"Last month I wrote..."
That was the begining of a technical article I was just reading. The problem is that there was no indication anywhere of when the article was written. Working in IT, the difference between an article written this month and last month, much less several years ago can be extreme.
It's common practice in journalism (at least it's supposed to be) to include the date at the beginning of your article or in a page header. Back when news might take days to reach an audience, it was so you knew that the fire reported in the next town over actually occurred last weekend, not last night. Now the issue isn't so much about knowing when something occurred, but whether or not the information is still valid.
Everyone knows IT changes quickly, so it's very important to know whether the technical article is based on the current version, the previous version or a version written 10 years ago. When you don't include a date, we can't know whether we should listen or not and sometimes that makes an otherwise very useful article a complete piece of trash.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Friday, April 18, 2014
Tipping
Why not weigh in on tipping. Everyone has an opinion, so here's mine.
This only applies to tipping in the US and Canada. If you're traveling abroad, then find out what the local custom is and follow it. In come countries, tipping your server is an insult, in others it's part of your meal.
Servers compensation is calculated to include tips. Many places pay below minimum wages on the assumption that tips will make up the difference.
Tipping gives you an opportunity to pay based on the quality of the service provided, that's why it's variable. You should have a standard tip for acceptable service. For me, it runs around 18%. (I usually calculate on the dollar amount to 20%, so a bill of $20.75 is a $4 tip. Not quite 20%, but the math's easier.)
If the service is very good, the tip should be very good. Normally, I'm pleased with the service I get, so tips are often in the 22%-25% range. I have on one or two occasions tipped 30%, but the server was incredible, the restaurants were full and the server replaced a meal at no cost, even though it was exactly what was ordered, but the person ordering didn't like it.
If the service is poor, then the tip should be reduced. I've gone as low at 10% and considered not tipping on a few occasions. These are occasions where the server was rude, or messed up the order and blamed one of the people in our group. "I know what you ordered, and that's exactly what I brought you." The problem I have with low or non-tipping is I want the person to know their service is the reason I didn't give a big tip, not because I'm cheap.
When considering the quality of service make sure you take into account how busy the server is, not the restaurant. We went to one place that had three servers and only 5 of maybe 25 tables were filled. One server was serving all five tables. The restaurant may have been slow, but our server was busy.
Finally, tip based on the amount you would have paid if nothing was comp'd. On several occasions, servers have taken items off the bill, just because the person didn't like it. The meal was made correctly and was fine. The person ordered was just trying something new and turned out they didn't like it. Yet, the meal was still taken off the bill. It's not the servers fault someone didn't like the meal. Don't penalize them for being nice.
This only applies to tipping in the US and Canada. If you're traveling abroad, then find out what the local custom is and follow it. In come countries, tipping your server is an insult, in others it's part of your meal.
Servers compensation is calculated to include tips. Many places pay below minimum wages on the assumption that tips will make up the difference.
Tipping gives you an opportunity to pay based on the quality of the service provided, that's why it's variable. You should have a standard tip for acceptable service. For me, it runs around 18%. (I usually calculate on the dollar amount to 20%, so a bill of $20.75 is a $4 tip. Not quite 20%, but the math's easier.)
If the service is very good, the tip should be very good. Normally, I'm pleased with the service I get, so tips are often in the 22%-25% range. I have on one or two occasions tipped 30%, but the server was incredible, the restaurants were full and the server replaced a meal at no cost, even though it was exactly what was ordered, but the person ordering didn't like it.
If the service is poor, then the tip should be reduced. I've gone as low at 10% and considered not tipping on a few occasions. These are occasions where the server was rude, or messed up the order and blamed one of the people in our group. "I know what you ordered, and that's exactly what I brought you." The problem I have with low or non-tipping is I want the person to know their service is the reason I didn't give a big tip, not because I'm cheap.
When considering the quality of service make sure you take into account how busy the server is, not the restaurant. We went to one place that had three servers and only 5 of maybe 25 tables were filled. One server was serving all five tables. The restaurant may have been slow, but our server was busy.
Finally, tip based on the amount you would have paid if nothing was comp'd. On several occasions, servers have taken items off the bill, just because the person didn't like it. The meal was made correctly and was fine. The person ordered was just trying something new and turned out they didn't like it. Yet, the meal was still taken off the bill. It's not the servers fault someone didn't like the meal. Don't penalize them for being nice.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Digital Storage
A while ago, my company deployed a backup service for employees' company laptops. This got our team talking about the various methods that we each had used over the years to back up our data. One of my colleagues had backed up his machine to SuperDisks --I'd never heard of them either-- and then stored them in a bank safe deposit box.
Since individuals routinely backup 1TB or more of data now, I thought it would be interesting to see what it would take to backup 1TB of data using various media I have used in the past 25 years or so. Here's what I found:
Since individuals routinely backup 1TB or more of data now, I thought it would be interesting to see what it would take to backup 1TB of data using various media I have used in the past 25 years or so. Here's what I found:
|
Disk Type
|
Capacity
|
# to
store 1TB
|
|
5.25 in"
|
360 KB
|
2,982,617
|
|
3.5 in" HD
|
1.44 MB
|
728,178
|
|
8 in"
|
6.2 MB
|
169,126
|
|
SuperDisk - LS120
|
120 MB
|
8,739
|
|
SuperDisk - LS240
|
240 MB
|
4,370
|
|
CD-ROM
|
650 MB
|
1,614
|
|
Zip Disk
|
750 MB
|
1,399
|
|
Jax Disk
|
1 GB
|
1,024
|
|
DVD (2-Layer)
|
9.4 GB
|
109
|
Monday, March 3, 2014
War
Having been educated at the United States Naval Academy and served in the US Navy, I have read much on the methods and means for conducting war. I was blessed not to have had to serve in any conflict having been commissioned after the Gulf War and leaving service before 9/11. But of all I have read, heard and seen, one thing strikes me as most critical and, to great loss, unconsidered in our society today: War is hell, and must be so.
There are all manner of reasons in which a nation should enter into or avoid conflict. Prior to making such a decision, the consequence of war must be considered in it's worst possible context. War is the violent expression of a nation's political policy. It is a filthy and messy business. It is the decision of a nation to say to another, I will kill your people, occupy your lands and subject you to my will by any and all means available. Any commitment to less is a confession that defeat is an acceptable outcome. Why then would anyone commit to such an irrevocable course of action, if the reasons for such action were not sufficient to commit fully and completely to their attainment?
War is violence and suffering. Battle is death and destruction delivered by national decree. When I arrived at my first ship, as a brand new ensign, my Executive Officer asked me the mission of our ship, a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser. When I answered it was primarily anti-aircraft warfare, he quickly corrected me and said words I will never forget, "The mission of this ship is to break things and kill people." It is a stark reality and one that we should never forget. War is not a conflict nor can it be carried on in a "limited" fashion. Even a small war is death on a large scale. We should not desensitize our populace to it's horrors by using words like "only", "limited", "police action", or "temporary". Rather our people and leaders should be required to read the words of men who have seen and come to abhor war.
For all the cautions against entering into war, a nation, once engaged, must not lose sight of the horrors of war, but must steel itself to inflict these horrors upon the enemy without mercy or moderation. I do not condone the willful slaughter of innocents or the vindictive destruction of a land and it's resources. Rather all that is available to the warrior for the defeat of the foe must be given by the political leadership. The military is a "junk yard dog" and must either be caged or loosed. Under no conditions should it be leashed. For to mitigate the destructive and deadly power of an army is to lengthen the war. The objective should be the quick, decisive achievement of the goal for which it was decided that war was the only method available. Until the enemy can be subdued into unconditional surrender, there can be no lasting peace. At best a limited war will create a tenuous and dangerous cessation to direct hostilities, while never reducing the threat of battle. At worst, it results in the lengthening of the war, increases the death and destruction visited on all parties and ends with the defeat of the uncommitted nation.
A nation who enters into war has made the decision that all the horror and suffering on both sides of the battle is a justifiable price to achieve the ends of the nation. Once entered, there can be no second guessing of the means of the military to achieve its objective. There can be no easing of effort in order to spare the populace or the soldier from the horrors of war. To do so will only embolden the enemy to greater action and expose our own troops to slaughter and continued defeat. Every yard gained must be defended by continued attack. If it is necessary to carry on so bloody and deadly a war as to bring the enemy to its knees by tiring it of war, then so be it. If it is necessary to subdue every town, city and square mile of the enemy's land, then such action must be pursued vigorously and violently.
Because war is horror and death it should be avoided. Because it is has such irrevocable consequences, entering into war lightly or without sufficient preparation is to invite disaster. To enter without complete resolve and willingness to endure its destructive consequences is to invite defeat. War should be the last, desperate option of a nation to achieve that which it is absolutely necessary. Once entered, the nation must embrace its violent execution in order to win completely and unequivocally. Anything less than a total commitment of a nation to victory will increase the length and cost of the conflict, sacrifice lives and livelihood for naught and weaken the spirit and patriotism of the people.
There are all manner of reasons in which a nation should enter into or avoid conflict. Prior to making such a decision, the consequence of war must be considered in it's worst possible context. War is the violent expression of a nation's political policy. It is a filthy and messy business. It is the decision of a nation to say to another, I will kill your people, occupy your lands and subject you to my will by any and all means available. Any commitment to less is a confession that defeat is an acceptable outcome. Why then would anyone commit to such an irrevocable course of action, if the reasons for such action were not sufficient to commit fully and completely to their attainment?
War is violence and suffering. Battle is death and destruction delivered by national decree. When I arrived at my first ship, as a brand new ensign, my Executive Officer asked me the mission of our ship, a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser. When I answered it was primarily anti-aircraft warfare, he quickly corrected me and said words I will never forget, "The mission of this ship is to break things and kill people." It is a stark reality and one that we should never forget. War is not a conflict nor can it be carried on in a "limited" fashion. Even a small war is death on a large scale. We should not desensitize our populace to it's horrors by using words like "only", "limited", "police action", or "temporary". Rather our people and leaders should be required to read the words of men who have seen and come to abhor war.
For all the cautions against entering into war, a nation, once engaged, must not lose sight of the horrors of war, but must steel itself to inflict these horrors upon the enemy without mercy or moderation. I do not condone the willful slaughter of innocents or the vindictive destruction of a land and it's resources. Rather all that is available to the warrior for the defeat of the foe must be given by the political leadership. The military is a "junk yard dog" and must either be caged or loosed. Under no conditions should it be leashed. For to mitigate the destructive and deadly power of an army is to lengthen the war. The objective should be the quick, decisive achievement of the goal for which it was decided that war was the only method available. Until the enemy can be subdued into unconditional surrender, there can be no lasting peace. At best a limited war will create a tenuous and dangerous cessation to direct hostilities, while never reducing the threat of battle. At worst, it results in the lengthening of the war, increases the death and destruction visited on all parties and ends with the defeat of the uncommitted nation.
A nation who enters into war has made the decision that all the horror and suffering on both sides of the battle is a justifiable price to achieve the ends of the nation. Once entered, there can be no second guessing of the means of the military to achieve its objective. There can be no easing of effort in order to spare the populace or the soldier from the horrors of war. To do so will only embolden the enemy to greater action and expose our own troops to slaughter and continued defeat. Every yard gained must be defended by continued attack. If it is necessary to carry on so bloody and deadly a war as to bring the enemy to its knees by tiring it of war, then so be it. If it is necessary to subdue every town, city and square mile of the enemy's land, then such action must be pursued vigorously and violently.
Because war is horror and death it should be avoided. Because it is has such irrevocable consequences, entering into war lightly or without sufficient preparation is to invite disaster. To enter without complete resolve and willingness to endure its destructive consequences is to invite defeat. War should be the last, desperate option of a nation to achieve that which it is absolutely necessary. Once entered, the nation must embrace its violent execution in order to win completely and unequivocally. Anything less than a total commitment of a nation to victory will increase the length and cost of the conflict, sacrifice lives and livelihood for naught and weaken the spirit and patriotism of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)