of a release from liability. The upshot was that if the person or entity requires you to sign something and you cannot engage in the activity (particularly if it is related to your livelihood, like a job) without signing then your signature is presumed by the court to have been under duress. That means a round of pleadings and lawyer-type paper, but not a binding release from liability.
Add me to the old fart list. I have come to the conclusion that OO is a religion. Either you have faith or you don't, but you can't prove to someone that s/he should believe.
There are a lot of rational arguments for OO, including reduced life-cycle costs, reduced cost of enhancement and extension, improved modularization and thereby lower integration cost. Unfortunately, I have never--despite a lot of looking--found any quantitative data to justify OO. Instead I have seen projects that take longer to generate slower, bigger code than analagous projects using a structured design and development approach. I haven't seen a payoff in life-cycle costs either.
C++ is just hard compared to C. Java allows me to be pretty productive, particularly for UIs. In both cases it seems to be the language, not the methodology.
Put me down for Fortran, C, Java, Perl, JavaScript, and HTML. Skip the C++ and Ada, hold the OO Perl.
There is little bad advice here. Your challenge now is to sort out the really important from the merely good ideas.
One piece of strategic advice: don't forget what business you are in. This may seem trite, but it is easy to fall into the trap of taking on a project because you can, or to prop up cash flow. If you're going to deliver vertical market EIS, don't get distracted by slapping a web site together for someone. Go back and read your business plan -- is this what you decided you wanted to do?
On a more tactical note, pay attention to the posts here emphasizing the importance of good people. Consider the inverse too... I believe strongly that you are better off short-handed than hiring a warm body that can't pull their own weight. You'll make enough hiring mistakes in your life when you think you have a good hire; don't talk yourself into someone you'll be sorry you ever met.
One of the most important things for me about where I choose to live is that things that AREN'T important should be easy. To me that means: - short commute (30 min max, 15 is good) - 24/7 supermarket close - cleaners on the way to work - take-out and delivery of variety of food - major paper delivery (WSJ in particular) - serious bandwidth (oops, sorry, 2000 feet too far for DSL:-( ) - housekeepers/maid service not exorbitant - compensation to keep the wolf from the door now and in my old age (where did that hair go?)
Things that ARE important should be there: - good jobs - clubs - stuff to do (museums, parks, etc) - good air transport
I enjoyed Pittsburgh when I was there on business. It was a little sleepy, but still it has potential. I think it still struggles from the reputation of a steel town gone bust.
Yes, and unfortunately the patent office is allowing inventions that are 1% inspiration and 1% perspiration.
And herein lies the problem. It is not the patent system or process that is at fault, it is the implementation that is flawed. {Wait, why does that sound familiar? On no! Ohmigod! Quick, check personal integrity! Still there? Yes, okay continue.} The problem I believe is that the patent applications are reviewed by people (lawyers?) who do not understand the technology they have to assess. The reviewers are not in a position to determine what is obvious and what is the result of a flash of insight. Apparently the patent office now issues the patent (after a laborious process with little if any value added) and lets the courts (there's a technically competent arena) figure it out.
Based on this reality, the Amazon suit at least gets the patent in question out before the only active adjudication authority (the courts) who are in a position to uphold its validity or set it aside.
So far, Amazon seems to be playing by the rules of the game as they are now, and consciously or not, setting up a scenario that may help to change the rules.
Still not happy? Write to your congressman. There have been discussions of patent reform in the past. Start now, and maybe (maybe) something can get into the appropriations bill for the Patent and Trademark Office next year.
Let's accept the proposition that people who make better teachers would be attracted to teaching if the pay was better for purposes of discussion (I happen to agree, but that could mean we are both wrong).
How do we reasonably get from the current state to the desired one? Let's even ignore the availability of funds and assume that something can be cut from existing budgets to fund higher salaries.
The majority of teachers today are those who could be attracted at the existing salary. With the exception of those (few?) who love the profession and are not motivated by money, there should be an equilibrium between the compensation and the competence of teachers. How do you avoid over-paying the adequate many AND attract higher caliber new teachers AND provide a means for the truly gifted among the current crop of teachers to be properly compensated?
I think the pay for performance proposals need another look. We need a balanced, objective evaluation approach, some degree of protection against internal politics, and the flexability to reward the behaviors, skills, and results we say are important to us.
I am a salaried employee of a company, and also do some consulting (in another industry) on the side.
My company pays all employees a salary. We still have timesheets for customer billings. If you work more than 40 hours a week, the excess is carried for six weeks during which you can use it as comp time. After six weeks the extra hours expire. Customers are billed pro rata (e.g. 40/60 your rate for customer A and 20/60 for customer B if you work 40 on one job and 20 on the other, ignoring comp time for the moment).
This works real well for us. We have a very strong culture that prevents driving anyone (except yourself) too hard. Pride in the quality of our work product keeps just about everybody working to make commitments.
As a consultant, I generally bill hourly rates. Some services -- particularly when I am working with a new client -- may be fixed price.
In both cases, the customer pays an agreed rate for smart folks (or me;-) to think on their behalf. The mechanism for trickling a portion through to me differs, but not substantially.
The nature of the mechanism doesn't make much difference to me... I work until I'm done and do my utmost to finish the job defined in the time (read $) estimated and with the quality promised.
Slashdot Mirror
Like everyone else here, IANAL. It has also been a long time since I temporarily fell from grace and went to B-school for an MBA. Nonetheless, I do recall something about relative power and control bearing on the validity of a release from liability. The upshot was that if the person or entity requires you to sign something and you cannot engage in the activity (particularly if it is related to your livelihood, like a job) without signing then your signature is presumed by the court to have been under duress. That means a round of pleadings and lawyer-type paper, but not a binding release from liability.
Only the lawyers win.
Add me to the old fart list. I have come to the conclusion that OO is a religion. Either you have faith or you don't, but you can't prove to someone that s/he should believe.
There are a lot of rational arguments for OO, including reduced life-cycle costs, reduced cost of enhancement and extension, improved modularization and thereby lower integration cost. Unfortunately, I have never--despite a lot of looking--found any quantitative data to justify OO. Instead I have seen projects that take longer to generate slower, bigger code than analagous projects using a structured design and development approach. I haven't seen a payoff in life-cycle costs either.
C++ is just hard compared to C. Java allows me to be pretty productive, particularly for UIs. In both cases it seems to be the language, not the methodology.
Put me down for Fortran, C, Java, Perl, JavaScript, and HTML. Skip the C++ and Ada, hold the OO Perl.
There is little bad advice here. Your challenge now is to sort out the really important from the merely good ideas.
One piece of strategic advice: don't forget what business you are in. This may seem trite, but it is easy to fall into the trap of taking on a project because you can, or to prop up cash flow. If you're going to deliver vertical market EIS, don't get distracted by slapping a web site together for someone. Go back and read your business plan -- is this what you decided you wanted to do?
On a more tactical note, pay attention to the posts here emphasizing the importance of good people. Consider the inverse too ... I believe strongly that you are better off short-handed than hiring a warm body that can't pull their own weight. You'll make enough hiring mistakes in your life when you think you have a good hire; don't talk yourself into someone you'll be sorry you ever met.
Good luck. dv
One of the most important things for me about where I choose to live is that things that AREN'T important should be easy. To me that means: :-( )
- short commute (30 min max, 15 is good)
- 24/7 supermarket close
- cleaners on the way to work
- take-out and delivery of variety of food
- major paper delivery (WSJ in particular)
- serious bandwidth (oops, sorry, 2000 feet too far for DSL
- housekeepers/maid service not exorbitant
- compensation to keep the wolf from the door now and in my old age (where did that hair go?)
Things that ARE important should be there:
- good jobs
- clubs
- stuff to do (museums, parks, etc)
- good air transport
I enjoyed Pittsburgh when I was there on business. It was a little sleepy, but still it has potential. I think it still struggles from the reputation of a steel town gone bust.
-Yes, and unfortunately the patent office is allowing inventions that are 1% inspiration and 1% perspiration.
And herein lies the problem. It is not the patent system or process that is at fault, it is the implementation that is flawed. {Wait, why does that sound familiar? On no! Ohmigod! Quick, check personal integrity! Still there? Yes, okay continue.} The problem I believe is that the patent applications are reviewed by people (lawyers?) who do not understand the technology they have to assess. The reviewers are not in a position to determine what is obvious and what is the result of a flash of insight. Apparently the patent office now issues the patent (after a laborious process with little if any value added) and lets the courts (there's a technically competent arena) figure it out.
Based on this reality, the Amazon suit at least gets the patent in question out before the only active adjudication authority (the courts) who are in a position to uphold its validity or set it aside.
So far, Amazon seems to be playing by the rules of the game as they are now, and consciously or not, setting up a scenario that may help to change the rules.
Still not happy? Write to your congressman. There have been discussions of patent reform in the past. Start now, and maybe (maybe) something can get into the appropriations bill for the Patent and Trademark Office next year.
Let's accept the proposition that people who make better teachers would be attracted to teaching if the pay was better for purposes of discussion (I happen to agree, but that could mean we are both wrong).
How do we reasonably get from the current state to the desired one? Let's even ignore the availability of funds and assume that something can be cut from existing budgets to fund higher salaries.
The majority of teachers today are those who could be attracted at the existing salary. With the exception of those (few?) who love the profession and are not motivated by money, there should be an equilibrium between the compensation and the competence of teachers. How do you avoid over-paying the adequate many AND attract higher caliber new teachers AND provide a means for the truly gifted among the current crop of teachers to be properly compensated?
I think the pay for performance proposals need another look. We need a balanced, objective evaluation approach, some degree of protection against internal politics, and the flexability to reward the behaviors, skills, and results we say are important to us.
I am a salaried employee of a company, and also do some consulting (in another industry) on the side.
My company pays all employees a salary. We still have timesheets for customer billings. If you work more than 40 hours a week, the excess is carried for six weeks during which you can use it as comp time. After six weeks the extra hours expire. Customers are billed pro rata (e.g. 40/60 your rate for customer A and 20/60 for customer B if you work 40 on one job and 20 on the other, ignoring comp time for the moment).
This works real well for us. We have a very strong culture that prevents driving anyone (except yourself) too hard. Pride in the quality of our work product keeps just about everybody working to make commitments.
As a consultant, I generally bill hourly rates. Some services -- particularly when I am working with a new client -- may be fixed price.
In both cases, the customer pays an agreed rate for smart folks (or me ;-) to think on their behalf. The mechanism for trickling a portion through to me differs, but not substantially.
The nature of the mechanism doesn't make much difference to me ... I work until I'm done and do my utmost to finish the job defined in the time (read $) estimated and with the quality promised.