A contract includes two parties, their part of the contract is to provide him time to eat the food. Severing the contract by asking him to leave means they have limited ability to force payment. They are in a stronger position when using something such as illegal behavior (creating a nuisance) to eject the patron, but simply asking them to leave because they are wearing Google Glass(tm) which is perfectly legal, not so much.
This was proven years ago, which is why games force you to select the new TOS whenever they change them by explicitly accepting them. It was common knowledge it was unenforceable unless you forced them to read it but they decided to ignore this fact. I ran a large website 12 years ago and we had to change it so they were forced to accept the ToS, and it couldn't be the default (if they could just hit enter, still invalid).
Yes, they will change it, but this isn't new and this ruling just supports the same reason you have to accept the EULA and TOS in most software now.
I happen to work in the industry and yes, that is the biggest problem. The Law Firm would have nobody to blame but themselves, and anyone that has worked with Lawyers knows that taking on that much risk for things outside of their core competency (Technology) is not something they are jumping to get into.
Don't get me started on the continued love of TIFF...
Small problem with that plan is that for #4, Walmart would have to cave... if there is one thing that Walmart has shown to be outrageously good at, it is controlling their suppliers' pricing.
One of the main reasons for this is that the DBAs are the ones that keep the production environment functioning. Devs get to put in whatever random thought that crosses their mind and when it breaks in production and data is lost, or clients are impacted they just shrug and say "Odd, didn't expect that".
A 'modern' DBA should be trained in whatever development cycle that dev is using, which may include Scrum/Agile, in which case the process would be integrated and the delay of implementation would be greatly reduced, but not eliminated. It really isn't a bad thing to stop and think about the big picture from time to time.
The issue is when the management sets up a reward system for DBAs to be roadblocks (this is usually done by crucifying a DBA for a database failure, even if it is proven to be a poor design from Development) that creates the type of environment you are talking about. It is a perfectly valid response to management to be protective of their job. The issue isn't the DBA, it is the structure around the technology groups.
Dev's doing data structures is generally less than optimal (Disks have to spin? Just buy faster ones), DBAs doing logic flows is generally bad (This is the optimal data structure, so let's just change the business logic a bit). Both working together will build a much better application because it broadens the amount of concepts that can be taken into account.
The key with ACID was that it allowed applications to offload a lot of basic logic of data consistency to the database, and that was a great thing.
But I think NoSQL is coming out from the fact that there are still times you don't need/want to do that, usually involving massive amounts of data that can be processed in chunks that can just be "done again" if something goes wrong (sort of like Map/Reduce recovery).
no downside and no negatives? What about the fact that dealing with a plastic disc is stupid? From the moment I saw two computers put together on a network in the 80's I was waiting for physical copies of media/games to go away. Now that all the technology is ready we are stuck behind stupid licensing and protectionist companies.
Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something,
That's what everyone did growing up if you are from the country. You left in the morning and if you missed lunch, that's your problem. But you had to be home for dinner.
The risk of kidnapping, molestation, etc. is no higher today (and in many cases lower) than it was then, but today there are 24hour news channels that cover every single incident and completely changed the perception of a world.
But as a parent you have to remember your responsibility, which is to prepare them for the real world, and that real world will be a bit mean. They must be able to rely on you completely, but you must also allow them to learn that mistakes aren't the end of the world, which means sometimes you have to let them make mistakes.
Also minor injuries are some of the fastest learning tools in the world.
There was a study done (which I can't find right now) that indicated that all the safety features had 0 impact on the overall safety of the roads. Ultimately a human is hard-wired with a specific risk tolerance, all you do by adding safety features is make them behave in a manner that will bring the risk tolerance back to where they are the most comfortable.
I can't find the exact study, but a related conversation:
It is bad parenting, but it is also almost mandated at this point. We were in the suburbs and one of my older children realised he could get to the porch roof from his window in his room. Now, I pretty much spent most of my childhood on one type of roof or another (Barn, house, tree house, etc) from the time I was 8, it was fun and exciting. A neighbour spotted the kid on the porch roof (which wasn't even all that tall) before my wife had successfully removed them from said roof and read my wife the riot act and threatened to call the police and CPS.
Ultimately we had to lock the windows down, which is not something my parents (or probably any parents of people my age) would have ever thought to do. My father's first response was "If you break something don't come crying to me".
The entire push to use example.com (which I always thought was pretty dumb) was because foo.com or bar.com might actually exist and do something, therefore if your point is valid, the entire point of example.com is invalid.
Not completely true, a full time employee is a very large liability these days, you want to make sure they are going to fit before adding them to payroll. I'm not so sure I would do the hire multiple knowing you can only fill one position, but I have regularly used contract-to-hire.
Agreed, I never ding someone because they have certifications, however I also don't ding people for not having certifications unless the position requires one (usually a client-facing or public facing position that requires lots of letters after their name).
You do sound like a fun guy and pretty competent, however I have to say that any firmware upgrade SOP 101 is to have a copy of the current firmware available if something bad happens. It shouldn't be luck that you have a rollback plan for any type of upgrade.
That's not a very useful executive. At the point it has been proven to be outside of your control it is time to get the customer support team working with the client to help them talk to their ISP and provide as much information as possible so that they can tell the ISP what is wrong. This accomplishes the task of letting the client know that it is not related to your service. It also lets them know that even though it isn't your problem you are willing to help in any way you can.
If he/she just keeps yelling at a tech that can't solve the problem, you have a leadership problem that needs resolving.
Yelling is almost never useful, back when I was a manager or director I would let the executive know that we are working on it and let us do the job they pay us to do. I also found it helpful that if you are having a vendor issue, let the executive send an e-mail stating it is an urgent matter to your contact, this lets the executive be a hero and gives the vendor bargaining power to escalate the issue to their upper management.
During an incident the leadership should be maintaining calm so that the people doing the work are at their peak performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Washington is an all-party state as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#All-party_consent_states
Therefore he's not allowed to record unless everyone agrees.
A contract includes two parties, their part of the contract is to provide him time to eat the food. Severing the contract by asking him to leave means they have limited ability to force payment. They are in a stronger position when using something such as illegal behavior (creating a nuisance) to eject the patron, but simply asking them to leave because they are wearing Google Glass(tm) which is perfectly legal, not so much.
This was proven years ago, which is why games force you to select the new TOS whenever they change them by explicitly accepting them. It was common knowledge it was unenforceable unless you forced them to read it but they decided to ignore this fact. I ran a large website 12 years ago and we had to change it so they were forced to accept the ToS, and it couldn't be the default (if they could just hit enter, still invalid).
Yes, they will change it, but this isn't new and this ruling just supports the same reason you have to accept the EULA and TOS in most software now.
-- Tenareth
And it worked, too.
I agree with some of what you say, but instead of education level I would say higher salaries based on skill and experience.
I happen to work in the industry and yes, that is the biggest problem. The Law Firm would have nobody to blame but themselves, and anyone that has worked with Lawyers knows that taking on that much risk for things outside of their core competency (Technology) is not something they are jumping to get into.
Don't get me started on the continued love of TIFF...
Small problem with that plan is that for #4, Walmart would have to cave... if there is one thing that Walmart has shown to be outrageously good at, it is controlling their suppliers' pricing.
But it is competition for Amazon Unbox.
He did state he was coming from the view of a Developer. Quality is a QA/IT/DBA concern, not Development.
One of the main reasons for this is that the DBAs are the ones that keep the production environment functioning. Devs get to put in whatever random thought that crosses their mind and when it breaks in production and data is lost, or clients are impacted they just shrug and say "Odd, didn't expect that".
A 'modern' DBA should be trained in whatever development cycle that dev is using, which may include Scrum/Agile, in which case the process would be integrated and the delay of implementation would be greatly reduced, but not eliminated. It really isn't a bad thing to stop and think about the big picture from time to time.
The issue is when the management sets up a reward system for DBAs to be roadblocks (this is usually done by crucifying a DBA for a database failure, even if it is proven to be a poor design from Development) that creates the type of environment you are talking about. It is a perfectly valid response to management to be protective of their job. The issue isn't the DBA, it is the structure around the technology groups.
The proper audience is BOTH.
Dev's doing data structures is generally less than optimal (Disks have to spin? Just buy faster ones), DBAs doing logic flows is generally bad (This is the optimal data structure, so let's just change the business logic a bit). Both working together will build a much better application because it broadens the amount of concepts that can be taken into account.
The key with ACID was that it allowed applications to offload a lot of basic logic of data consistency to the database, and that was a great thing.
But I think NoSQL is coming out from the fact that there are still times you don't need/want to do that, usually involving massive amounts of data that can be processed in chunks that can just be "done again" if something goes wrong (sort of like Map/Reduce recovery).
no downside and no negatives? What about the fact that dealing with a plastic disc is stupid? From the moment I saw two computers put together on a network in the 80's I was waiting for physical copies of media/games to go away. Now that all the technology is ready we are stuck behind stupid licensing and protectionist companies.
Most large licensing deals carry an NDA requiring the buyer not reveal the specifics.
Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something,
That's what everyone did growing up if you are from the country. You left in the morning and if you missed lunch, that's your problem. But you had to be home for dinner.
The risk of kidnapping, molestation, etc. is no higher today (and in many cases lower) than it was then, but today there are 24hour news channels that cover every single incident and completely changed the perception of a world.
But as a parent you have to remember your responsibility, which is to prepare them for the real world, and that real world will be a bit mean. They must be able to rely on you completely, but you must also allow them to learn that mistakes aren't the end of the world, which means sometimes you have to let them make mistakes.
Also minor injuries are some of the fastest learning tools in the world.
There was a study done (which I can't find right now) that indicated that all the safety features had 0 impact on the overall safety of the roads. Ultimately a human is hard-wired with a specific risk tolerance, all you do by adding safety features is make them behave in a manner that will bring the risk tolerance back to where they are the most comfortable.
I can't find the exact study, but a related conversation:
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/05/focus-on-safety-how-driving-rates-on-the-risk-thermostat.html
It is bad parenting, but it is also almost mandated at this point. We were in the suburbs and one of my older children realised he could get to the porch roof from his window in his room. Now, I pretty much spent most of my childhood on one type of roof or another (Barn, house, tree house, etc) from the time I was 8, it was fun and exciting. A neighbour spotted the kid on the porch roof (which wasn't even all that tall) before my wife had successfully removed them from said roof and read my wife the riot act and threatened to call the police and CPS.
Ultimately we had to lock the windows down, which is not something my parents (or probably any parents of people my age) would have ever thought to do. My father's first response was "If you break something don't come crying to me".
The entire push to use example.com (which I always thought was pretty dumb) was because foo.com or bar.com might actually exist and do something, therefore if your point is valid, the entire point of example.com is invalid.
Welcome to the Internet.
I was going to say not possible, then I saw how old my account was. :( Thanks for making me feel old.
Not completely true, a full time employee is a very large liability these days, you want to make sure they are going to fit before adding them to payroll. I'm not so sure I would do the hire multiple knowing you can only fill one position, but I have regularly used contract-to-hire.
Agreed, I never ding someone because they have certifications, however I also don't ding people for not having certifications unless the position requires one (usually a client-facing or public facing position that requires lots of letters after their name).
You do sound like a fun guy and pretty competent, however I have to say that any firmware upgrade SOP 101 is to have a copy of the current firmware available if something bad happens. It shouldn't be luck that you have a rollback plan for any type of upgrade.
That's not a very useful executive. At the point it has been proven to be outside of your control it is time to get the customer support team working with the client to help them talk to their ISP and provide as much information as possible so that they can tell the ISP what is wrong. This accomplishes the task of letting the client know that it is not related to your service. It also lets them know that even though it isn't your problem you are willing to help in any way you can.
If he/she just keeps yelling at a tech that can't solve the problem, you have a leadership problem that needs resolving.
Yelling is almost never useful, back when I was a manager or director I would let the executive know that we are working on it and let us do the job they pay us to do. I also found it helpful that if you are having a vendor issue, let the executive send an e-mail stating it is an urgent matter to your contact, this lets the executive be a hero and gives the vendor bargaining power to escalate the issue to their upper management.
During an incident the leadership should be maintaining calm so that the people doing the work are at their peak performance.