First a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 (flight 370) vanishes. Now, another Malaysian Airlines 777 apparently shot down. Two approximately $300 million (US) planes lost in five months. Odd.
This is absolutely untrue but gets parroted by many as somehow accurate.
1) Congress, not the FAA, statutorily defines aircraft and national airspace. Essentially, Congress, not the FAA, broadly defines aircraft and model aircraft and drone aircraft are aircraft by Congressional definition. An aircraft in national airspace (essentially,anything outside under Ad coelum doctrine) IS subject to FAA regulation. 2) In 1981, the FAA struck a compromise with RESPONSIBLE model aircraft operators who by definition are subject to FAA regulations applying to ANY aircraft. Essentially, the FAA said, hey, if model aircraft hobbyists act responsibly and voluntarily fly away from people, away from noise sensitive areas, and away from occupied aircraft, we, the FAA, will not prosecute hobbyists or develop onerous formal regulations for model aircraft. 3) Enter the drone aircraft operators who incorrectly parrot "we don't understand the law, don't want to obey the voluntary guidelines, and want to do what ever we want to." The legally flawed argument here is because no specific regulations exist, then no regulations exist. This is absolutely false and misunderstands how the law works and specifically misconstrues administrative regulations. 4) In 2012, Congress, responding to illegal and extremely risky activity by drone aircraft operators, specifically defined model aircraft BY STATUTE. The statute specifically defines model aircraft as aircraft NOT used for commercial uses and flown responsibly AWAY from people and other aircraft. Any other use is a commercial use and now, per Congress, is subject to FAA normal regulations for any other aircraft activity. 5) In 2014, a NTSB administrative law judge deciding on a $10,000 fine for alleged reckless operation of aircraft in 2011 (note the date carefully), initially held the general regulations did not apply under 2011 law--called the Pirker opinion. First, this Pirker decision was appealed and is stayed so it has no effect until decided on appeal. Second, Pirker itself specifically states that the 1981 guidelines DO apply. Third, even if Pirker would somehow be upheld on appeal (unlikely), Pirker applies to activities occurring BEFORE 2012 when Congress specifically defined model aircraft by statute (a statute usually trumps a regulation). Thus, while drone aircraft activists make wild claims about Pirker, Pirker is really of little or no value.
The sum: drone aircraft are aircraft, are subject to statutory law, are subject to FAA regulation, and unless meeting the very specific criteria of the 2012 statutory definition of model aircraft, cannot be flown as many are flying them today--especially cannot be flown for commercial purposes, around people, in noise sensitive areas, or near ANY other aircraft including other drone aircraft.
Unfortunately, this is a reality for some entities that choose to do-it-yourself with 501(c)(3) applications rather than seek legal advice. An attorney can guide an organization through the very precise and specific requirements necessary to acquire federal tax exemption status--or, help an organization to find other legal methods to similarly achieve its objectives.
Even if 501(c)(x) status was approved, an entity must still typically maintain that status (along with any state or other requirements). Many often confuse the non-profit or not-for-profit entity, which is almost always organized under state law, with obtaining federal 501(c)(x) status, which attaches to the entity. These are two different processes with extremely different requirements and different requirements to maintain.
I don't want to sound like an attorney-apologist. But 501(c)(x) status can be a challenging process--as it should be because it is supposed to be an extraordinary classification. Most realize that anyone can download the forms and possibly even put something in the boxes. But that does not mean that one fully understands the legal aspects of the task or risks.
But rather than reading too much into a single IRS determination letter, hopefully, others can learn an invaluable lesson--and avoid a not-atypical 4 year wait (especially if the initial application requires multiple rounds of clarifications because it was not completed adequately) and potential frustration of donors.
While drone activists and commercial drone aircraft operators/manufacturers have tried to downplay the numerous problems with drone aircraft use, the facts remain: --most of today's drone aircraft are hobbyist-grade devices without significant, controlled testing; --major issues remain unresolved (and will worsen if usage increases) related to radio interference; --many "hobbist" drones use crowded, common radio spectrum for control (some drones are semi-autonomous or may have basic loss-of-signal processors but again these are largely untested in controlled envionments); --it is unclear whether insurers (especially in commercial uses as an insurer defines commercial) will cover the damages from drone aircraft, damages which can be significant including death or property destruction (fires from overheated motors hot enough to melt solder, etc.); --with no licensing or registration of drones, it is hard to hold the drone aircraft operator accountable when problems that arise (after all, it's your kid who lost an eye from a drone strike over a playground but hey, the drone operator got away the police say); and --the willful violation of the long-standing R/C model aircraft guidelines places R/C model aircraft operator privileges in jeopardy (which is a shame because these hobbyists have decades of responsible operation AWAY from populated areas, AWAY from noise sensitive areas, and AWAY from other aircraft).
This does not even account for the numerous privacy issues which are equally pressing.
Thus, looking at the issues posed by drone aircraft (and especially for commercial uses) and failure of the drone aircraft industry / drone aircraft activists) to take a meaningful lead on these issues, fair and practical regulations of drones are needed from both the FAA and the FCC such as testing of drone aircraft and components, radio spectrum limits, licensing of pilots, required training, mandatory liability coverage, drone aircraft inspections and certifications, and drone aircraft registration. No one says drones cannot be operated at all; but if operated, people need adequate protections and assurances just as with any other aircraft. That is common sense.
42 USC 2000e-2 flatly prohibits US employers from: "limit[ing], segregat[ing], or classify[ing] his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Note the repeated use of the word ANY in the statute--often "overlooked" in the name of so-called "diversity." Those factors cannot be used to either deny OR "pursue" any group.
Thus, implying that the employment numbers are anything but simply facts seems to presuppose an illegal discrimination practice because an employer may be inherently classifying employees based on prohibited factors rather than on the qualifications for the job--that is, illegally using these prohibited factors to "favor" certain applicants to "get the numbers up." (Euphemistically termed reverse-discrimination--but any discrimination is prohibited-discrimination under the statute.)
The purpose of the Civil Rights movement in the US and decades of federal action was to eliminate all such practices. Instead, we continue to see companies and activists trot out the race/sex/etc. card instead of focusing on building bona fide qualifications/talent and seeking excellence in the workplace.
The issue is not whether these contracts are or are not enforceable. This issue is moot.
Simply by signing the contract you, if found to be infringing on the contract terms, will need an attorney to efend yourself. Even if the "judge" or arbitrator "throws out" the case, you will still be responsible for your legal fees. Costs can quickly escalate for fees and expenses. Remember, this is contract law.
Any employer who would require such a contract is simply infringing on employee rights. They are, however, counting on the difficult labor market -- who will refuse this contract when they must choose between eating and starving.
I would think seriously before starting a "software" company. As an experienced software company executive, the current legal and economic climate minimize the viability of any software firm.
First -- unless you are well funded, the errors and omissions insurance is either unavailable or so costly as to not be economically viable. Starting a software company today, considering the patent portfolios of most companies and the litigious environment, is simply negligence.
Second -- if I had a micro-payment for every person who thought that he or she could "do better on their own," I would make Microsoft look like the corner grocery store. Frankly,it is not that there are no good ideas nor that there are no goiod people. The current legal environment practically limits any innovation. Until software "patents" are struck down, this issue will not change. If you think you have a "hot idea," you would be best served, and probably save yourself a lot of litigation costs, by keeping it to yourself.
Third, many people starting a company naively think "gee, I earn $60,000 per year" so I can just charge that to the customer myself and make a killing. However, to "earn" $60,000 in salary, you would need to bill, on average with very low overhead, $150,000 to $180,000 of work. Are you prepared to do that (including working three times your current work week)? Most new entrepeneurs fail because they underprice services. Undercutting rarely works unless you have a true commodity. And even then, you better have reserves to survive when your competitor undercuts you simply to make a point.
Frankly, I would councel people to make use of there time for something worthwhile and not waste time on software. The patent environment makes it almost impossible to innovate without paying license fees. It simply is not worth it.
These figures are behind my drive to stop the fraudulent and extortionary rates charged by Indian outsourcers.
The mean income rates are around US$8 per day in Indian. Fine. If Indian wants to be the world's outsourcing headquarters, then US companies that outsource should be expecting to pay US$1-$2 per hour for programming resources -- certainly no more than US$5 per hour. However, Indian firms continue to praise the low rates of US$40 per hour. In other words, US companies that outsource are paying eight times the going rate for labor.
I have no problem with Indian or any other third and fourth world country being an IT outsourcer. However, US companies need to be more firm in brining rates in India in line with reality. Paying at least eight times the going indigenous labor rate is simply absurd -- and is why this infomation is never included in US corporate reports. Comparing the overinflated Indian rates to US rates is simply wrong. The rates should reflect the indigenous labor costs -- not external costs.
I think if Indian "programmers" were paid their true rates, there would be far less pressure against US jobs anfd the IT industry would begin growing again -- how will it ever grow with Indian labor?
I guess the swastika blackmail stunt against MS did not work so now the zionists will carry forth their blackmail plan by attemtpting to undermine MS profits. Any company that does not pay the zionist extortionists faces similar consequences.
These guys make the fabled "mafia" look like pikers.
I have been reading/. for years and this is the most disappointing reaction to a story posting that I have seen to date.
First, BPL is proven to cause interference to more than just amateur radio. Amateur radio operators are one of the few groups that has the skills and capabilities to prove the problem exists before a major mistake is made in deploying BPL.
Second, I have seen a number of anecdotes indicating that "ham" radio operators are jerks and, therefore, apparently should not have any rights. Obviously, in any group, a small minority of the members may be jerks. However, "hams" are by far one of the kindest, most intelligent, and thoughtful groups that I know. It is not fair for me to minimize the "jerk" problem, but I cannot see a link between being a jerk and having rights taken away. Get to know some real amateur radio operators and you will see a dedicated, service-oriented, and technologically cutting edge group.
Third, amateur radio operators are licensed by the FCC. The licensing requires extensive testing and is conducted very professionally (locate a local VEC session and you will see what I mean about professionalism). The tests are rigorous, especially for the higher classes, and require the applicant to be seriously interested in radio and technical communications. Amateur radio operators are not a bunch of people with "CBs" sitting around making life difficult for others.
Forth, amateur radio operators are largely responsible for many of the "Internet crowd" technologies. Wireless Internet (I was doing that in 1990), satellite tv, "cell" phones, etc. were all largely based on amateur radio technologies. Amateur radio is really a cutting edge scientific and technical discipline.
Fifth, and probably most important, BPL may sound like an excellent idea; but the telecom industry promised broadband access via standard telephone and digital line technologies to most people in the US by 2006 as part of the mega merger process in the 1980s and 1990s. In exchange for creating mega-monopolies, the telcos promised to provide broadband services. The telcos, however, have heavily lobbied Congress and state governments to conveniently "forget" this little deal because it is now "too expensive." If the telcos would be held to their agreements, poor technologies like BPL would not be needed. Think about it: do you really want your Internet connections from a high voltage/amperage power line? Contact your Congressperson and state representatives and ask why the telcos have not lived up to the commitments.
I guess I am just disappointed that a number of/.ers are attacking amateur radio rather than seeking more information about the service. "Hams" are not just ten old guys sitting around using "CBs" to talk in some antiquated manner or a bunch of old guys hunched over a telegraph key slowly tapping out morse code. Amateur radio is also not just an "emergency" service -- although some amateur radio operators do participate in emergency communications. You would be amazed at what amateur radio has to offer -- GPS location services, radio/Internet interconnects, satellite communications, digital communications, microwave projects, rural Internet, and other bleeding edge projects. Many of these projects will become standard/.er fair in five or ten years.
The "Universal Service Tax" is not a benevolence fund and is inappropriately applied to cable modem or other services.
1) The UST was created to increase profits for "rural" telecos -- few which still exists due to the mega mergers (I do not consider Verizon a rural telco). The UST was heavily lobbied for by legislators with telco ties in the name of the poor rural folks (I am one). However, what the tax actually does is underwrite business costs -- not provide access. It works like this: everyone is taxed for teleco services. The tax is then given to telcos to offset the alleged costs of providing services to rural areas. The telcos continue to collect the funds but stall and complain about the burgeoning costs and delay any roll-outs due to the lack of demand. In other words, this tax has little to do with providing services to rural consumers. It is designed to enhance profits for telcos.
2) In many cases, for rural consumers, cable modem access is the only choice due to the strict technical limitations of DSL. That is, the promised competitivness where telcos will benevolently deliver DSL, and cable companies cable modem options is simply a fraud. Rarely is DSL available in rural areas by a telco (some rural governments are installing their own services). So where is all this money going? Really? I live in a rural area and only have cable as a choice. (I am thankful for it.) If the UST is truly designed to provide broadband to rural communities, I have seen no evidence of it. In the past two places that I have lived, one had cable modems as an option and one had no broadband access (the "local" telco would not even provide an estimate of access due to low demand).
3) In my example, I will actually be paying (as a rural consumer) under the new provisions an additional tax for rural access. I do not see the logic. Who then is defined as rural -- someone who does not have broadband access? The definition is absurd as is the whole UST. I selected cable because DSL is not an option in my rural area even though the FCC insists that it is an option or will be in the near future (oh, let's say by 2009 [no joke, this is the time estimate -- $6 billion per year for 12 years to make this happen--hopefully]).
4) I have not seen one published report that confirms that rural consumers have benefitted substantially from this fund. Not one. I am sure that their are anecdotal cases, but nothing to substantiate a $6 billion per year fund. where is the money going? (Nothign sinister. A simple question.)
5) The funds for schools are also questionable. Rather than a telco lowering costs or providing the connectivity for free to schools, the telcos continue to charge high rates because they know that the costs are underwritten by the UST. Again, money is directly funnelled to the telcos through this program and is guaranteed by the government -- who also legislated that all schools must have broadband. So this becomes a solid profit center for telcos -- government guaranteed money essentially.
My comments may sound sinister, but they are not intended to be so. A lot of legislation is written in this manner -- seemingly benevolent on the surface but in reality, the results are a simple corporate profit center.
It is time to abandon the UST entirely (and make the telcos refund the payments to consumers) unless solid progress is made by telcos in creating legitimate and real universal access in real rural areas.
Nevertheless, expanding the current program to cable franchises is simply absurd. Unless the telcos (who are really only concerned about collecting larger fees from the program -- cable companies are exempt from the funds) can show overwhelming proof that DSL and cable are competitive in a overwhelming majority of truly rural markets (Allentown and Hershey, PA are classified as rural for goodness sakes), the cable modem tax should not proceed. The additional tax will simply increase the profits of telcos but requires no increase in the roll-out of broadband to rural areas.
Once you "register" for the "free" download, you receive a barrage of "announcements" from the vendor.
Point: I am EVALUATING the product. That does not mean that I want to buy the product or does not even indicate if the product is appropriate for my uses. I get so tired of the perpetual followups and emails (sometimes for years afterwards) from the evaluations. Frnakly, most software is simply not worht the time.
(Oh, adding the "Sorry, we practice good spam prevention techniques and will gladly remove you from our list" is not acceptable. Don't send me the email in the first place.)
The term "web design" indicates someone that is moving in the wrong direction. There is no such thing as "web design." There is Internet development and Internet applications development, but "web design" is simply a misnomer.
All web sites are software applications -- not "designs." The differentiation is critical. I see numerous "graphic designers" who offer web sites. What they are offering is simply a means of double charging for placing a brochure online. The ubiquitous "Contact Us" does not qualify a web site as a business application or customer relationship management application.
If you are serious about creating an Internet application, start just as you would with any sofwae development project: -- define the user base -- define the business case -- define the budget -- assess available resources -- plan the project -- start development
Note there there are no references to "designing comps", slicing-and-dicing PhotoShop files, adding Flash, rich media, or other related garbage.
I know that some Slash Dotters may take umbrage with my comments and simply classify me as a raving Lynx-bigot. However, there is a real method to my seeming madness. No one belies someone a nice looking site. But such a site must be developed from usability, functionality, and capabilities. You don't start a web site "design" by opening PhotoShop (or the Gimp).
An overwhelming number os "web sites" are simply online brochures that do little or nothing. These sites take particular joy is designing new "interfaces" that challenge the user. Flash "navigation", pop up menus, image maps, roll overs, underline links (anathma to "designers"), etc. create a very forboding environment for the average user. Consistency is not bad -- common navigation methods, common navigation elements, common navigation structure, common naming convetions. All of these are regularly jettisoned by "designers" seeking a "cool" new design -- "how pedestrian" they chide.
My advice is: start with a solid business case and add the "design" later.
This thread seriously interests me, and I apologize for the second posting.
ADP, or even local payroll, are good programs. For a relatively minor fee, the payroll company will handle payment of all apparent taxes and will usually protect you should a mistake MADE BY THE PAYROLL COMPANY is uncovered -- e.g., a typo changes your $2500.00 monthly salary to $5200.00 and your bank account is overdrawn. Note, however, that if you are the cause of the error, the payroll company may not cover the error. For example, if you take a $1000.00 "salary" per month when my expected yearly income is $65,000 to reduce FICA and employment taxes, and the state or federal tax people say that you were unreasonably underpaying, you, not ADP, are responsible.
I just find it unfortunate that so many find accountants as expensive and see their skills as a cost. I pay approximately $90.00 per hour for accounting and get some peace of mind. No, in the general realm of things, I wish that all this tax stuff would go away. But an accountant is much more than "the tax guy." These people, if you get a good one, are a wealth of advice. They have seen dozens if not hundreds of companys and probably as many situations. Think of them as a mentor or coach. Sure, you can reduce your payroll costs marginally by using ADP rather than your accountant, but I don't mind paying a premium to have someone who KNOWS my business handling these affairs. I give a short call with a question. My accountant knows who I am, what my big picture situation is (not just my payroll or taxes), and what types of recommendations to make. It is up to me, as the business owner, to make the decision. This is what business is all about -- not just making money. If you just want to make more money, find a better paying job.
This question is really too complex to be addressed in this forum. I have read several of the responses and have seen a number of well meaning, but wrong, responses. Unfortunately, YOU are the one who is responsible for the issues. Relying on generic "advice" can cost you a substantial amount of money. Taxing agencies will simply not care if "you did not know."
I have been a CEO, small business owner, CIO, and start-up advisor. I cannot stress the following enough -- invest approximately $2000.00 in some good legal and accounting advice. Frankly, if you cannot invest $2000.00, I would not go into business. I have learned a lot of lessons in business -- many the hard way. When I was starting my first business a number of years ago, I thought spending money on accountants and lawyers was crazy --after all, I had to save all I could for the business. I quickly learned that this was not the case.
Some tips:
1. Ignore the specific advice in these threads. Variations is circumstances, state taxes, state business entity issues etc. preclude any real advice in this forum. Be smart. Go to local experts.
2. Find a good accountant -- get a reference from someone you know who uses an accountant. Try to find an accountant who knows your business -- that works with technology clients for example. This is important to reduce the time it takes to train your accountant.
3. Get an attorney. I hate them, but they are essential.
4. Get a good BUSINESS insurance agent. The family life insurance rep won't cut it. Look for business insurance agents -- preferably close by.
5. Talk to your banker. No, they probably will NOT loan you money (unless you go through a government corporate welfare program). But it is critical to build a relationship with the banker for later funding.
6. Visit with your local SCORE (Retired Executives) or SBA (Small Business Administration) office.
Don't go into business if your motivation is to make more money through lucritive deductions and high pay rates. In almost all cases, you will be disappointed. Running a business is costly, time consuming, and frought with perils.
Some examples: (these are illustrations only)
You incorporate. It is just you as the "employee." OSHA visits your office. No OSHA poster? You will be fined. No first aid kit? Fine. Many states require several hundred dollars per year to re-register a corporation. Miss the re-registration? You may be stripped of S corp status or worse lose your C corp status. [Don't even waste your time with those Delaware Corps unless you are in Delaware.] Miss a tax payment? Penalties accrue. Think you can just hold on to your money and pay at the end of the year? Wrong. Think that incorporation shields you from liability? Think again. In most states this is not a blanket protection. If you knowingly (or unknowingly but should have known) commit acts that are illegal, the corporate shieled can be dissolved -- look at Enron and Tyson recently.
My point is, running a business is not a game. You must do it right; and it can become tedious very, very, very quickly. You will need to decide if you want to run a business or if you want to work. I like running a business. But if I truly wanted to make money, I would be an employee in a second.
All "law enforcement" are specifically exempted from the DCMA. (I checked due to another project.) This would, and since we must depend on the US legal system will, be extended to companies that aid in "law enforcement" activities.
US like the Soviet Union? Actually, it is worse. I am not sure why US citizens naively believe that Soviet citizens lived in a sepiatone world and constantly strived to be "free." Soviet life was/is much like US life. Secret police, wire tapping, para-military police units/military policing, surreptious observation/spying on citizens, legal systems rather than justice systems, welfare state (Social Security, AFDC, WIC, HUD, FHA Mortgages, IRAs/401ks), enormous tax rates (averaging about 50% in the US), police invasions of private property, state control of property (zoning, wet lands protection, "endangered species" protection, federal land ownership (outside DC), DCMA, "terrorism", "drug war"), manipulation of currency (by the privately held "Fed"), financial spying (Bank "Secrecy" Acts), etc. I don't see a significant difference.
But we are happy because we don't need to wait for ten years for a car -- rather, we go into debt for four or five years for the car and then need to replace it constantly.
As an Internet professional, I can resoundingly confirm the negligence, ineptitude, lack of ethics, and failures of Verisign/NetSol.
I can also confirm that Verisign has outsourced the "call center" to locations in India and the Phillipines. I feel badly for the offshore call center reps (they are just trying to make a living), but they simply cannot address issues and are generally untrained. It is almost impossible to reach a US representative of Net Sol. The following telephone number (if it stays connected) may help: 703.742.0400. The toll free telephone numbers on the invoices are wrong -- as of 10.08.2001 -- or directly connect to the offshore call centers.
I ended up filing a formal complaint with the Office of the Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Perhaps if more complaints are filed, the AGs in the US will hold Verisign/Net Sol accountable. Filing a complaint is easy and can bring results.
It is easy to bad mouth a company, and I normally refrain from doing so -- being a business owner myself. However, if you want to look at a serious and flagrant example of corporate abuse of customers, Net Sol/Verisign, without exception, gets my first vote (not just of technology companies but of all companies).
I am not sure what the discussion is about. The US ended on October 26, 2001. There is no US Constitution in effect as of October 26. Get over it. Welcome to the police state (And you thought that everything would grow dark and be reduced to somber sepiatone and monochrome just like the movies. This is real life folks.)
Note: The article (and we only know from the article) does NOT preclude expansion of nor limitations to this new "power." Only an example is provided. I, for one, am fully willing to give up my "safety," even in a case where a "terrorist" may be plotting new actions via an "attorney," to protect the rights of the accused. That is a republic and that is the price we pay for freedom. Unfortunately, the opposit is now true -- the government decides how much power it will take to "assure protection." Thus, we have descended to totalitarianism where others are claiming to protect us (tell that to the families of the 5400+ that died under "protection" of the federal government). This action has further abrogated our former rights as a republic -- thus, by definition, a state of totalitarianism exists. Arguing otherwise is simple ignorance (but, entertaining, nevertheless).
If you speak with most high level businessmen, a sincere need for more technology leaders is clearly evident. Frankly, most "businessmen" are not adept at technology but can manage. Businessmen would love to have good technology managers. Honestly, businesses need managers (I know; we can behave ourselves). While managers are often maligned, managers are part of business. During the dot.com craze, several businesses tried (unsuccessfully) to minimize the roll of management (flat organizations), but this was highly ineffective.
Reading the postings on this thread, I see mention of management being viewed as controlling or somehow influencing others. While this is part of management (and part of leadership), there is a lot more to management. There is also a clear distiction between being a manager and being a lead technology player -- the latter being simply a good, experienced technology worker and the former being a leader. Pointy-haired-boss jokes aside, management/leadership is a tough job. Management includes arbitration, influence, respect, decisiveness, control, time management, and excellent communications skills. For example, this does not mean that sending hourly updates to your "team" notifying them of the project status is effective communication. This may be high volume communication, but the communication is not necessarily effective -- in this case, there will be an increasing wedge between the dicatorial "manager" (who is he to tell me the status) and the team. Rather, in my opinion, a good manager rarely needs to communicate status to a team; the team should know the status themselves.
How do you become a manager? Start acting like one -- dress the part and act the part. This may sound mundane but part of learning management is doing management. Being buddies with everyone does not mean that you are management material -- I would even say that this is NOT a qualification for management. As a manager, there is a certain distance between you and the team -- running with the guys is usually over once you make management. It is difficult to be an effective manager if you, as a manager, cannot remain unbiased.
You will quickly find out what does and does not work by acting as a manager. In most cases, the team that you lead will even more quickly decide if you have what it takes. Think about the best manager that you have had. Not the one that let you get away with murder, but the manager that you respected -- and may have hated at times because he seemed out-of-touch. What did he do that made him a good manager? Was he fair? Did you know your role in the organization? Did he motivate you? Hopefully, you had a manager that you respected. If you did, approach management/leadership with the attitude: what would {manager} have done?
Not everyone is adept at management. This is OK. If you are going into management for more money.... STOP. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200. You will only make yourself and others miserable. You know the boss that you hate? You will become him. Basically, those who cannot lead become management dictators ruling by edict or become incompetent fools (lacking respect and effectiveness). Becoming a manager is something that requires maturity, experience, and will. You will make mistakes (goodness knows the number I have made), but you must be committed to the concept.
I am not sure why developers/coders perceive architecture development as the natural transition from coding. In most cases that I am aware of, good developers make poor architects.
An architect is not necessarily a good coder. A good coder is, in almost all cases, not an architect.
Architecture development takes effective communications skills, excellent organizational skills, good business skills, and good management skills. If you are not seeking a management position, then architecture development is definately NOT for you. Arcjitects must be able to easily and transparently move between highly technical discussions and business/management discussions.
Just being a crack coder is not a qualification for being an architect. Many businesses are realizing this as the technology market allegedly contracts. Businesses no longer need to "put up with" techies in architecture positions. Businesses can be more selective and are overwhelmingly choosing business oriented technology workers over crack coders for architecture positions.
This is not meant to malign your skills. However, if you do not want to go into management, your career path is relatively limited -- probably senior developer is the tops in the current market (just two years ago, a top techie might be placed in a nice office and called CTO but this is becoming more rare).
I applied for a trademark in mid-1997 and am still awaiting final approval. The trademark process is very interesting, is quite complex, and does take quite some time.
Many people confuse trademarks and patents. A trademark or servicemark is simply a means of identifying a specific product. There is nothing nefarious or even anti-competative about most trademarks (exceptions ignored). The trademark truly does protect consumers from unscrupulous people who attempt to pass-off inferior products or services using a well known brand name.
Also, a trademark does not globally restrict use. For example, when filing a trademark, the mark must be filed for a class of services and is ONLY grated for the class in which it was filed. There are literally thousands of these classes. Also, the mark granted is usually just for the illustrated appearance unless the mark is a strong mark. For example, I may file a trademark for my fooBar candy bar. The mark may be denied? Why? fooBar is relatively common and, therefore, a weak mark. If, however, I filed a mark for my fooBar logo (not just the text fooBar), the mark might be granted. Confusing? You bet. Trademark law is extremely complex.
Even if I file a trademark for fooBar candy, I will need to select a class of services. This is consistent with the purpose of a trademark -- to identify specific services. I might select a food product -- confections class. Two years later, a different company files a trademark for fooBar Software. Nothing I can do as long as they do not use my logo or a similar facsimile thereof. There is nothing unique about fooBar. If you want to protect a text and logo, then you must elect a strong trademark. These trademarks are where we get Itanium(TM), Athalon(TM), etc. or unique names.
Again, back to the purpose of trademarks -- identifying services and preventing consumer confusion. Trademarks are not like patents -- where patents restrict and stifle ideas.
My only reservation about trademarks is that large companies seemingly have an advantage for filings. This does make some sense if a trademark is only to protect an investment in building brand awareness but can serverly impede new companies from developing a viable brand and receiving a trademark.
I have served as both CIO and CTO (and CEO) and may have some perspective on this issue (of course, all of us management types are clueless, but I will try;-)). Before I begin, I have not seen a formal distinction or guidelines for distinguishing between the two positions.
CIO:
The CIO position has existed for several years and typically refers to IT-related and company technology infrastruture issues. Networks (including connectivity (T-1s etc.)), computer workstations, servers, software, telephone systems, building security, disaster recovery, and IT personnel typically fall under the jurisdiction of the CIO. In a nutshell, if it is modern/information age technology, and you can touch it, it is a CIO responsibility. Until recently, the CIO typically reported to the CFO (Chief Financial Officer -- the man with the money) or the COO (Chief Operating Officer -- Mr. HR) and not to the CEO. Since technology is now a strategic vector in a company, the CIO is starting to report to the CEO directly. It is a big deal among company executives to report directly to the CEO -- don't ask me why; pecking order I guess.
CTO:
I am convinced that the CTO position is fallout from the Internet explosion. A bit of history.... Several Internet-related sites and projects were started by techies -- think Netscape, Yahoo, etc.; think Marc Andressen types. These were techie types who developed technology that created businesses. This is a critical statement -- technology development that created businesses. When the business emerged, the techie types were not prepared to carry through with a business model. This is not denigrating the founders of the technologies. The businesses took off (Netscape, Yahoo, etc.) and formal business types were hired to run the business. This left the business in a quandry -- the founder (the techie) is effectively demoted. In addition, the founder is too dangerous to "have-on-the-outside" -- he or she could develop another technology and create a new company rather than benefit ours. Rather than demote the techie founder or let him or her be competition, a new position called CTO was created. This allowed the techie founder to retain officer level power in the company without actually needing to run the business. The CTO position is starting to change, but typically this is filled by the head techie in a company (particularly if he or she is not a traditional business type). The CTO lends vision and technology guidance.
A MBA with a penchant for technology and infrastruture (hopefully) would typically become a CIO. A Masters of Science in Computer Science or a true hacker with good development skills and vision would become a CTO.
I started subscribing to The Perl Journal back when it was a simple standard paper (no flashy cover) journal -- at least for four years.
TPJ has always been somewhat lax in mailings -- no criticism of the editors/publishers, just reality. However, after I stopped getting copies for over four months, I contacted TPJ. They said that my subscription ran out (not true) and that no renewal notices are ever sent out (Is this a real magazine publisher??? I thought, by law, magazine publishers were required to send out renewals twice per week;-) ). I re-ordered the publication and purchased several back issues. I like to support the PERL Community. That was over two months ago -- still no back issues, still no new issues. Follow-up calls confirm payment and indicate that the issues will be going out sometime.
I hate to see TPJ go. This is one of the few worthwhile technical journals. However, I just seriously caution subscribers about sending money to the EarthWeb organization. EarthWeb does not appear to be, in any way, committed to PERL.
Slashdot Mirror
First a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 (flight 370) vanishes.
Now, another Malaysian Airlines 777 apparently shot down.
Two approximately $300 million (US) planes lost in five months. Odd.
This is absolutely untrue but gets parroted by many as somehow accurate.
1) Congress, not the FAA, statutorily defines aircraft and national airspace. Essentially, Congress, not the FAA, broadly defines aircraft and model aircraft and drone aircraft are aircraft by Congressional definition. An aircraft in national airspace (essentially,anything outside under Ad coelum doctrine) IS subject to FAA regulation.
2) In 1981, the FAA struck a compromise with RESPONSIBLE model aircraft operators who by definition are subject to FAA regulations applying to ANY aircraft. Essentially, the FAA said, hey, if model aircraft hobbyists act responsibly and voluntarily fly away from people, away from noise sensitive areas, and away from occupied aircraft, we, the FAA, will not prosecute hobbyists or develop onerous formal regulations for model aircraft.
3) Enter the drone aircraft operators who incorrectly parrot "we don't understand the law, don't want to obey the voluntary guidelines, and want to do what ever we want to." The legally flawed argument here is because no specific regulations exist, then no regulations exist. This is absolutely false and misunderstands how the law works and specifically misconstrues administrative regulations.
4) In 2012, Congress, responding to illegal and extremely risky activity by drone aircraft operators, specifically defined model aircraft BY STATUTE. The statute specifically defines model aircraft as aircraft NOT used for commercial uses and flown responsibly AWAY from people and other aircraft. Any other use is a commercial use and now, per Congress, is subject to FAA normal regulations for any other aircraft activity.
5) In 2014, a NTSB administrative law judge deciding on a $10,000 fine for alleged reckless operation of aircraft in 2011 (note the date carefully), initially held the general regulations did not apply under 2011 law--called the Pirker opinion. First, this Pirker decision was appealed and is stayed so it has no effect until decided on appeal. Second, Pirker itself specifically states that the 1981 guidelines DO apply. Third, even if Pirker would somehow be upheld on appeal (unlikely), Pirker applies to activities occurring BEFORE 2012 when Congress specifically defined model aircraft by statute (a statute usually trumps a regulation). Thus, while drone aircraft activists make wild claims about Pirker, Pirker is really of little or no value.
The sum: drone aircraft are aircraft, are subject to statutory law, are subject to FAA regulation, and unless meeting the very specific criteria of the 2012 statutory definition of model aircraft, cannot be flown as many are flying them today--especially cannot be flown for commercial purposes, around people, in noise sensitive areas, or near ANY other aircraft including other drone aircraft.
Unfortunately, this is a reality for some entities that choose to do-it-yourself with 501(c)(3) applications rather than seek legal advice. An attorney can guide an organization through the very precise and specific requirements necessary to acquire federal tax exemption status--or, help an organization to find other legal methods to similarly achieve its objectives.
Even if 501(c)(x) status was approved, an entity must still typically maintain that status (along with any state or other requirements). Many often confuse the non-profit or not-for-profit entity, which is almost always organized under state law, with obtaining federal 501(c)(x) status, which attaches to the entity. These are two different processes with extremely different requirements and different requirements to maintain.
I don't want to sound like an attorney-apologist. But 501(c)(x) status can be a challenging process--as it should be because it is supposed to be an extraordinary classification. Most realize that anyone can download the forms and possibly even put something in the boxes. But that does not mean that one fully understands the legal aspects of the task or risks.
But rather than reading too much into a single IRS determination letter, hopefully, others can learn an invaluable lesson--and avoid a not-atypical 4 year wait (especially if the initial application requires multiple rounds of clarifications because it was not completed adequately) and potential frustration of donors.
While drone activists and commercial drone aircraft operators/manufacturers have tried to downplay the numerous problems with drone aircraft use, the facts remain:
--most of today's drone aircraft are hobbyist-grade devices without significant, controlled testing;
--major issues remain unresolved (and will worsen if usage increases) related to radio interference;
--many "hobbist" drones use crowded, common radio spectrum for control (some drones are semi-autonomous or may have basic loss-of-signal processors but again these are largely untested in controlled envionments);
--it is unclear whether insurers (especially in commercial uses as an insurer defines commercial) will cover the damages from drone aircraft, damages which can be significant including death or property destruction (fires from overheated motors hot enough to melt solder, etc.);
--with no licensing or registration of drones, it is hard to hold the drone aircraft operator accountable when problems that arise (after all, it's your kid who lost an eye from a drone strike over a playground but hey, the drone operator got away the police say); and
--the willful violation of the long-standing R/C model aircraft guidelines places R/C model aircraft operator privileges in jeopardy (which is a shame because these hobbyists have decades of responsible operation AWAY from populated areas, AWAY from noise sensitive areas, and AWAY from other aircraft).
This does not even account for the numerous privacy issues which are equally pressing.
Thus, looking at the issues posed by drone aircraft (and especially for commercial uses) and failure of the drone aircraft industry / drone aircraft activists) to take a meaningful lead on these issues, fair and practical regulations of drones are needed from both the FAA and the FCC such as testing of drone aircraft and components, radio spectrum limits, licensing of pilots, required training, mandatory liability coverage, drone aircraft inspections and certifications, and drone aircraft registration. No one says drones cannot be operated at all; but if operated, people need adequate protections and assurances just as with any other aircraft. That is common sense.
42 USC 2000e-2 flatly prohibits US employers from:
"limit[ing], segregat[ing], or classify[ing] his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Note the repeated use of the word ANY in the statute--often "overlooked" in the name of so-called "diversity." Those factors cannot be used to either deny OR "pursue" any group.
Thus, implying that the employment numbers are anything but simply facts seems to presuppose an illegal discrimination practice because an employer may be inherently classifying employees based on prohibited factors rather than on the qualifications for the job--that is, illegally using these prohibited factors to "favor" certain applicants to "get the numbers up." (Euphemistically termed reverse-discrimination--but any discrimination is prohibited-discrimination under the statute.)
The purpose of the Civil Rights movement in the US and decades of federal action was to eliminate all such practices. Instead, we continue to see companies and activists trot out the race/sex/etc. card instead of focusing on building bona fide qualifications/talent and seeking excellence in the workplace.
The issue is not whether these contracts are or are not enforceable. This issue is moot.
Simply by signing the contract you, if found to be infringing on the contract terms, will need an attorney to efend yourself. Even if the "judge" or arbitrator "throws out" the case, you will still be responsible for your legal fees. Costs can quickly escalate for fees and expenses. Remember, this is contract law.
Any employer who would require such a contract is simply infringing on employee rights. They are, however, counting on the difficult labor market -- who will refuse this contract when they must choose between eating and starving.
I would think seriously before starting a "software" company. As an experienced software company executive, the current legal and economic climate minimize the viability of any software firm.
First -- unless you are well funded, the errors and omissions insurance is either unavailable or so costly as to not be economically viable. Starting a software company today, considering the patent portfolios of most companies and the litigious environment, is simply negligence.
Second -- if I had a micro-payment for every person who thought that he or she could "do better on their own," I would make Microsoft look like the corner grocery store. Frankly,it is not that there are no good ideas nor that there are no goiod people. The current legal environment practically limits any innovation. Until software "patents" are struck down, this issue will not change. If you think you have a "hot idea," you would be best served, and probably save yourself a lot of litigation costs, by keeping it to yourself.
Third, many people starting a company naively think "gee, I earn $60,000 per year" so I can just charge that to the customer myself and make a killing. However, to "earn" $60,000 in salary, you would need to bill, on average with very low overhead, $150,000 to $180,000 of work. Are you prepared to do that (including working three times your current work week)? Most new entrepeneurs fail because they underprice services. Undercutting rarely works unless you have a true commodity. And even then, you better have reserves to survive when your competitor undercuts you simply to make a point.
Frankly, I would councel people to make use of there time for something worthwhile and not waste time on software. The patent environment makes it almost impossible to innovate without paying license fees. It simply is not worth it.
These figures are behind my drive to stop the fraudulent and extortionary rates charged by Indian outsourcers.
The mean income rates are around US$8 per day in Indian. Fine. If Indian wants to be the world's outsourcing headquarters, then US companies that outsource should be expecting to pay US$1-$2 per hour for programming resources -- certainly no more than US$5 per hour. However, Indian firms continue to praise the low rates of US$40 per hour. In other words, US companies that outsource are paying eight times the going rate for labor.
I have no problem with Indian or any other third and fourth world country being an IT outsourcer. However, US companies need to be more firm in brining rates in India in line with reality. Paying at least eight times the going indigenous labor rate is simply absurd -- and is why this infomation is never included in US corporate reports. Comparing the overinflated Indian rates to US rates is simply wrong. The rates should reflect the indigenous labor costs -- not external costs.
I think if Indian "programmers" were paid their true rates, there would be far less pressure against US jobs anfd the IT industry would begin growing again -- how will it ever grow with Indian labor?
I guess the swastika blackmail stunt against MS did not work so now the zionists will carry forth their blackmail plan by attemtpting to undermine MS profits. Any company that does not pay the zionist extortionists faces similar consequences.
These guys make the fabled "mafia" look like pikers.
I have been reading /. for years and this is the most disappointing reaction to a story posting that I have seen to date.
/.ers are attacking amateur radio rather than seeking more information about the service. "Hams" are not just ten old guys sitting around using "CBs" to talk in some antiquated manner or a bunch of old guys hunched over a telegraph key slowly tapping out morse code. Amateur radio is also not just an "emergency" service -- although some amateur radio operators do participate in emergency communications. You would be amazed at what amateur radio has to offer -- GPS location services, radio/Internet interconnects, satellite communications, digital communications, microwave projects, rural Internet, and other bleeding edge projects. Many of these projects will become standard /.er fair in five or ten years.
First, BPL is proven to cause interference to more than just amateur radio. Amateur radio operators are one of the few groups that has the skills and capabilities to prove the problem exists before a major mistake is made in deploying BPL.
Second, I have seen a number of anecdotes indicating that "ham" radio operators are jerks and, therefore, apparently should not have any rights. Obviously, in any group, a small minority of the members may be jerks. However, "hams" are by far one of the kindest, most intelligent, and thoughtful groups that I know. It is not fair for me to minimize the "jerk" problem, but I cannot see a link between being a jerk and having rights taken away. Get to know some real amateur radio operators and you will see a dedicated, service-oriented, and technologically cutting edge group.
Third, amateur radio operators are licensed by the FCC. The licensing requires extensive testing and is conducted very professionally (locate a local VEC session and you will see what I mean about professionalism). The tests are rigorous, especially for the higher classes, and require the applicant to be seriously interested in radio and technical communications.
Amateur radio operators are not a bunch of people with "CBs" sitting around making life difficult for others.
Forth, amateur radio operators are largely responsible for many of the "Internet crowd" technologies. Wireless Internet (I was doing that in 1990), satellite tv, "cell" phones, etc. were all largely based on amateur radio technologies. Amateur radio is really a cutting edge scientific and technical discipline.
Fifth, and probably most important, BPL may sound like an excellent idea; but the telecom industry promised broadband access via standard telephone and digital line technologies to most people in the US by 2006 as part of the mega merger process in the 1980s and 1990s. In exchange for creating mega-monopolies, the telcos promised to provide broadband services. The telcos, however, have heavily lobbied Congress and state governments to conveniently "forget" this little deal because it is now "too expensive." If the telcos would be held to their agreements, poor technologies like BPL would not be needed. Think about it: do you really want your Internet connections from a high voltage/amperage power line? Contact your Congressperson and state representatives and ask why the telcos have not lived up to the commitments.
I guess I am just disappointed that a number of
Sorry to get on my soap box.
The "Universal Service Tax" is not a benevolence fund and is inappropriately applied to cable modem or other services.
1) The UST was created to increase profits for "rural" telecos -- few which still exists due to the mega mergers (I do not consider Verizon a rural telco). The UST was heavily lobbied for by legislators with telco ties in the name of the poor rural folks (I am one). However, what the tax actually does is underwrite business costs -- not provide access. It works like this: everyone is taxed for teleco services. The tax is then given to telcos to offset the alleged costs of providing services to rural areas. The telcos continue to collect the funds but stall and complain about the burgeoning costs and delay any roll-outs due to the lack of demand. In other words, this tax has little to do with providing services to rural consumers. It is designed to enhance profits for telcos.
2) In many cases, for rural consumers, cable modem access is the only choice due to the strict technical limitations of DSL. That is, the promised competitivness where telcos will benevolently deliver DSL, and cable companies cable modem options is simply a fraud. Rarely is DSL available in rural areas by a telco (some rural governments are installing their own services). So where is all this money going? Really? I live in a rural area and only have cable as a choice. (I am thankful for it.) If the UST is truly designed to provide broadband to rural communities, I have seen no evidence of it. In the past two places that I have lived, one had cable modems as an option and one had no broadband access (the "local" telco would not even provide an estimate of access due to low demand).
3) In my example, I will actually be paying (as a rural consumer) under the new provisions an additional tax for rural access. I do not see the logic. Who then is defined as rural -- someone who does not have broadband access? The definition is absurd as is the whole UST. I selected cable because DSL is not an option in my rural area even though the FCC insists that it is an option or will be in the near future (oh, let's say by 2009 [no joke, this is the time estimate -- $6 billion per year for 12 years to make this happen--hopefully]).
4) I have not seen one published report that confirms that rural consumers have benefitted substantially from this fund. Not one. I am sure that their are anecdotal cases, but nothing to substantiate a $6 billion per year fund. where is the money going? (Nothign sinister. A simple question.)
5) The funds for schools are also questionable. Rather than a telco lowering costs or providing the connectivity for free to schools, the telcos continue to charge high rates because they know that the costs are underwritten by the UST. Again, money is directly funnelled to the telcos through this program and is guaranteed by the government -- who also legislated that all schools must have broadband. So this becomes a solid profit center for telcos -- government guaranteed money essentially.
My comments may sound sinister, but they are not intended to be so. A lot of legislation is written in this manner -- seemingly benevolent on the surface but in reality, the results are a simple corporate profit center.
It is time to abandon the UST entirely (and make the telcos refund the payments to consumers) unless solid progress is made by telcos in creating legitimate and real universal access in real rural areas.
Nevertheless, expanding the current program to cable franchises is simply absurd. Unless the telcos (who are really only concerned about collecting larger fees from the program -- cable companies are exempt from the funds) can show overwhelming proof that DSL and cable are competitive in a overwhelming majority of truly rural markets (Allentown and Hershey, PA are classified as rural for goodness sakes), the cable modem tax should not proceed. The additional tax will simply increase the profits of telcos but requires no increase in the roll-out of broadband to rural areas.
Once you "register" for the "free" download, you receive a barrage of "announcements" from the vendor.
Point: I am EVALUATING the product. That does not mean that I want to buy the product or does not even indicate if the product is appropriate for my uses. I get so tired of the perpetual followups and emails (sometimes for years afterwards) from the evaluations. Frnakly, most software is simply not worht the time.
(Oh, adding the "Sorry, we practice good spam prevention techniques and will gladly remove you from our list" is not acceptable. Don't send me the email in the first place.)
The term "web design" indicates someone that is moving in the wrong direction. There is no such thing as "web design." There is Internet development and Internet applications development, but "web design" is simply a misnomer.
All web sites are software applications -- not "designs." The differentiation is critical. I see numerous "graphic designers" who offer web sites. What they are offering is simply a means of double charging for placing a brochure online. The ubiquitous "Contact Us" does not qualify a web site as a business application or customer relationship management application.
If you are serious about creating an Internet application, start just as you would with any sofwae development project:
-- define the user base
-- define the business case
-- define the budget
-- assess available resources
-- plan the project
-- start development
Note there there are no references to "designing comps", slicing-and-dicing PhotoShop files, adding Flash, rich media, or other related garbage.
I know that some Slash Dotters may take umbrage with my comments and simply classify me as a raving Lynx-bigot. However, there is a real method to my seeming madness. No one belies someone a nice looking site. But such a site must be developed from usability, functionality, and capabilities. You don't start a web site "design" by opening PhotoShop (or the Gimp).
An overwhelming number os "web sites" are simply online brochures that do little or nothing. These sites take particular joy is designing new "interfaces" that challenge the user. Flash "navigation", pop up menus, image maps, roll overs, underline links (anathma to "designers"), etc. create a very forboding environment for the average user. Consistency is not bad -- common navigation methods, common navigation elements, common navigation structure, common naming convetions. All of these are regularly jettisoned by "designers" seeking a "cool" new design -- "how pedestrian" they chide.
My advice is: start with a solid business case and add the "design" later.
This thread seriously interests me, and I apologize for the second posting.
ADP, or even local payroll, are good programs. For a relatively minor fee, the payroll company will handle payment of all apparent taxes and will usually protect you should a mistake MADE BY THE PAYROLL COMPANY is uncovered -- e.g., a typo changes your $2500.00 monthly salary to $5200.00 and your bank account is overdrawn. Note, however, that if you are the cause of the error, the payroll company may not cover the error. For example, if you take a $1000.00 "salary" per month when my expected yearly income is $65,000 to reduce FICA and employment taxes, and the state or federal tax people say that you were unreasonably underpaying, you, not ADP, are responsible.
I just find it unfortunate that so many find accountants as expensive and see their skills as a cost. I pay approximately $90.00 per hour for accounting and get some peace of mind. No, in the general realm of things, I wish that all this tax stuff would go away. But an accountant is much more than "the tax guy." These people, if you get a good one, are a wealth of advice. They have seen dozens if not hundreds of companys and probably as many situations. Think of them as a mentor or coach. Sure, you can reduce your payroll costs marginally by using ADP rather than your accountant, but I don't mind paying a premium to have someone who KNOWS my business handling these affairs. I give a short call with a question. My accountant knows who I am, what my big picture situation is (not just my payroll or taxes), and what types of recommendations to make. It is up to me, as the business owner, to make the decision. This is what business is all about -- not just making money. If you just want to make more money, find a better paying job.
This question is really too complex to be addressed in this forum. I have read several of the responses and have seen a number of well meaning, but wrong, responses. Unfortunately, YOU are the one who is responsible for the issues. Relying on generic "advice" can cost you a substantial amount of money. Taxing agencies will simply not care if "you did not know."
I have been a CEO, small business owner, CIO, and start-up advisor. I cannot stress the following enough -- invest approximately $2000.00 in some good legal and accounting advice. Frankly, if you cannot invest $2000.00, I would not go into business. I have learned a lot of lessons in business -- many the hard way. When I was starting my first business a number of years ago, I thought spending money on accountants and lawyers was crazy --after all, I had to save all I could for the business. I quickly learned that this was not the case.
Some tips:
1. Ignore the specific advice in these threads. Variations is circumstances, state taxes, state business entity issues etc. preclude any real advice in this forum. Be smart. Go to local experts.
2. Find a good accountant -- get a reference from someone you know who uses an accountant. Try to find an accountant who knows your business -- that works with technology clients for example. This is important to reduce the time it takes to train your accountant.
3. Get an attorney. I hate them, but they are essential.
4. Get a good BUSINESS insurance agent. The family life insurance rep won't cut it. Look for business insurance agents -- preferably close by.
5. Talk to your banker. No, they probably will NOT loan you money (unless you go through a government corporate welfare program). But it is critical to build a relationship with the banker for later funding.
6. Visit with your local SCORE (Retired Executives) or SBA (Small Business Administration) office.
Don't go into business if your motivation is to make more money through lucritive deductions and high pay rates. In almost all cases, you will be disappointed. Running a business is costly, time consuming, and frought with perils.
Some examples: (these are illustrations only)
You incorporate. It is just you as the "employee." OSHA visits your office. No OSHA poster? You will be fined. No first aid kit? Fine. Many states require several hundred dollars per year to re-register a corporation. Miss the re-registration? You may be stripped of S corp status or worse lose your C corp status. [Don't even waste your time with those Delaware Corps unless you are in Delaware.] Miss a tax payment? Penalties accrue. Think you can just hold on to your money and pay at the end of the year? Wrong. Think that incorporation shields you from liability? Think again. In most states this is not a blanket protection. If you knowingly (or unknowingly but should have known) commit acts that are illegal, the corporate shieled can be dissolved -- look at Enron and Tyson recently.
My point is, running a business is not a game. You must do it right; and it can become tedious very, very, very quickly. You will need to decide if you want to run a business or if you want to work. I like running a business. But if I truly wanted to make money, I would be an employee in a second.
All "law enforcement" are specifically exempted from the DCMA. (I checked due to another project.) This would, and since we must depend on the US legal system will, be extended to companies that aid in "law enforcement" activities.
US like the Soviet Union? Actually, it is worse. I am not sure why US citizens naively believe that Soviet citizens lived in a sepiatone world and constantly strived to be "free." Soviet life was/is much like US life. Secret police, wire tapping, para-military police units/military policing, surreptious observation/spying on citizens, legal systems rather than justice systems, welfare state (Social Security, AFDC, WIC, HUD, FHA Mortgages, IRAs/401ks), enormous tax rates (averaging about 50% in the US), police invasions of private property, state control of property (zoning, wet lands protection, "endangered species" protection, federal land ownership (outside DC), DCMA, "terrorism", "drug war"), manipulation of currency (by the privately held "Fed"), financial spying (Bank "Secrecy" Acts), etc. I don't see a significant difference.
But we are happy because we don't need to wait for ten years for a car -- rather, we go into debt for four or five years for the car and then need to replace it constantly.
As an Internet professional, I can resoundingly confirm the negligence, ineptitude, lack of ethics, and failures of Verisign/NetSol.
I can also confirm that Verisign has outsourced the "call center" to locations in India and the Phillipines. I feel badly for the offshore call center reps (they are just trying to make a living), but they simply cannot address issues and are generally untrained. It is almost impossible to reach a US representative of Net Sol. The following telephone number (if it stays connected) may help: 703.742.0400. The toll free telephone numbers on the invoices are wrong -- as of 10.08.2001 -- or directly connect to the offshore call centers.
I ended up filing a formal complaint with the Office of the Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Perhaps if more complaints are filed, the AGs in the US will hold Verisign/Net Sol accountable. Filing a complaint is easy and can bring results.
It is easy to bad mouth a company, and I normally refrain from doing so -- being a business owner myself. However, if you want to look at a serious and flagrant example of corporate abuse of customers, Net Sol/Verisign, without exception, gets my first vote (not just of technology companies but of all companies).
I am not sure what the discussion is about. The US ended on October 26, 2001. There is no US Constitution in effect as of October 26. Get over it. Welcome to the police state (And you thought that everything would grow dark and be reduced to somber sepiatone and monochrome just like the movies. This is real life folks.)
Note: The article (and we only know from the article) does NOT preclude expansion of nor limitations to this new "power." Only an example is provided. I, for one, am fully willing to give up my "safety," even in a case where a "terrorist" may be plotting new actions via an "attorney," to protect the rights of the accused. That is a republic and that is the price we pay for freedom. Unfortunately, the opposit is now true -- the government decides how much power it will take to "assure protection." Thus, we have descended to totalitarianism where others are claiming to protect us (tell that to the families of the 5400+ that died under "protection" of the federal government). This action has further abrogated our former rights as a republic -- thus, by definition, a state of totalitarianism exists. Arguing otherwise is simple ignorance (but, entertaining, nevertheless).
Kawa was canned by Macromedia in October. This is what happens when cheesy graphics design companies begin buying real development tools.
The United States of America
March 4, 1789 -- the US Constitution takes effect
October 26, 2001 -- the US Consitution is overthrown and a security state is instituted
This is an interesting thread.
If you speak with most high level businessmen, a sincere need for more technology leaders is clearly evident. Frankly, most "businessmen" are not adept at technology but can manage. Businessmen would love to have good technology managers. Honestly, businesses need managers (I know; we can behave ourselves). While managers are often maligned, managers are part of business. During the dot.com craze, several businesses tried (unsuccessfully) to minimize the roll of management (flat organizations), but this was highly ineffective.
Reading the postings on this thread, I see mention of management being viewed as controlling or somehow influencing others. While this is part of management (and part of leadership), there is a lot more to management. There is also a clear distiction between being a manager and being a lead technology player -- the latter being simply a good, experienced technology worker and the former being a leader. Pointy-haired-boss jokes aside, management/leadership is a tough job. Management includes arbitration, influence, respect, decisiveness, control, time management, and excellent communications skills. For example, this does not mean that sending hourly updates to your "team" notifying them of the project status is effective communication. This may be high volume communication, but the communication is not necessarily effective -- in this case, there will be an increasing wedge between the dicatorial "manager" (who is he to tell me the status) and the team. Rather, in my opinion, a good manager rarely needs to communicate status to a team; the team should know the status themselves.
How do you become a manager? Start acting like one -- dress the part and act the part. This may sound mundane but part of learning management is doing management. Being buddies with everyone does not mean that you are management material -- I would even say that this is NOT a qualification for management. As a manager, there is a certain distance between you and the team -- running with the guys is usually over once you make management. It is difficult to be an effective manager if you, as a manager, cannot remain unbiased.
You will quickly find out what does and does not work by acting as a manager. In most cases, the team that you lead will even more quickly decide if you have what it takes. Think about the best manager that you have had. Not the one that let you get away with murder, but the manager that you respected -- and may have hated at times because he seemed out-of-touch. What did he do that made him a good manager? Was he fair? Did you know your role in the organization? Did he motivate you? Hopefully, you had a manager that you respected. If you did, approach management/leadership with the attitude: what would {manager} have done?
Not everyone is adept at management. This is OK. If you are going into management for more money.... STOP. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200. You will only make yourself and others miserable. You know the boss that you hate? You will become him. Basically, those who cannot lead become management dictators ruling by edict or become incompetent fools (lacking respect and effectiveness). Becoming a manager is something that requires maturity, experience, and will. You will make mistakes (goodness knows the number I have made), but you must be committed to the concept.
I am not sure why developers/coders perceive architecture development as the natural transition from coding. In most cases that I am aware of, good developers make poor architects.
An architect is not necessarily a good coder. A good coder is, in almost all cases, not an architect.
Architecture development takes effective communications skills, excellent organizational skills, good business skills, and good management skills. If you are not seeking a management position, then architecture development is definately NOT for you. Arcjitects must be able to easily and transparently move between highly technical discussions and business/management discussions.
Just being a crack coder is not a qualification for being an architect. Many businesses are realizing this as the technology market allegedly contracts. Businesses no longer need to "put up with" techies in architecture positions. Businesses can be more selective and are overwhelmingly choosing business oriented technology workers over crack coders for architecture positions.
This is not meant to malign your skills. However, if you do not want to go into management, your career path is relatively limited -- probably senior developer is the tops in the current market (just two years ago, a top techie might be placed in a nice office and called CTO but this is becoming more rare).
I applied for a trademark in mid-1997 and am still awaiting final approval. The trademark process is very interesting, is quite complex, and does take quite some time.
Many people confuse trademarks and patents. A trademark or servicemark is simply a means of identifying a specific product. There is nothing nefarious or even anti-competative about most trademarks (exceptions ignored). The trademark truly does protect consumers from unscrupulous people who attempt to pass-off inferior products or services using a well known brand name.
Also, a trademark does not globally restrict use. For example, when filing a trademark, the mark must be filed for a class of services and is ONLY grated for the class in which it was filed. There are literally thousands of these classes. Also, the mark granted is usually just for the illustrated appearance unless the mark is a strong mark. For example, I may file a trademark for my fooBar candy bar. The mark may be denied? Why? fooBar is relatively common and, therefore, a weak mark. If, however, I filed a mark for my fooBar logo (not just the text fooBar), the mark might be granted. Confusing? You bet. Trademark law is extremely complex. Even if I file a trademark for fooBar candy, I will need to select a class of services. This is consistent with the purpose of a trademark -- to identify specific services. I might select a food product -- confections class. Two years later, a different company files a trademark for fooBar Software. Nothing I can do as long as they do not use my logo or a similar facsimile thereof. There is nothing unique about fooBar. If you want to protect a text and logo, then you must elect a strong trademark. These trademarks are where we get Itanium(TM), Athalon(TM), etc. or unique names. Again, back to the purpose of trademarks -- identifying services and preventing consumer confusion. Trademarks are not like patents -- where patents restrict and stifle ideas. My only reservation about trademarks is that large companies seemingly have an advantage for filings. This does make some sense if a trademark is only to protect an investment in building brand awareness but can serverly impede new companies from developing a viable brand and receiving a trademark.
I have served as both CIO and CTO (and CEO) and may have some perspective on this issue (of course, all of us management types are clueless, but I will try;-)). Before I begin, I have not seen a formal distinction or guidelines for distinguishing between the two positions.
.... Several Internet-related sites and projects were started by techies -- think Netscape, Yahoo, etc.; think Marc Andressen types. These were techie types who developed technology that created businesses. This is a critical statement -- technology development that created businesses. When the business emerged, the techie types were not prepared to carry through with a business model. This is not denigrating the founders of the technologies. The businesses took off (Netscape, Yahoo, etc.) and formal business types were hired to run the business. This left the business in a quandry -- the founder (the techie) is effectively demoted. In addition, the founder is too dangerous to "have-on-the-outside" -- he or she could develop another technology and create a new company rather than benefit ours. Rather than demote the techie founder or let him or her be competition, a new position called CTO was created. This allowed the techie founder to retain officer level power in the company without actually needing to run the business. The CTO position is starting to change, but typically this is filled by the head techie in a company (particularly if he or she is not a traditional business type). The CTO lends vision and technology guidance.
CIO:
The CIO position has existed for several years and typically refers to IT-related and company technology infrastruture issues. Networks (including connectivity (T-1s etc.)), computer workstations, servers, software, telephone systems, building security, disaster recovery, and IT personnel typically fall under the jurisdiction of the CIO. In a nutshell, if it is modern/information age technology, and you can touch it, it is a CIO responsibility. Until recently, the CIO typically reported to the CFO (Chief Financial Officer -- the man with the money) or the COO (Chief Operating Officer -- Mr. HR) and not to the CEO. Since technology is now a strategic vector in a company, the CIO is starting to report to the CEO directly. It is a big deal among company executives to report directly to the CEO -- don't ask me why; pecking order I guess.
CTO:
I am convinced that the CTO position is fallout from the Internet explosion. A bit of history
A MBA with a penchant for technology and infrastruture (hopefully) would typically become a CIO. A Masters of Science in Computer Science or a true hacker with good development skills and vision would become a CTO.
I started subscribing to The Perl Journal back when it was a simple standard paper (no flashy cover) journal -- at least for four years.
;-) ). I re-ordered the publication and purchased several back issues. I like to support the PERL Community. That was over two months ago -- still no back issues, still no new issues. Follow-up calls confirm payment and indicate that the issues will be going out sometime.
TPJ has always been somewhat lax in mailings -- no criticism of the editors/publishers, just reality. However, after I stopped getting copies for over four months, I contacted TPJ. They said that my subscription ran out (not true) and that no renewal notices are ever sent out (Is this a real magazine publisher??? I thought, by law, magazine publishers were required to send out renewals twice per week
I hate to see TPJ go. This is one of the few worthwhile technical journals. However, I just seriously caution subscribers about sending money to the EarthWeb organization. EarthWeb does not appear to be, in any way, committed to PERL.