According to long running statistics on our health, the leading cause of death in the US is still that winner of all winners, heart disease. Whether that's from heart attacks, stress, high blood pressure, high cholesterol or whatever, I don't really know.
One thing I do know is that my doctors want me to watch what I eat, especially with regard to the sodium content in my food.
Now, I've been doing this for a number of years, and I've been meaning to write about it somewhere, too. Have you ever even looked at the sodium content in your foods, especially the pre-packaged foods you buy at the supermarkets, or the frozen dinners that are quick and easy to pop in the microwave and gulp down while you try desperately to get through that other thing you're doing at the same time?
If not, you really need to start.
Most doctors will tell you that the average person with an average diet should be consuming a daily maximum of around 2300 milligrams of sodium. That's 2.3 grams. A gram is a fraction less than 1/28 of an ounce. That's not a lot.
The number one contributor to the sodium content in most foods is probably salt - sodium chloride. (Another more insidious one is monosodium glutamate, or MSG, which is a sort of salt-sugar "flavor enhancer" that most Chinese restaurants now advertise as not using - it's a recognized carcinogen, and it's in more food than you think.) One would think that saltier food probably has higher sodium, but that's not always true. Some salts taste saltier than others.
Something to consider is the virtual absence of sodium in most natural foods. How many fruits and vegetables do you know of that are naturally salty? No fair counting salt-water fish, which, except for anchovies, you're supposed to rinse in fresh water before preparing to eat.
But let's get back to the major products of our times: prepackaged and frozen foods.
I used to love Swanson frozen chicken dinners. They taste good, contain those great staples of the American diet, corn and mashed potatoes (two high carbohydrate foods and I won't even get into how genetically modified corn has contaminated the entire planetary corn supply, including organics, here), a nice little dessert (more carbohydrates), and the main dish - breaded (carbohydrate), fried chicken. I'd go for the Hungry Man variety because it was bigger and better satisfied my appetite.
This particular meal has 2869mg of sodium in it - way too much. Don't believe me, go look for yourself: http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-swanson-hungry-man-dinner-classic-i115930.
Lest I forget, the chicken breading also contains MSG - one reason it tastes so good, or used to.
Now maybe you don't do Swanson, or chicken, or frozen dinners. Good for you. Chicken is another whole area of worsening bacterial contamination, hormones, failing antibiotics, breeding for large breasts (yes, even in our chickens - no kidding) and savage, unsanitary breeding conditions. Some other time....
But massive doses of sodium are elsewhere, too.
Have you ever seen one of those commercials for Campbell's soups? "Soup - it does a body good!"
I won't dispute that even though I no longer believe it, but it's important to know that one can of Campbell's ordinary condensed soup is at least 2 servings, each of which contains anywhere from 600-900mg of sodium, usually at the higher end. So if you ever enjoyed a whole can of soup (properly diluted with water or milk or both) for a meal, you just consumed most of your RDA of sodium in one 20-oz. mug. Just like that.
To their credit, Campbell's also offers a low-sodium variety - in only a few flavors, but at least their sodium content is about half the "regular" variety. They also do a "Select Harvest" line that is lower yet and comes in mug-sized cans that don't need dilution - 410mg of sodium per serving, 2 servings per can.
Progresso soups tends to be worse - their range is more like 800-1000mg of sodium per serving, two servings per can, undiluted. Except for their low sodium line, which still contains more than half the sodium of the regular line, their soups are potential mugs of heart trouble.
Well, fine, you say, I'll stick to salads and sandwiches.
Check your salad dressings. I like Wishbone's fat-free Chunky Blue Cheese and Kraft fat-free Italian Caesar. In two tablespoons, these contain 280 and 470mg of sodium, respectively. Most full fat dressings are around the same sodium content range. Add that to my salad, and a mug of soup and - whoa - more than half my RDA of sodium, and I haven't even gotten to the sandwich yet!
Ah, the sandwich - two slices of bread (120-180mg of sodium per slice), some mayo (a little more sodium, less if you use mustard instead of mayo, and lower fat, too) and a couple slices of turkey. I happen to like Costco a lot, and their Kirkland brand sliced turkey contains about 460mg of sodium per 2 slice serving. Most sliced turkey you buy contains more like 700-800mg of sodium per slice (take a look next time you buy). You can get lower sodium lunchmeats, but most of them are pressed slabs of plasticky, chewy rubber that tastes roughly like turkey with lots of salt. (Kirkland turkey actually tastes like rel turkey and has a meat texture, as opposed to other options.)
Ham, chicken and (if you're still eating it) beef tend to be higher in sodium, but there are exceptions.
So, an average salad, soup and sandwich lunch runs around 2500mg of sodium, unless you have a really tiny salad, a half-cup of soup and half a sandwich. You still have to figure around 1200mg of sodium - low enough to eat one more, slightly smaller meal for dinner, no breakfast, no snacks, nothing.
How about restaurants? Not the sleazy fast food variety, a classy one, like my two (former) favorites - Cheesecake Factory and Red Lobster. I'm picking on these two because they recently had the courage to publish their nutritional content booklets and deliver them to every table, at least at some of the local stores around here.
I don't really remember the details, except that most every meal they both serve has near or more than the RDA of sodium and close to the same level of just plain calories in each meal. My favorite at the Cheesecake Factory was their Cobb salad, and I loved it until I saw the content - I vaguely remember that the sodium content was around 1600mg and the calorie count was over 2000, but that's from months ago when I used to be able to afford the financial cost of such meals. That doesn't include the salad dressing. When I scanned the menu looking for anything that wasn't over the top in sodium and calories, only a few of the smaller appetizers had little enough to eat as a meal and run home for safety for the next several days.
I use safety loosely here - see above.
By the way, Red Lobster had similar issues with sodium (and calories), and I bet most restaurants do, unless you go to the health food varieties, especially vegetarian and/or vegan. Personally, I've found that most of the latter two overspice their foods, which makes them virtually unpalatable to me. Your mileage may vary.
Before I let the fast food industry off without a detailed mention, I'd like to present some facts from an article I just got in my email this morning, the one that triggered this blog entry. I'll just list the items - they're all for breakfast - along with their sodium and calorie content:
Carl’s Jr Breakfast Burger: 780 calories, 1460mg sodium
McDonald’s Big Breakfast with Hotcakes: 1150 calories, 2260mg sodium
Burger King Biscuits and Sausage Gravy Platter: 680 calories, 2350mg sodium
Burger King Double Croissan’wich with Sausage Egg and Cheese: 680 calories, 1520mg sodium
Hardee’s Double Sausage Egg n’ Cheese Biscuit: 830 calories, 2100mg sodium
Hardee’s Loaded Breakfast Burrito: 760 calories, 1380mg sodium
Hardee’s Low Carb Breakfast Bowl: 620 calories, 1380mg sodium
Jack in the Box Steak and Egg Burrito : 821 calories, 1616mg sodium
Jack in the Box Extreme Sausage Sandwich: 690 calories, 1356mg sodium
Chick-fil-A Sausage Biscuit: 590 calories, 1250mg sodium
Chick-fil-A Chicken Egg and Cheese Bagel on a Sunflower Mutligrain Bagel: 530 calories, 1330mg sodium
(source: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/11-scary-fast-food-breakfasts.html)
So what does all this mean?
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but if I were, this would make a good basis for a theory that all the major food production corporations are conspiring to poison us. But that makes no sense - killing off your own consumers?
Of course, it doesn't make sense, but neither does paying your employees so little that they can't even afford to shop in your own store (a la Wal*Mart), or making it illegal for the US government to use its purchasing power to bring down the cost of pharmaceutical products for the elderly (Medicare Part D) or veterans, or anyone, really, so that Big Pharma can maximize their already obscene profits.
It doesn't make sense, but it makes lots of dollars if you see it for what it is: short-sighted short term profit above all other factors bar none, and the way we get ripped off every day by the less than 1% of our society that owns 70+% of everything, including us, most commonly known as the rich and powerful. What do they care if we die in ten or twenty years, impoverished, sick, in pain (or better yet, torture, official US policy these days) and totally at their mercy until then? They're rich and powerful and have their fourteen mansions and yachts and getaways in the Caymans or another tax-sheltered country, and they'll be dead long before we do anything about it, probably from too much sodium.
Unless you can read and are willing to act.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A Different Perspective
A few years ago, I was one of the privileged members of the upper middle class. I was making a six figure income and my family was on a spending spree that makes the one that took us into bankruptcy in 1999 pale by comparison. Oh, the debts are smaller, more or less, and we still have the house, this month, but the situation is far more grim.
I used to sneer at disabled parking, occasionally taking a space because, after all, I was only going to be there for a few minutes. Other people I know do the same or worse – they cheat by using someone else's disabled parking placard when that person is in a different time zone. After all, if you're not disabled, what's a few feet difference walking to and from the store door? It's usually pretty easy to get away with that stuff, and it doesn't really hurt anyone....
I had good health insurance coverage, through my employer, of course, and a 401k and all the "goodies" that go with being employed in a high-tech job.
Than 2000 rolled around, and my world changed completely.
First, I got into politics. Not just rallies on the street corners, or signing protest petitions, no, I got suckered into party politics. I went in, thinking I could change the whole rotten machinery into something that actually represented people and would work to better our society. I had this vague idea that politics is kind of an ass-kissing game, where the best brown-nosers would wind up at or near the top, and I was sort of right. But I also thought that injecting some personal integrity into the grimy sewage would help clear it up. I supported good, progressive candidates who had integrity and guts, and I spent thousands of dollars that would have been better invested in CDs for my kids' college funds or my own retirement fund.
In 2001, I came down with some kind of groin injury, to this day my doctors and I still don't know what. It was a minor inconvenience that just took me out of the one activity that helped keep me in shape – soccer, which I loved to referee, to help the kids and keep mine involved as well. But the pain never went away, and instead it got much worse. By 2005, I had to have a couple of surgeries in hopes that they would fix the problem, and neither did. On top of that, I now have a chronic medical condition that I won't name, but it comes with a whole slew of other medical problems that almost never go away.
Still, I had a retirement account and a good solid job and was still making the same low six figures I had been getting since 2000.
In August 2006, I injured my right foot and almost lost it to amputation. I had excellent medical care (thanks to the aforementioned great insurance that didn't cost me anything significant, and all before taxes) and made a full recovery.
Except....
While I was off work on disability, I was laid off. I found a new job within two months, but that also ended with a layoff after another five. My medical coverage was better, and cheaper, and I was making a little more money to boot, but that died abruptly.
Still, we spent like maniacs, went on a couple of vacations we couldn't afford and blew my retirement to hell staying alive and covering the costs of my disability. It took me ten months to find another job, this one a contract job with insurance coverage that is, to put it nicely, vomitous – more expensive, lower coverage and crappy service.
During this entire time (since summer 2005) I got the treat of seeing how disabled people are treated in our society, and it amazes me how blind I used to be, and most of you probably still are. I'll cover that in a moment.
My last layoff came on December 31, 2008. Happy New Year, good luck finding another job, get out.
That was almost 16 months ago, and I'm still looking.
I have since discovered how poorly most people are aware of their own surroundings. Mostly in stores, they push carts that are off to the side or heading in another direction, without ever looking, and taking up two to three times the amount of space they need. Even parents with young children along do that, and they are more at risk than the parents.
So what?
So that person in the disabled cart who is trying to maneuver around the speedy pedestrians without tripping them or running into them is barely seen, and usually noticed only with resentful or guilty stares. How do I know? It's usually me. At best, it's awkward for both of us.
One of my disabilities is that I can barely walk any more. It is painful to have to make it from one end of the parking lot to the door unless I can actually park close up. And guess what else? A lot of those "ADA compliant" facilities, oh, say like the convention centers where political parties often meet, have lots of elevators and escalators, but they are still enormous, with walks of half a mile or more between meeting rooms. Even good discount stores, like Costco, which I love, is huge, and I can rarely make it all the way around the store on my feet. It's no fun any more when you can't walk without pain or severe muscle strain.
I have continuously looked for new employment since my last job ended, but thanks to Wall Street and its lovely money pit that Congress keeps throwing money at because it's too big to fail (who could give out millions of dollars in bonuses without all that help from our pockets, via Congress?), employment in my industry is only now beginning to recover, and the vast majority of it is in a newer direction than where it was two years ago. (That's good, but it means I need new skills, too – more money to feed the beast.)
I have exhausted all of my available resources and am "supporting" my family on borrowed money that, if things don't change soon, I won't ever be able to pay back.
My unemployment runs out in six weeks, and it's about 1/3 of what I really need in order to support my family. My creditors, the ones I'm still talking to, are hesitant to renegotiate my loans, even though there are huge (to me, not to Wall Street or the DoD) federal stimulus packages to "encourage" them to do so (because we just can't tell a corporation to be fair to the people they've screwed and ruined in the last two years, now can we? That wouldn't be "free" enterprise!).
When that time comes, I don't really know what I'm going to do, except maybe starve – oh, wait, there are food stamps, except I won't have a place to store any because I won't have a house any more, or insurance, or medicines, or clothes....
See, in our society, our great, free-enterprise democracy, we are all able to shoot for the stars and become anything we want to become. Unless that happens to include just having a decent standard of living, a living wage, guaranteed health care, all those candy-ass "giveaways" that we just don't do here in the US of A (even though we forced Germany and Japan to do them after WWII, and guess who has the stronger economies today), and every other industrialized nation on the planet has those guarantees with more industry, less poverty, less misery and, oh, that's right – less military, less crime and less war (unless we're in there) than we have here.
So what's my point?
I'm not asking for handouts, or pity, or even sympathy. Don't need that.
Here's what I would like to see:
Everyone needs to recognize once and for all that politics is a money pit for us and the grand giveaway to the rich and our politicians (their lackeys) – from us, from huge corporate slush funds and the straight-out corrupt ultra-rich 0.5% who own the rest of us, lock, stock and two burning barrels. Trillions of dollars (literally) go into politics and hedge funds and credit default swaps and the industry of war and killing and imperialism and subjugation of anything non-white, but we only see a pittance of that to help the poor, the uneducated and the elderly in this country, white or not. (I'll do another editorial on the elderly later – how we treat our senior citizens is shamefully contemptible, and that's the good part.) California is no better than anywhere else in this regard, just more expensive (except for Hawaii).
As for me, I program computers and I write. I prefer to write fantasy, but, in the final analysis, is that really any different than political editorialization? (Yes, it is – fantasy adventures are more fun to read, and write, and not usually as depressing.)
If you know anyone who is looking for a C software developer, tell them about me, or just send them my blog or email address and let them know I'm available. If you know an agent looking for a new, unpublished writer of fantasy epics, poke them my way. I can take it from there.
If nothing else, send me your prayers – every little bit helps.
God willing, that will be enough.
I used to sneer at disabled parking, occasionally taking a space because, after all, I was only going to be there for a few minutes. Other people I know do the same or worse – they cheat by using someone else's disabled parking placard when that person is in a different time zone. After all, if you're not disabled, what's a few feet difference walking to and from the store door? It's usually pretty easy to get away with that stuff, and it doesn't really hurt anyone....
I had good health insurance coverage, through my employer, of course, and a 401k and all the "goodies" that go with being employed in a high-tech job.
Than 2000 rolled around, and my world changed completely.
First, I got into politics. Not just rallies on the street corners, or signing protest petitions, no, I got suckered into party politics. I went in, thinking I could change the whole rotten machinery into something that actually represented people and would work to better our society. I had this vague idea that politics is kind of an ass-kissing game, where the best brown-nosers would wind up at or near the top, and I was sort of right. But I also thought that injecting some personal integrity into the grimy sewage would help clear it up. I supported good, progressive candidates who had integrity and guts, and I spent thousands of dollars that would have been better invested in CDs for my kids' college funds or my own retirement fund.
In 2001, I came down with some kind of groin injury, to this day my doctors and I still don't know what. It was a minor inconvenience that just took me out of the one activity that helped keep me in shape – soccer, which I loved to referee, to help the kids and keep mine involved as well. But the pain never went away, and instead it got much worse. By 2005, I had to have a couple of surgeries in hopes that they would fix the problem, and neither did. On top of that, I now have a chronic medical condition that I won't name, but it comes with a whole slew of other medical problems that almost never go away.
Still, I had a retirement account and a good solid job and was still making the same low six figures I had been getting since 2000.
In August 2006, I injured my right foot and almost lost it to amputation. I had excellent medical care (thanks to the aforementioned great insurance that didn't cost me anything significant, and all before taxes) and made a full recovery.
Except....
While I was off work on disability, I was laid off. I found a new job within two months, but that also ended with a layoff after another five. My medical coverage was better, and cheaper, and I was making a little more money to boot, but that died abruptly.
Still, we spent like maniacs, went on a couple of vacations we couldn't afford and blew my retirement to hell staying alive and covering the costs of my disability. It took me ten months to find another job, this one a contract job with insurance coverage that is, to put it nicely, vomitous – more expensive, lower coverage and crappy service.
During this entire time (since summer 2005) I got the treat of seeing how disabled people are treated in our society, and it amazes me how blind I used to be, and most of you probably still are. I'll cover that in a moment.
My last layoff came on December 31, 2008. Happy New Year, good luck finding another job, get out.
That was almost 16 months ago, and I'm still looking.
I have since discovered how poorly most people are aware of their own surroundings. Mostly in stores, they push carts that are off to the side or heading in another direction, without ever looking, and taking up two to three times the amount of space they need. Even parents with young children along do that, and they are more at risk than the parents.
So what?
So that person in the disabled cart who is trying to maneuver around the speedy pedestrians without tripping them or running into them is barely seen, and usually noticed only with resentful or guilty stares. How do I know? It's usually me. At best, it's awkward for both of us.
One of my disabilities is that I can barely walk any more. It is painful to have to make it from one end of the parking lot to the door unless I can actually park close up. And guess what else? A lot of those "ADA compliant" facilities, oh, say like the convention centers where political parties often meet, have lots of elevators and escalators, but they are still enormous, with walks of half a mile or more between meeting rooms. Even good discount stores, like Costco, which I love, is huge, and I can rarely make it all the way around the store on my feet. It's no fun any more when you can't walk without pain or severe muscle strain.
I have continuously looked for new employment since my last job ended, but thanks to Wall Street and its lovely money pit that Congress keeps throwing money at because it's too big to fail (who could give out millions of dollars in bonuses without all that help from our pockets, via Congress?), employment in my industry is only now beginning to recover, and the vast majority of it is in a newer direction than where it was two years ago. (That's good, but it means I need new skills, too – more money to feed the beast.)
I have exhausted all of my available resources and am "supporting" my family on borrowed money that, if things don't change soon, I won't ever be able to pay back.
My unemployment runs out in six weeks, and it's about 1/3 of what I really need in order to support my family. My creditors, the ones I'm still talking to, are hesitant to renegotiate my loans, even though there are huge (to me, not to Wall Street or the DoD) federal stimulus packages to "encourage" them to do so (because we just can't tell a corporation to be fair to the people they've screwed and ruined in the last two years, now can we? That wouldn't be "free" enterprise!).
When that time comes, I don't really know what I'm going to do, except maybe starve – oh, wait, there are food stamps, except I won't have a place to store any because I won't have a house any more, or insurance, or medicines, or clothes....
See, in our society, our great, free-enterprise democracy, we are all able to shoot for the stars and become anything we want to become. Unless that happens to include just having a decent standard of living, a living wage, guaranteed health care, all those candy-ass "giveaways" that we just don't do here in the US of A (even though we forced Germany and Japan to do them after WWII, and guess who has the stronger economies today), and every other industrialized nation on the planet has those guarantees with more industry, less poverty, less misery and, oh, that's right – less military, less crime and less war (unless we're in there) than we have here.
So what's my point?
I'm not asking for handouts, or pity, or even sympathy. Don't need that.
Here's what I would like to see:
Everyone needs to recognize once and for all that politics is a money pit for us and the grand giveaway to the rich and our politicians (their lackeys) – from us, from huge corporate slush funds and the straight-out corrupt ultra-rich 0.5% who own the rest of us, lock, stock and two burning barrels. Trillions of dollars (literally) go into politics and hedge funds and credit default swaps and the industry of war and killing and imperialism and subjugation of anything non-white, but we only see a pittance of that to help the poor, the uneducated and the elderly in this country, white or not. (I'll do another editorial on the elderly later – how we treat our senior citizens is shamefully contemptible, and that's the good part.) California is no better than anywhere else in this regard, just more expensive (except for Hawaii).
As for me, I program computers and I write. I prefer to write fantasy, but, in the final analysis, is that really any different than political editorialization? (Yes, it is – fantasy adventures are more fun to read, and write, and not usually as depressing.)
If you know anyone who is looking for a C software developer, tell them about me, or just send them my blog or email address and let them know I'm available. If you know an agent looking for a new, unpublished writer of fantasy epics, poke them my way. I can take it from there.
If nothing else, send me your prayers – every little bit helps.
God willing, that will be enough.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Hotels.com: Friend or Fraud? You decide....
I was tempted to call this "The Machine Is Still Stacked Against You," but I wanted to make sure that hotels.com featured prominently in the title.
On April 2, 2010, Ruth went up to Berkeley to visit Natasha and see her in a concert that featured her there. So that she would have a place to stay, I made a reservation that same day at the 4-points Sheraton in Emeryville, which is an easy 10-minute drive from the campus. She has stayed there many times before, and I've even been there - it's kind of nice for the money. I made sure that the breakfast was included (an extra $20 for the room, which is already an extra $20 because they don't offer the breakfast unless you get the "bayview" room).
Due to a screw-up with our credit union (I'll get into that at another time), Ruth's card had been canceled without our knowledge. As a result, the Sheraton refused to let her check in.
The following is a transcript of what I went through in my efforts to get a refund for that refused room (which doesn't include a lengthy conversation I had from the credit union with the Sheraton's managers about how we could solve this and get her the room, but the hotel never gave us any reasonable options to keep the room, including the faxed credit card authorization option, which I could have done). The entries are date-time stamped using 24-hour times.
--- transcript begins here ---
4pts Sheraton, Emeryville, 510-547-7888 2010/04/02:
Spoke to Amanda (front desk clerk I think), who says that the room is already paid for and she can't make a change to it because of that. She is getting me a manager.
Manager will call me back on cell – wait, now on hold again waiting for her.
Manager Selma says I have to go through Expedia (I corrected her to hotels.com) to get the refund because the room is already paid for.
Called hotels.com – 800-246-8357
18:02: Did not hear the fellow's name, explained the problem, then silence.
Disconnected at 18:07. Called back – existing, cancel.
18:11: Hector - I explained the situation (twice). He will contact the hotel to verify and I'm on hold till then.
He says Selma refused to refund the charge. I explained that this is not okay with me.
Called Selma back – 18:20.
She says that it is up to hotels.com whether or not to cancel the reservation, and it is their option to issue the refund, and they can work out the details directly with the hotel later on.
Called hotels.com again – existing, cancel.
Ronald -
He understands. He says he needs to call the hotel, and if they are willing to authorize the refund, hotels.com will refund the charge. I'm on hold again @ 18:25.
Ronald says since the general manager of the hotel is out, they can't issue the refund. Hotels.com can cancel the reservation, but it is up to the hotel as to whether or not to issue a refund.
I should call back (hotels.com) on Monday after 2:00pm and see what resolution we can reach depending on the general manager's decision.
I will call back, and hold off on answering hotels.com's email until then.
Called hotels.com Tue, 2010/04/06, 10:35
The lady (didn't catch her name) is checking. Gave me the usual canceled, penalty line; I told her about this being my fourth call and she said she'd call the hotel for me, then disconnected the line.
Called back @10:37.
Andrew – gave him the itinerary # [twice every call!].
Andrew says the refund was authorized – will be issued w/in 24 hours, check with bank over next 3-5 days.
[Whew!]
Called on Tue 2010/04/13, 10:27 [no refund yet]
Other options – gave my itinerary number. Transfer to operator.
Ella answered – asked for itinerary #. Checking; confirmed email addr. Still checking.
Asked if I was expecting $144.99 credit, I said yes; she was checking.
Same old cancellation story. I explained that the hotel refused to give us the room and that hotels.com had said they would call the hotel general manager and get a refund approval, and that Andrew told me it had been approved. I also explained that I was not going to pay for a room I was refused at the hotel's choice and where I had no option.
She says I called them on 4/8 and they told me the hotel refused to give us a refund.
[This is nonsense – I never called on the 8th, or it would be in this log above this call. Why would I call them back when I was told I'd get the refund?]
I explained that I did not make any such call.
She says the call on 4/6 was disconnected before a refund could be authorized and their followup on 4/8 failed. [Interesting story, since the 4/6 call ended amicably, or so I thought, and there was no 4/8 call with me involved at all.]
I pointed out that the hotel refused to give us the room and I was not willing to pay for it.
Ella said she will call the hotel again and see if she can get a refund authorized. I asked her to point out that we are regular guests at the hotel and that they refused us the room at their option, which is not my responsibility.
Ella says the hotel front desk manager, Deborah, is on the other line. She says Deborah wanted to know why the credit card was refused at check-in. I explained that the card had been canceled by the CU without our knowledge, and they would not re-authorize it. Ella said that they would have allowed Ruth to check in with a $200 deposit in lieu of a credit card, and I pointed out that a) she didn't have that kind of money on her and b) the hotel did not offer me that option. Ella said she would check back with Deborah. On hold, again (10:47).
Ella says she passed along to Deborah what I said. She cannot speak on behalf of Selma.
I said that hotels.com told me they would have to talk to the general manager to get the refund and I asked why this was not happening. Ella says they have no notes regarding the general manager at all. I told her what I noted when I spoke to Hector and Selma (see above) and specifically asked that she talk to the hotel general manager.
On hold, then Ella told me that the general manger, Louisa [see below for this one!], is on a business trip this week and not available. I asked if anyone else could do this, and Ella says they (Deborah at the Sheraton) have to talk to Selma.
I explained that my situation was rather desperate and asked if there was anyone at the hotel who could handle this. She said Deborah is the one, but she has to talk to Selma first. Selma will be in around 2:30 and I need to call them (hotels.com) back at 2:45. I said I will.
Called back @ 14:47
Spoke to Jay. He verified email address and did not ask for itinerary number [that's a first].
Will check on previous documentation from agents who handled this call. He says last call in the documentation was on April 2 [way back up on page 1 here]. He went through the same song & dance on cancellations. I explained that I'd spoken to several people since them.
He says someone claims they offered to send me a credit card authorization form for the hotel [I have neither notes nor recollection of any such thing] and that was on 4/2 – the last notes they have. I asked if I could talk to Ella, and he said they can't do that.
I asked to speak to a supervisor and he is looking for one. On hold again.
15:13:
Jay says that the hotel (Selma) offered Ruth options: $100 cash or a fax credit card authorization as alternatives to the credit card. [Note that this conflicts with the previous assertion of $200 cash.] The fax authorization is news to me (I could have done that), & I told him this. He says that Selma also said that Ruth told the hotel she would be back, so they held the room, but she left.
His supervisor (Raquel – his word) has offered a $150 hotel voucher for future reservations. I said I was not satisfied with the offer as I have had voucher promises in the past that were never delivered. He repeated the offer, so I asked how long it would take to get them and he said 4-6 weeks. I wasn't satisfied with this and said so. He said he is going to find a supervisor (again – they were in a meeting before).
15:19 – on hold again.
15:25: Rachel (supervisor) – wants to know how she can help. She summarized the situation (again), then mentioned something about a "no-show."
I asked about that since Ruth was right there, then she retreated back to the standard cancellation policy, have to have a credit card to check in story.
I explained that since we did not get the use of the room or the accompanying breakfast, I wanted a refund. She said that was not possible.
I explained that I know that it is possible because it's all a matter of choices as to what they will or won't do, and this is basic contract law – you cannot take money for nothing in exchange. I pointed out that I know they can make this happen, they have clout with the hotel, they make reservations there all the time and they can do something to make the refund happen. Rachel said she will call the hotel again and see what she can do.
On hold 15:30.
15:36:
Rachel says she spoke to Selma, who claims they offered some options to Ruth, who said she had to go somewhere else and they were waiting for her to come back when I called and canceled the reservation. [Note that I spoke to Selma myself before I canceled the reservation, at her suggestion and with notice to hotels.com that I expected a refund – see above.]
She insisted that they could not provide a refund and offered the $150 voucher instead, and I told her I think she'll be hearing from my attorney and hung up.
Called the Sheraton 15:40
Selma answered and put me on hold.
The next person who answered said that Deborah has left for the day [I should have those hours!], so I asked for another manager. Now I'm on hold waiting for Selma.
Selma says that Expedia (hotels.com) has the option to issue the refund and they can do that, then deal with the hotel later, but they just want to put the blame on the hotel. She says that it's their option.
She says the general manager will be back next week, but she doesn't think the hotel should be involved right now. Michelle Richards is the general manager. I can call and talk to her directly next week. She apologized for not being able to help and I thanked her.
--- end of transcript ---
I am not finished with this yet - I need that money and hotels.com could refund it to me if they wanted to, so I'm not done with them yet.
I'll let you know how this all shakes out when it's over.
On April 2, 2010, Ruth went up to Berkeley to visit Natasha and see her in a concert that featured her there. So that she would have a place to stay, I made a reservation that same day at the 4-points Sheraton in Emeryville, which is an easy 10-minute drive from the campus. She has stayed there many times before, and I've even been there - it's kind of nice for the money. I made sure that the breakfast was included (an extra $20 for the room, which is already an extra $20 because they don't offer the breakfast unless you get the "bayview" room).
Due to a screw-up with our credit union (I'll get into that at another time), Ruth's card had been canceled without our knowledge. As a result, the Sheraton refused to let her check in.
The following is a transcript of what I went through in my efforts to get a refund for that refused room (which doesn't include a lengthy conversation I had from the credit union with the Sheraton's managers about how we could solve this and get her the room, but the hotel never gave us any reasonable options to keep the room, including the faxed credit card authorization option, which I could have done). The entries are date-time stamped using 24-hour times.
--- transcript begins here ---
4pts Sheraton, Emeryville, 510-547-7888 2010/04/02:
Spoke to Amanda (front desk clerk I think), who says that the room is already paid for and she can't make a change to it because of that. She is getting me a manager.
Manager will call me back on cell – wait, now on hold again waiting for her.
Manager Selma says I have to go through Expedia (I corrected her to hotels.com) to get the refund because the room is already paid for.
Called hotels.com – 800-246-8357
18:02: Did not hear the fellow's name, explained the problem, then silence.
Disconnected at 18:07. Called back – existing, cancel.
18:11: Hector - I explained the situation (twice). He will contact the hotel to verify and I'm on hold till then.
He says Selma refused to refund the charge. I explained that this is not okay with me.
Called Selma back – 18:20.
She says that it is up to hotels.com whether or not to cancel the reservation, and it is their option to issue the refund, and they can work out the details directly with the hotel later on.
Called hotels.com again – existing, cancel.
Ronald -
He understands. He says he needs to call the hotel, and if they are willing to authorize the refund, hotels.com will refund the charge. I'm on hold again @ 18:25.
Ronald says since the general manager of the hotel is out, they can't issue the refund. Hotels.com can cancel the reservation, but it is up to the hotel as to whether or not to issue a refund.
I should call back (hotels.com) on Monday after 2:00pm and see what resolution we can reach depending on the general manager's decision.
I will call back, and hold off on answering hotels.com's email until then.
Called hotels.com Tue, 2010/04/06, 10:35
The lady (didn't catch her name) is checking. Gave me the usual canceled, penalty line; I told her about this being my fourth call and she said she'd call the hotel for me, then disconnected the line.
Called back @10:37.
Andrew – gave him the itinerary # [twice every call!].
Andrew says the refund was authorized – will be issued w/in 24 hours, check with bank over next 3-5 days.
[Whew!]
Called on Tue 2010/04/13, 10:27 [no refund yet]
Other options – gave my itinerary number. Transfer to operator.
Ella answered – asked for itinerary #. Checking; confirmed email addr. Still checking.
Asked if I was expecting $144.99 credit, I said yes; she was checking.
Same old cancellation story. I explained that the hotel refused to give us the room and that hotels.com had said they would call the hotel general manager and get a refund approval, and that Andrew told me it had been approved. I also explained that I was not going to pay for a room I was refused at the hotel's choice and where I had no option.
She says I called them on 4/8 and they told me the hotel refused to give us a refund.
[This is nonsense – I never called on the 8th, or it would be in this log above this call. Why would I call them back when I was told I'd get the refund?]
I explained that I did not make any such call.
She says the call on 4/6 was disconnected before a refund could be authorized and their followup on 4/8 failed. [Interesting story, since the 4/6 call ended amicably, or so I thought, and there was no 4/8 call with me involved at all.]
I pointed out that the hotel refused to give us the room and I was not willing to pay for it.
Ella said she will call the hotel again and see if she can get a refund authorized. I asked her to point out that we are regular guests at the hotel and that they refused us the room at their option, which is not my responsibility.
Ella says the hotel front desk manager, Deborah, is on the other line. She says Deborah wanted to know why the credit card was refused at check-in. I explained that the card had been canceled by the CU without our knowledge, and they would not re-authorize it. Ella said that they would have allowed Ruth to check in with a $200 deposit in lieu of a credit card, and I pointed out that a) she didn't have that kind of money on her and b) the hotel did not offer me that option. Ella said she would check back with Deborah. On hold, again (10:47).
Ella says she passed along to Deborah what I said. She cannot speak on behalf of Selma.
I said that hotels.com told me they would have to talk to the general manager to get the refund and I asked why this was not happening. Ella says they have no notes regarding the general manager at all. I told her what I noted when I spoke to Hector and Selma (see above) and specifically asked that she talk to the hotel general manager.
On hold, then Ella told me that the general manger, Louisa [see below for this one!], is on a business trip this week and not available. I asked if anyone else could do this, and Ella says they (Deborah at the Sheraton) have to talk to Selma.
I explained that my situation was rather desperate and asked if there was anyone at the hotel who could handle this. She said Deborah is the one, but she has to talk to Selma first. Selma will be in around 2:30 and I need to call them (hotels.com) back at 2:45. I said I will.
Called back @ 14:47
Spoke to Jay. He verified email address and did not ask for itinerary number [that's a first].
Will check on previous documentation from agents who handled this call. He says last call in the documentation was on April 2 [way back up on page 1 here]. He went through the same song & dance on cancellations. I explained that I'd spoken to several people since them.
He says someone claims they offered to send me a credit card authorization form for the hotel [I have neither notes nor recollection of any such thing] and that was on 4/2 – the last notes they have. I asked if I could talk to Ella, and he said they can't do that.
I asked to speak to a supervisor and he is looking for one. On hold again.
15:13:
Jay says that the hotel (Selma) offered Ruth options: $100 cash or a fax credit card authorization as alternatives to the credit card. [Note that this conflicts with the previous assertion of $200 cash.] The fax authorization is news to me (I could have done that), & I told him this. He says that Selma also said that Ruth told the hotel she would be back, so they held the room, but she left.
His supervisor (Raquel – his word) has offered a $150 hotel voucher for future reservations. I said I was not satisfied with the offer as I have had voucher promises in the past that were never delivered. He repeated the offer, so I asked how long it would take to get them and he said 4-6 weeks. I wasn't satisfied with this and said so. He said he is going to find a supervisor (again – they were in a meeting before).
15:19 – on hold again.
15:25: Rachel (supervisor) – wants to know how she can help. She summarized the situation (again), then mentioned something about a "no-show."
I asked about that since Ruth was right there, then she retreated back to the standard cancellation policy, have to have a credit card to check in story.
I explained that since we did not get the use of the room or the accompanying breakfast, I wanted a refund. She said that was not possible.
I explained that I know that it is possible because it's all a matter of choices as to what they will or won't do, and this is basic contract law – you cannot take money for nothing in exchange. I pointed out that I know they can make this happen, they have clout with the hotel, they make reservations there all the time and they can do something to make the refund happen. Rachel said she will call the hotel again and see what she can do.
On hold 15:30.
15:36:
Rachel says she spoke to Selma, who claims they offered some options to Ruth, who said she had to go somewhere else and they were waiting for her to come back when I called and canceled the reservation. [Note that I spoke to Selma myself before I canceled the reservation, at her suggestion and with notice to hotels.com that I expected a refund – see above.]
She insisted that they could not provide a refund and offered the $150 voucher instead, and I told her I think she'll be hearing from my attorney and hung up.
Called the Sheraton 15:40
Selma answered and put me on hold.
The next person who answered said that Deborah has left for the day [I should have those hours!], so I asked for another manager. Now I'm on hold waiting for Selma.
Selma says that Expedia (hotels.com) has the option to issue the refund and they can do that, then deal with the hotel later, but they just want to put the blame on the hotel. She says that it's their option.
She says the general manager will be back next week, but she doesn't think the hotel should be involved right now. Michelle Richards is the general manager. I can call and talk to her directly next week. She apologized for not being able to help and I thanked her.
--- end of transcript ---
I am not finished with this yet - I need that money and hotels.com could refund it to me if they wanted to, so I'm not done with them yet.
I'll let you know how this all shakes out when it's over.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
More Closed Aspects of OpenDNS
This is a follow-up to my post of Sunday night:
It turns out that this was actually a bug at OpenDNS. According to them, "my network," which happens to be fully dynamic IP, was crossed up with another user's network. As a result, my filters got crossed up with theirs.
They say there's a six step process I need to go through to fix the problem, including downloading software from OpenDNS (which does not support Linux end users, like me) and rebooting. Rebooting a UNIX or Linux machine is not a trivial task, and we don't tend to do it unless something major goes wrong, or the kernel is updated. Changing DNS servers or modifying the connection is not worth a reboot.
I thought it was much easier to switch to a different DNS that doesn't have these problems. Google's DNS works just fine....
It turns out that this was actually a bug at OpenDNS. According to them, "my network," which happens to be fully dynamic IP, was crossed up with another user's network. As a result, my filters got crossed up with theirs.
They say there's a six step process I need to go through to fix the problem, including downloading software from OpenDNS (which does not support Linux end users, like me) and rebooting. Rebooting a UNIX or Linux machine is not a trivial task, and we don't tend to do it unless something major goes wrong, or the kernel is updated. Changing DNS servers or modifying the connection is not worth a reboot.
I thought it was much easier to switch to a different DNS that doesn't have these problems. Google's DNS works just fine....
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Machine Is Stacked Against You
This isn't a complaint as much as it is a report of how our current economic system works against us. I'd like to see it differently, but this is how it looks right now to me.
I've been unemployed for one day short of fifteen months straight now. I used to make a lot of money, and with some help from the family, I managed to spend nearly all of it. All right, all of it, and then some. My savings are gone, my retirement no longer exists and I'm working with the state of California to get me back to work, as well as fielding offers of interest from whoever reads my resume on Dice or wherever else it shows up online. Want one? :-)
One of my goals in my quest for work at this point is to broaden my field, so I'm looking at what the state can offer me in terms of training, just to do that. They have some really great programs available, but the devil is in the details, as they say.
In Orange County, where I live, you can't get a place to live for one person for less than around $1000 per month. That's just a fact of life around here. If you are the sole supporter of a family, the costs are the same, but the expenses are higher. If you happen to "own" a home (i.e., you bought a house and live in it but the house isn't paid off yet), it costs more.
According to information I have, I'm getting the top rate that unemployment pays out - roughly 2/5 of what I actually need to cover all my ongoing bills and expenses, so of course I am cutting corners, borrowing from pretty much anyone who will loan me money, gratefully accepting donations (note the donation button to the right of this post - hint, hint :-), returning CRV redemptible cans and bottles, even the glass ones I used to avoid because they weigh a ton and aren't worth all that much for the weight - pretty much scraping together anything I can to get by.
In its infinite wisdom, Congress was able to get through a nifty little (and I mean that literally) bill called the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or ARRA for short, that creates opportunities for the unemployed to find a way back to work. This includes some money for training if you want to broaden your field of expertise and have a reasonable expectation of being successful in the changed field.
There are some restrictions on the money: to qualify for it, you have to be dead flat broke and yet still be able to support your family on the pittance that you get from unemployment AND go to school to get your new classes completed. For me, this is really quite simple: lose my house and the attendant 60+% of my bills that go with it, along with a huge majority of my personal property that has little or no market value, move in with someone else and hope my unemployment will actually cover our survival needs until I can finish the classes and get back to work.
In other words, in order to benefit from the generosity of our Congress and President, who are amazingly willing to spend Hundreds of Billions of dollars killing people all over the planet, TRILLIONS of dollars to help bail out the richest people on the planet (Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks), I need to be below the poverty level of income and still support my family to afford to take advantage of this government "handout."
Isn't that completely upside down?
Doesn't it make more sense to invest TRILLIONS of dollars getting a productive economy back in order, putting people back to work and letting the ultra-rich 0.5% who own the rest of us flounder to find their own way without gouging the taxpayers (which they are NOT) for the next ten generations?
Doesn't it make more sense to stop wasting Hundreds of Billions of dollars manufacturing and using devices whose sole purpose is to obliterate themselves and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius (or live in it later on for millennia to come in the case of radioactive weapons like "depleted uranium" ammunition, which is about as safe as living inside the active part of an X-ray machine) and instead devote even a significant fraction of that amount in genuine living support for tens of millions of citizens who are the fastest growing segment of our population (the unemployed, like me)?
Okay, I guess that last part was complaining. The rest before that was how it works. Just the facts.
I realize that there are other options, and I don't mean leaving the country, which you need a passport to do, and guess what? That costs money, too. Come to think of it, pretty much all the other options also cost money, and credit is a little tight right now because the banks haven't figured out a way to use up all that bailout money before they deign to loan out the pennies that are left to the rest of us, and Exxon-Mobil is making so much profit they don't know what to do with all those billions, either. They've already bought everything they didn't own before....
The middle class, that segment of society that makes it work and which was growing from the late 1930s until the early 2000s, is dying of starvation. The rich like it that way, and the poor - get more numerous. Even given the dark sneaky stuff that the government has been pulling right under our noses and behind our backs during that same time frame, America was strongest when the middle class was growing, and corporations took care of their employees.
Instead of continuing and expanding that power and building ourselves up to be completely indomitable and unassailable, we funded the Germans and the Japanese who "lost" WWII, and they learned the lessons that apparently we did not. Despite all of their weaknesses, they now have the strongest economies in the world, while we have the richest and poorest and are sinking faster than anything or anyone else.
How many times do we really need to learn the lessons of the 1929 depression? Apparently at least one more, because we're spiralling down into that same kind of situation, but many times worse and on a global scale.
The machine is stacked against us. We need to work to reverse this insanity.
I've been unemployed for one day short of fifteen months straight now. I used to make a lot of money, and with some help from the family, I managed to spend nearly all of it. All right, all of it, and then some. My savings are gone, my retirement no longer exists and I'm working with the state of California to get me back to work, as well as fielding offers of interest from whoever reads my resume on Dice or wherever else it shows up online. Want one? :-)
One of my goals in my quest for work at this point is to broaden my field, so I'm looking at what the state can offer me in terms of training, just to do that. They have some really great programs available, but the devil is in the details, as they say.
In Orange County, where I live, you can't get a place to live for one person for less than around $1000 per month. That's just a fact of life around here. If you are the sole supporter of a family, the costs are the same, but the expenses are higher. If you happen to "own" a home (i.e., you bought a house and live in it but the house isn't paid off yet), it costs more.
According to information I have, I'm getting the top rate that unemployment pays out - roughly 2/5 of what I actually need to cover all my ongoing bills and expenses, so of course I am cutting corners, borrowing from pretty much anyone who will loan me money, gratefully accepting donations (note the donation button to the right of this post - hint, hint :-), returning CRV redemptible cans and bottles, even the glass ones I used to avoid because they weigh a ton and aren't worth all that much for the weight - pretty much scraping together anything I can to get by.
In its infinite wisdom, Congress was able to get through a nifty little (and I mean that literally) bill called the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or ARRA for short, that creates opportunities for the unemployed to find a way back to work. This includes some money for training if you want to broaden your field of expertise and have a reasonable expectation of being successful in the changed field.
There are some restrictions on the money: to qualify for it, you have to be dead flat broke and yet still be able to support your family on the pittance that you get from unemployment AND go to school to get your new classes completed. For me, this is really quite simple: lose my house and the attendant 60+% of my bills that go with it, along with a huge majority of my personal property that has little or no market value, move in with someone else and hope my unemployment will actually cover our survival needs until I can finish the classes and get back to work.
In other words, in order to benefit from the generosity of our Congress and President, who are amazingly willing to spend Hundreds of Billions of dollars killing people all over the planet, TRILLIONS of dollars to help bail out the richest people on the planet (Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks), I need to be below the poverty level of income and still support my family to afford to take advantage of this government "handout."
Isn't that completely upside down?
Doesn't it make more sense to invest TRILLIONS of dollars getting a productive economy back in order, putting people back to work and letting the ultra-rich 0.5% who own the rest of us flounder to find their own way without gouging the taxpayers (which they are NOT) for the next ten generations?
Doesn't it make more sense to stop wasting Hundreds of Billions of dollars manufacturing and using devices whose sole purpose is to obliterate themselves and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius (or live in it later on for millennia to come in the case of radioactive weapons like "depleted uranium" ammunition, which is about as safe as living inside the active part of an X-ray machine) and instead devote even a significant fraction of that amount in genuine living support for tens of millions of citizens who are the fastest growing segment of our population (the unemployed, like me)?
Okay, I guess that last part was complaining. The rest before that was how it works. Just the facts.
I realize that there are other options, and I don't mean leaving the country, which you need a passport to do, and guess what? That costs money, too. Come to think of it, pretty much all the other options also cost money, and credit is a little tight right now because the banks haven't figured out a way to use up all that bailout money before they deign to loan out the pennies that are left to the rest of us, and Exxon-Mobil is making so much profit they don't know what to do with all those billions, either. They've already bought everything they didn't own before....
The middle class, that segment of society that makes it work and which was growing from the late 1930s until the early 2000s, is dying of starvation. The rich like it that way, and the poor - get more numerous. Even given the dark sneaky stuff that the government has been pulling right under our noses and behind our backs during that same time frame, America was strongest when the middle class was growing, and corporations took care of their employees.
Instead of continuing and expanding that power and building ourselves up to be completely indomitable and unassailable, we funded the Germans and the Japanese who "lost" WWII, and they learned the lessons that apparently we did not. Despite all of their weaknesses, they now have the strongest economies in the world, while we have the richest and poorest and are sinking faster than anything or anyone else.
How many times do we really need to learn the lessons of the 1929 depression? Apparently at least one more, because we're spiralling down into that same kind of situation, but many times worse and on a global scale.
The machine is stacked against us. We need to work to reverse this insanity.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
"Open" DNS Not So Open
I know it's late here (01:46), but I just had a thought and got up to see if anyone won the CA Super Lotto jackpot.
Yes, I know the lottery is a tax for those who can't add. Duh.
But guess what? It's my right, or yours, or anyone's, to be able to go online and see what the current draw results are. I don't usually go to 7/11 this late.
I've been using the OpenDNS name servers for about a year or so now. They're faster than whatever I was using before (probably AT&T's DNS 'cause I have AT&T DSL here). (Yeah, I know about that, too. It's relatively cheap and works well enough for most internet stuff.)
However, this morning, apparently OpenDNS decided that being able to see draw results on a state-sponsored lottery constitutes GAMBLING. That's right, just looking at the results is gambling, even if you a) didn't spend any money on tickets and b) can't buy them online anyway.
Can anyone else spell CENSORSHIP? Isn't that spelled Brother U Lame Loser, Sure Happy It's Thursday?
It's bad enough that the major ISPs are really hot to censor everything we don't feel we should have to pay extra to get access to on the internet. Here is a site that advertises its "openness" in its very name - OpenDNS. You'd think that they don't censor the web, wouldn't you? I sure did.
Not only that, but even classifying the lotto site as "gambling" is inaccurate, to say the least. What else is gambling to these people, looking at a photo of a roulette wheel? Next, we won't be able to access maps to drive through Las Vegas, even if it's just a gas stop the way to Denver (or from Denver to CA, if you're east of here), or check out the resorts in Lake Tahoe (which is a really nice place to visit, even if you don't gamble - the casinos usually have great food and good shows - cheap).
I figured that there had to be another free DNS service out there, so I did a Google search for it, and the first hit up was a blog that had a list of free, fast DNS servers on it, and the really interesting part is that you can use Google as your DNS server. I happen to like Google....
I filed a complaint with OpenDNS right away, of course - that kind of misguided public coercion is just plain wrong on so many levels I lost count immediately.
Then I switched to Google's DNS links and voila! Lotto results are right there.
Unless you like censorship, I recommend you contact OpenDNS and express your concerns, too. They're at www.opendns.com.
As an open source software afficionado and promoter, I am mortally offended at this insult. Shame on "open" anything that censors our access.
Yes, I know the lottery is a tax for those who can't add. Duh.
But guess what? It's my right, or yours, or anyone's, to be able to go online and see what the current draw results are. I don't usually go to 7/11 this late.
I've been using the OpenDNS name servers for about a year or so now. They're faster than whatever I was using before (probably AT&T's DNS 'cause I have AT&T DSL here). (Yeah, I know about that, too. It's relatively cheap and works well enough for most internet stuff.)
However, this morning, apparently OpenDNS decided that being able to see draw results on a state-sponsored lottery constitutes GAMBLING. That's right, just looking at the results is gambling, even if you a) didn't spend any money on tickets and b) can't buy them online anyway.
Can anyone else spell CENSORSHIP? Isn't that spelled Brother U Lame Loser, Sure Happy It's Thursday?
It's bad enough that the major ISPs are really hot to censor everything we don't feel we should have to pay extra to get access to on the internet. Here is a site that advertises its "openness" in its very name - OpenDNS. You'd think that they don't censor the web, wouldn't you? I sure did.
Not only that, but even classifying the lotto site as "gambling" is inaccurate, to say the least. What else is gambling to these people, looking at a photo of a roulette wheel? Next, we won't be able to access maps to drive through Las Vegas, even if it's just a gas stop the way to Denver (or from Denver to CA, if you're east of here), or check out the resorts in Lake Tahoe (which is a really nice place to visit, even if you don't gamble - the casinos usually have great food and good shows - cheap).
I figured that there had to be another free DNS service out there, so I did a Google search for it, and the first hit up was a blog that had a list of free, fast DNS servers on it, and the really interesting part is that you can use Google as your DNS server. I happen to like Google....
I filed a complaint with OpenDNS right away, of course - that kind of misguided public coercion is just plain wrong on so many levels I lost count immediately.
Then I switched to Google's DNS links and voila! Lotto results are right there.
Unless you like censorship, I recommend you contact OpenDNS and express your concerns, too. They're at www.opendns.com.
As an open source software afficionado and promoter, I am mortally offended at this insult. Shame on "open" anything that censors our access.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
More reasons I like Linux
Today I had the dubious pleasure of installing some updates and new software on the one pure Windows machine still around in the house. Also, two nights ago I had another dubious pleasure of backing up another family member's laptop disk drive because the screen died (long story - not really relevant). That machine has Vista on it, but that's really not important.
I used a SATA/IDE-to-USB converter device to do the backup, and other than Windows halting the copies on every file it couldn't quite handle, things went fairly well. I was going to try to put Windows on my Everex laptop (that runs Linux) so this other person could use it (they are Linux-illiterate, despite my best efforts... :-), but the strangest things happened.
I put in the other laptop drive, and even though it tried for about 15-20 minutes, the Windows on-board recovery failed. Now, this should be no surprise because my Everex and their Toshiba are substantially different hardware bases, with different devices and so on, and most laptops come with tailored installations to match the hardware that accompanies them.
Then I put the original disk back in and lo and behold, none of my Windows installation CDs would run. They all got to that first step, "Setup is inspecting your computer for anything that might kill it," (okay, it didn't really say that, but it was the usual Windows Setup prompt), and then the screen went dark and stayed there. I haven't really had the heart to check into why a nice laptop like that, which came with Ubuntu Linux until I installed CentOS (Linux) over it and which runs perfectly, would choke on installing Windows. Truth be told, I don't care, but it's nice to know that my awesome Linux laptop won't even allow Windows to install on it.
More to the point:
Among other things, this desktop I was upgrading had AVG anti-virus on it (which I kind of like - it's free and works well enough) clamoring for an update to the virus definition file, NVidia's Network Access Manager complaining that it was turned off, Windows Automatic Update telling me it had some updates to install (I don't ever let things like that run on their own - too risky IMNSHO) and ZoneAlarm, which I had decided to uninstall.
I told the Windows automatic update to go ahead, update me. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm, which went well, except for two things:
1) Something else went wrong and I got one of those lovely "A program has crashed....Do you want to send a bug report to Microsoft?" windows, for which program I don't know (and they don't say).
2) The ZoneAlarm uninstall wanted me to reboot.
Fine. I told the bug report window to go away, and it did. However, the automatic update hung, hard. It stopped at 32% complete without ever downloading anything.
I admit it, I kind of floundered on this one. I tried running Windows Update manually, but that didn't do so well with the other one hung. I turned off the automatic updates, but that didn't un-hang the hung one. I tried to use the NVidia NAM's anti-hacking-only feature, but that didn't seem to help, so I figured, that's it, it's going and I'll worry about it all after the reboot.
So, since NAM doesn't have an uninstall command or feature, I went to the control panel and started to remove it that way.
That hung the whole machine.
Other than being an annoyance, this wasn't much of a hassle (had to reboot anyway), so I just rebooted the machine with the reset switch. And, to Windows' credit, it came up just fine.
(Yes, I'm running XP SP2 on that box - it does well enough for these purposes.)
NAM was not gone, so I removed it again and that needed another reboot.
Now I'm getting annoyed, and I'll go into that in a little bit, there's not much of the gripe left.
With NAM gone, I went back to a manual Windows Update run, and after a fair length of sitting silent, it finally started actually downloading and installing 23 updates. What they were I don't really know, or care, much. I've been using Windows more or less regularly since 1995 (at work) and 1996 (at home), and I have a fair amount of experience tweaking it using an official XP book and a couple of "Tips and Tricks" books, but I couldn't begin to tell you what update KB234678234 is (I fudged the number, but it could be any of them). All I know is that, without actually going through and reading the descriptions, those 23 updates were "Windows Update" or "Windows Security Update" and maybe an Internet Explorer update - too bland for me.
It was really slow, too. The update took about another 10 minutes, which, for 23 small updates is a LONG time.
Then I had to reboot again.
Well, whoop-dee-do, Mr. Mark, what's yer eff-in problem with that?
If that's all you're used to, then you probably don't know that there's a much better system out there - it's called LINUX.
We've had a flurry of bug fixes and other updates to various parts of the system over the last couple of weeks, including a substantial kernel update. For those of you who don't know it, the kernel is the heart of the OS - it's what makes everything else work. It is also what most Linux people think of as Linux itself - everything else is added on, mostly from the Free Software Foundation, which supports the standard command set that comes with virtually every Linux distribution.
Back to the point, there were ten notices in my deleted email about updates, seven of which were for my current CentOS release (5.4), the last of which was the kernel update.
I'm a command-line kind of person, having been in the business since before graphical user interfaces, like Windows, and as much as the GUIs have made a lot of the computing world easier, there are some things about running computers that just cry for the power and detail of the command line. I believe that systems administration, even for home use, is one of them.
This is not to fault the GUI system updater - it's fine, if you like that sort of thing. As it happens, I learned the command line method first, and it's so simple, clear and informative, I just use it, with pleasure.
For each of those seven updates, all of which included more than one area to be updated except the kernel update, I happily ran the command (yum update, if you're wondering), watched it whip up a fast list of what had an update available and then waited for my typed "y" to proceed, at which point it downloaded each update, ran the transaction checks, updated the modules and finished with a note about success. Quickly.
No reboot required. Technically, I didn't have to reboot after the kernel update, either, but if I wanted the new kernel, then, yes, that was necessary. It hasn't happened in a month or two, so I figured why not.
Actually, I went and read the release notes, and there were enough important security issues fixed that I figured it was worth it.
Rebooting a Linux system is not something to be taken lightly. It's a little more time consuming that a Windows reboot appears to be (the actual settling down of the OS and any run-time apps like your antivirus takes a lot longer than just getting to your desktop), but once I'm logged back in, it's done for the next month or six or however long before I decide to take it down again.
There were no cryptic symbolic names to decode - I know the packages that were updated because they are listed out by name and I've been working in and using UNIX/Linux systems long enough to know most of them by heart. Now, this is as opposed to the Windows updates, which are all named KB#########, or something like that, which means that NO one outside of Microsoft knows what they are without reading the accompanying documentation. In Linux, this is not required.
There's another thing I noticed during the Windows Update I ran. While the updater is downloading and installing the updates, it occupies a normal sized window in the middle of the screen which you can move but not minimize. Since I don't have the add-on to Windows that allows for multiple workspaces (virtual desktop screens) that happens to be a standard feature with both the GNOME and KDE GUIs of Linux, that window just sits there, staring back at me until it is done and tells me to reboot.
Feh.
After rebooting, I went to update the MS Office XP installed on that machine, except that there no longer appears to be an automated Office update process unless you get the Microsoft Update. Ick, no thanks.
So, what did I just say?
I like Linux's simple, convenient update process because it is simple, easy to use, unobtrusive and, unless it involves a kernel change, updates on my desktop without forcing me to reboot.
How could anyone complain about that on top of a cost-free software system for the stand-alone desktop computer?
Not me.
I used a SATA/IDE-to-USB converter device to do the backup, and other than Windows halting the copies on every file it couldn't quite handle, things went fairly well. I was going to try to put Windows on my Everex laptop (that runs Linux) so this other person could use it (they are Linux-illiterate, despite my best efforts... :-), but the strangest things happened.
I put in the other laptop drive, and even though it tried for about 15-20 minutes, the Windows on-board recovery failed. Now, this should be no surprise because my Everex and their Toshiba are substantially different hardware bases, with different devices and so on, and most laptops come with tailored installations to match the hardware that accompanies them.
Then I put the original disk back in and lo and behold, none of my Windows installation CDs would run. They all got to that first step, "Setup is inspecting your computer for anything that might kill it," (okay, it didn't really say that, but it was the usual Windows Setup prompt), and then the screen went dark and stayed there. I haven't really had the heart to check into why a nice laptop like that, which came with Ubuntu Linux until I installed CentOS (Linux) over it and which runs perfectly, would choke on installing Windows. Truth be told, I don't care, but it's nice to know that my awesome Linux laptop won't even allow Windows to install on it.
More to the point:
Among other things, this desktop I was upgrading had AVG anti-virus on it (which I kind of like - it's free and works well enough) clamoring for an update to the virus definition file, NVidia's Network Access Manager complaining that it was turned off, Windows Automatic Update telling me it had some updates to install (I don't ever let things like that run on their own - too risky IMNSHO) and ZoneAlarm, which I had decided to uninstall.
I told the Windows automatic update to go ahead, update me. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm, which went well, except for two things:
1) Something else went wrong and I got one of those lovely "A program has crashed....Do you want to send a bug report to Microsoft?" windows, for which program I don't know (and they don't say).
2) The ZoneAlarm uninstall wanted me to reboot.
Fine. I told the bug report window to go away, and it did. However, the automatic update hung, hard. It stopped at 32% complete without ever downloading anything.
I admit it, I kind of floundered on this one. I tried running Windows Update manually, but that didn't do so well with the other one hung. I turned off the automatic updates, but that didn't un-hang the hung one. I tried to use the NVidia NAM's anti-hacking-only feature, but that didn't seem to help, so I figured, that's it, it's going and I'll worry about it all after the reboot.
So, since NAM doesn't have an uninstall command or feature, I went to the control panel and started to remove it that way.
That hung the whole machine.
Other than being an annoyance, this wasn't much of a hassle (had to reboot anyway), so I just rebooted the machine with the reset switch. And, to Windows' credit, it came up just fine.
(Yes, I'm running XP SP2 on that box - it does well enough for these purposes.)
NAM was not gone, so I removed it again and that needed another reboot.
Now I'm getting annoyed, and I'll go into that in a little bit, there's not much of the gripe left.
With NAM gone, I went back to a manual Windows Update run, and after a fair length of sitting silent, it finally started actually downloading and installing 23 updates. What they were I don't really know, or care, much. I've been using Windows more or less regularly since 1995 (at work) and 1996 (at home), and I have a fair amount of experience tweaking it using an official XP book and a couple of "Tips and Tricks" books, but I couldn't begin to tell you what update KB234678234 is (I fudged the number, but it could be any of them). All I know is that, without actually going through and reading the descriptions, those 23 updates were "Windows Update" or "Windows Security Update" and maybe an Internet Explorer update - too bland for me.
It was really slow, too. The update took about another 10 minutes, which, for 23 small updates is a LONG time.
Then I had to reboot again.
Well, whoop-dee-do, Mr. Mark, what's yer eff-in problem with that?
If that's all you're used to, then you probably don't know that there's a much better system out there - it's called LINUX.
We've had a flurry of bug fixes and other updates to various parts of the system over the last couple of weeks, including a substantial kernel update. For those of you who don't know it, the kernel is the heart of the OS - it's what makes everything else work. It is also what most Linux people think of as Linux itself - everything else is added on, mostly from the Free Software Foundation, which supports the standard command set that comes with virtually every Linux distribution.
Back to the point, there were ten notices in my deleted email about updates, seven of which were for my current CentOS release (5.4), the last of which was the kernel update.
I'm a command-line kind of person, having been in the business since before graphical user interfaces, like Windows, and as much as the GUIs have made a lot of the computing world easier, there are some things about running computers that just cry for the power and detail of the command line. I believe that systems administration, even for home use, is one of them.
This is not to fault the GUI system updater - it's fine, if you like that sort of thing. As it happens, I learned the command line method first, and it's so simple, clear and informative, I just use it, with pleasure.
For each of those seven updates, all of which included more than one area to be updated except the kernel update, I happily ran the command (yum update, if you're wondering), watched it whip up a fast list of what had an update available and then waited for my typed "y" to proceed, at which point it downloaded each update, ran the transaction checks, updated the modules and finished with a note about success. Quickly.
No reboot required. Technically, I didn't have to reboot after the kernel update, either, but if I wanted the new kernel, then, yes, that was necessary. It hasn't happened in a month or two, so I figured why not.
Actually, I went and read the release notes, and there were enough important security issues fixed that I figured it was worth it.
Rebooting a Linux system is not something to be taken lightly. It's a little more time consuming that a Windows reboot appears to be (the actual settling down of the OS and any run-time apps like your antivirus takes a lot longer than just getting to your desktop), but once I'm logged back in, it's done for the next month or six or however long before I decide to take it down again.
There were no cryptic symbolic names to decode - I know the packages that were updated because they are listed out by name and I've been working in and using UNIX/Linux systems long enough to know most of them by heart. Now, this is as opposed to the Windows updates, which are all named KB#########, or something like that, which means that NO one outside of Microsoft knows what they are without reading the accompanying documentation. In Linux, this is not required.
There's another thing I noticed during the Windows Update I ran. While the updater is downloading and installing the updates, it occupies a normal sized window in the middle of the screen which you can move but not minimize. Since I don't have the add-on to Windows that allows for multiple workspaces (virtual desktop screens) that happens to be a standard feature with both the GNOME and KDE GUIs of Linux, that window just sits there, staring back at me until it is done and tells me to reboot.
Feh.
After rebooting, I went to update the MS Office XP installed on that machine, except that there no longer appears to be an automated Office update process unless you get the Microsoft Update. Ick, no thanks.
So, what did I just say?
I like Linux's simple, convenient update process because it is simple, easy to use, unobtrusive and, unless it involves a kernel change, updates on my desktop without forcing me to reboot.
How could anyone complain about that on top of a cost-free software system for the stand-alone desktop computer?
Not me.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Initiatives of the damned
Okay, I'm embarrassed, or would be if I did that sort of thing.
I thought I was a week behind in posting here, but obviously I was off - by two weeks! Foo.
So, to the point:
Today, I had to go to the store, and there was this really sweet, elderly black lady with a few teeth sitting outside the store, hawking initiative petitions. At first, when she presented her main pitch, I just said no and went on into the store. When I came out, I smiled and said no again.
Then I had to go back inside, and said no on my way in, but on the way out, I figured maybe I could do something intelligent, so I stopped.
The first petition was for an initiative constitutional amendment (which is usually a VERY BAD IDEA) to force a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature in order to instantiate or raise governmental fees (which is one way the state raises money without raising taxes). It's bad enough that we've hogtied California with the 2/3 requirement to set tax rates (up or down), but this would be a death knell for any state funding necessities at all. I failed to point this out to her, but I did say it was a bad idea.
The next one was (oh, foo, I forgot!) another bad idea, as bad as, or worse than that one.
Number three was an initiative to alter the lottery disbursements to increase the amount dedicated to prizes and decrease "the rest." Now, I'm not a big fan of public education as it is, but starving it is not the solution. Since the state doesn't even honor its Proposition 98 legal requirements to fund our public education system (which it can't, largely because of petition #1 and the 2/3 majority requirement for tax changes, and our governator's love affair with prisons), cutting even more money out just to enrich the one in 47 billion chance jackpot winners just doesn't seem right.
Number four was the only one I signed. It was a petition to change the majority requirement for passing a state budget from 2/3 to simple majority. That happens to be a good idea, and I'm surprised she had it, but I told her it was a good idea and signed it.
Number five was a petition to eliminate the (just-enacted) commission to determine census redistricting. I pointed out that we just enacted the commission as a solution to the problems of having the legislature do that, and she said we should let the people decide. I pointed out that the people DID just decide, but she didn't seem to understand that one, which I thought was really weird because she did understand that this would reverse the commissionization of district drawing that we have fought for ten years to get through, but she didn't get that this reversal was a bad idea.
Number six was supposedly a petition to alter the way businesses can reduce their taxes by shifting losses from one year to another. I couldn't figure out what it would really do from the way it was worded on the petition, and I was running out of time, but I figured this - better not to sign what I don't understand. I'm no political newbie, but this one was too vague and had insufficient information on what the impact would be, so I said no.
With respect to petition drives for changes to the law, California has been the center of an epidemic of such drives. Usually they are funded by very rich sources (meaning corporations or groups that have too much money and nothing better to do with it than spend it in ways to make themselves richer and more powerful, usually to the detriment of the rest of us) that do not have our best interests at heart, in mind, or anywhere even close to the horizon.
To top all of this off, yesterday Arnie announced that he was releasing $9.2 million (yeah, Million) to large cities in CA to fight gang violence.
Hello? Do you know how to read and write, Arnie?
First of all, there's something inherently wrong with the idea of fighting violence.
Secondly, if you really want to reduce gang violence, the proper solution is to give people something better to do than join gangs. I would strongly suggest a few things like good jobs that pay enough to be worthwhile, in fields that people can actually prosper and enjoy, maybe enhancing our educational system so that it works, including our state universities (and maybe restricting the UC regents from being able to hike tuition and fees to cover their bad investment decisions rather than actually funding the students' education), single-payer universal health care so California's businesses can compete in a global market where every other industrialized nation in the world has this but we don't - radical ideas I know, but someone has to say it....
Moral: READ before you sign. If you don't understand it or don't like it or it doesn't sound right (or even just sounds fishy), chances are it wasn't mean to do what the petition signature gatherer is told to tell you it does. They are getting paid per signature, often not a lot, and most of them are fairly desperate people who will do anything for the money, so stereotypically, they cannot be trusted to tell you the truth about what they want you to sign.
That's a long moral, and so is this post. See you soon!
I thought I was a week behind in posting here, but obviously I was off - by two weeks! Foo.
So, to the point:
Today, I had to go to the store, and there was this really sweet, elderly black lady with a few teeth sitting outside the store, hawking initiative petitions. At first, when she presented her main pitch, I just said no and went on into the store. When I came out, I smiled and said no again.
Then I had to go back inside, and said no on my way in, but on the way out, I figured maybe I could do something intelligent, so I stopped.
The first petition was for an initiative constitutional amendment (which is usually a VERY BAD IDEA) to force a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature in order to instantiate or raise governmental fees (which is one way the state raises money without raising taxes). It's bad enough that we've hogtied California with the 2/3 requirement to set tax rates (up or down), but this would be a death knell for any state funding necessities at all. I failed to point this out to her, but I did say it was a bad idea.
The next one was (oh, foo, I forgot!) another bad idea, as bad as, or worse than that one.
Number three was an initiative to alter the lottery disbursements to increase the amount dedicated to prizes and decrease "the rest." Now, I'm not a big fan of public education as it is, but starving it is not the solution. Since the state doesn't even honor its Proposition 98 legal requirements to fund our public education system (which it can't, largely because of petition #1 and the 2/3 majority requirement for tax changes, and our governator's love affair with prisons), cutting even more money out just to enrich the one in 47 billion chance jackpot winners just doesn't seem right.
Number four was the only one I signed. It was a petition to change the majority requirement for passing a state budget from 2/3 to simple majority. That happens to be a good idea, and I'm surprised she had it, but I told her it was a good idea and signed it.
Number five was a petition to eliminate the (just-enacted) commission to determine census redistricting. I pointed out that we just enacted the commission as a solution to the problems of having the legislature do that, and she said we should let the people decide. I pointed out that the people DID just decide, but she didn't seem to understand that one, which I thought was really weird because she did understand that this would reverse the commissionization of district drawing that we have fought for ten years to get through, but she didn't get that this reversal was a bad idea.
Number six was supposedly a petition to alter the way businesses can reduce their taxes by shifting losses from one year to another. I couldn't figure out what it would really do from the way it was worded on the petition, and I was running out of time, but I figured this - better not to sign what I don't understand. I'm no political newbie, but this one was too vague and had insufficient information on what the impact would be, so I said no.
With respect to petition drives for changes to the law, California has been the center of an epidemic of such drives. Usually they are funded by very rich sources (meaning corporations or groups that have too much money and nothing better to do with it than spend it in ways to make themselves richer and more powerful, usually to the detriment of the rest of us) that do not have our best interests at heart, in mind, or anywhere even close to the horizon.
To top all of this off, yesterday Arnie announced that he was releasing $9.2 million (yeah, Million) to large cities in CA to fight gang violence.
Hello? Do you know how to read and write, Arnie?
First of all, there's something inherently wrong with the idea of fighting violence.
Secondly, if you really want to reduce gang violence, the proper solution is to give people something better to do than join gangs. I would strongly suggest a few things like good jobs that pay enough to be worthwhile, in fields that people can actually prosper and enjoy, maybe enhancing our educational system so that it works, including our state universities (and maybe restricting the UC regents from being able to hike tuition and fees to cover their bad investment decisions rather than actually funding the students' education), single-payer universal health care so California's businesses can compete in a global market where every other industrialized nation in the world has this but we don't - radical ideas I know, but someone has to say it....
Moral: READ before you sign. If you don't understand it or don't like it or it doesn't sound right (or even just sounds fishy), chances are it wasn't mean to do what the petition signature gatherer is told to tell you it does. They are getting paid per signature, often not a lot, and most of them are fairly desperate people who will do anything for the money, so stereotypically, they cannot be trusted to tell you the truth about what they want you to sign.
That's a long moral, and so is this post. See you soon!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Evil does in fact exist and walks in the world right next to us
This may seem like a strange thing to say, but after much thought and serious consideration, I have to face the fact that there really is such a thing as evil, and it lives right beside us in the world now, not only in whatever may come hereafter.
I met a personification of evil today. It's in the person of someone whom I have known for a long, long time, but it wasn't until today that I realized just how truly vicious, despicable, loathsome, self-centered and purely twisted this person is.
This person is someone who takes pride in how honest and forthright they are, but in reality, they lie, cheat, steal and twist up everything to make them look good and make everyone else around them wrong, petty, selfish and small.
I now know who the person is that is petty, selfish to a degree I can only imagine, and so small that they are and have nothing of value to anyone, even their own self. I suppose that explains why they are the way they are, and that is beyond sad, it's tragic, but it's like an alcoholic - they can't even begin to recover until they can admit to what they are. This person is incapable of admitting that they are now or ever have been wrong, not about anything.
If you happen to meet someone like this, or about whom you feel anything like this, you can try to be nice to them, to sympathize with all their awful plights, their horrid relationships, get them gifts, do anything they ask, but it will never make a difference, because they can't even see that you are a person, that you have your own thoughts that might not be the same as theirs, or things to do that are just as important to you as every whim of theirs is to them. If are nice to them, or give them things, or do things for them, don't expect any gratitude - they are incapable of recognizing that you did anything, for them, about which they should be grateful. They can't conceive of anything outside their own narrow, narcissistic warped view of the world.
I can't say who this person is, but I can conclude with one comforting thought:
It isn't me, and I thank God every day for that, no matter how much I complain (and, yes, yell at Him) about anything else.
I met a personification of evil today. It's in the person of someone whom I have known for a long, long time, but it wasn't until today that I realized just how truly vicious, despicable, loathsome, self-centered and purely twisted this person is.
This person is someone who takes pride in how honest and forthright they are, but in reality, they lie, cheat, steal and twist up everything to make them look good and make everyone else around them wrong, petty, selfish and small.
I now know who the person is that is petty, selfish to a degree I can only imagine, and so small that they are and have nothing of value to anyone, even their own self. I suppose that explains why they are the way they are, and that is beyond sad, it's tragic, but it's like an alcoholic - they can't even begin to recover until they can admit to what they are. This person is incapable of admitting that they are now or ever have been wrong, not about anything.
If you happen to meet someone like this, or about whom you feel anything like this, you can try to be nice to them, to sympathize with all their awful plights, their horrid relationships, get them gifts, do anything they ask, but it will never make a difference, because they can't even see that you are a person, that you have your own thoughts that might not be the same as theirs, or things to do that are just as important to you as every whim of theirs is to them. If are nice to them, or give them things, or do things for them, don't expect any gratitude - they are incapable of recognizing that you did anything, for them, about which they should be grateful. They can't conceive of anything outside their own narrow, narcissistic warped view of the world.
I can't say who this person is, but I can conclude with one comforting thought:
It isn't me, and I thank God every day for that, no matter how much I complain (and, yes, yell at Him) about anything else.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Credit Card Fraud, by the Issuer
I was just informed of a fascinating situation that someone I know ran into with their credit card company. I won't name my informant (and it was not me), but I will name the credit card issuer: HSBC (Household Services Banking Corporation).
HSBC offers a "service" whereby a debtor can make a credit card payment online, but there is a one or two day delay built into the payment processing time. Why? Because they like to make money, of course. Given that banks can afford the fastest computers in creation and that most electronic transactions take a few microseconds to perform, even allowing for a few milliseconds for the disks to record the transactions, and even then allowing a few seconds for trans-network transmissions - these folks don't use the internet for transactions like these - a one day delay is purely for show. Actually, it is entirely possible that the delay is arranged so the bank can use the money during that time to make even more off of it through other investment services, but I can't prove that. (But think about it - why would a virtually instantaneous transaction be delayed for 24 hours, 86400 seconds, 86.4 billion microseconds, or longer, other than to make more money off of it through back channels that don't have such delays?)
To get past this, they offer another "service" called "Rush Payment," whereby they say the one day delay won't apply. What they don't really say is that the payment will actually be processed the same day or by the next day. They don't say this because, although the "offer" of such a service to get the payments processed faster, for a fee, generates lots of rush payments and, hence, more money to HSBC, frequently out of the pocket of someone who is already having trouble making the payments in the first place, the actual payment is not rushed at all.
So this person I know sent HSBC a message through HSBC's internal messaging system for contacting them, explaining the situation and asking for a refund on the rush payment.
Here is what HSBC sent back, verbatim, with identifying data removed (and some emphasis added):
from: HSBC Card Services Customer Care
Dear [name redacted],
We are writing to you in response to your inquiry regarding your Account ending in [redacted] issued by HSBC Bank Nevada N.A.
We can certainly understand your concern regarding the payment hold on your account. Your payment in the amount of $115.00 was received and posted on 02/01/2010; however, a temporary hold for the same amount has been placed onyour account. * The available funds will be released no later than 14 days after the payment posts to your account. At this time, you have no available credit on your account. Please refer to the Maximum Credit Limit portion of your Cardmember Agreement and Disclosure Statement for more details.
*On your online statement, the temporary hold will show as a Pending Charge in your Recent Transactions. The Merchant Name will be HCS (HSBC Credit Services) and the transaction amount will be $1.00 less than your payment amount.
Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with your request to remove the fee for rush payment from your account . Our rush payment service has been added as a convenient option for our Cardmembers. Although there is a charge for this service, it frequently helps our Cardmembers avoid late charges. We guarantee payment will be applied the fastest way possible at a cost that is less than a late penalty.
You are important to us and we appreciate your business.
Sincerely,
[I shouldn't redact this person's name, but I will anyway]
HSBC Card Services Customer Care
HSBC Bank Nevada will not send or request sensitive personal or account information through e-mail or the telephone. If you receive suspicious email or phone calls regarding your credit card account, contact us immediately at the phone number printed on the back of your credit card or on your billing statement.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., P.O. Box 703, Wood Dale, IL 60191-0703
© Copyright HSBC Finance Corporation. 2010. All rights reserved.
---
In other words, the payment is marked as posted on the account, but even though electronic funds transfers are virtually instantaneous, they're going to hold onto the money anyway, just for the heck of it, for up to 14 days. Back in the days when these funds transfers were done via U.S. Mail, or at least not posted until the paper proof of transaction was transmitted and received, this might make sense, but with EFTs???
Unfortunately, HSBC is "unable to comply" with the request to remove the rush fee from the account. Apparently, they are incapable of changing their rules or making exceptions that actually benefit the customer. Notice that credit card issuers have no trouble amending their credit card contracts at any time when they want to increase their fess, penalties, interest (usury) rates, and so on, but when you want an adjustment in your favor, they are "unable to comply." So my source paid $15 for nothing, and HSBC is going to keep that, too.
However, "You are important to us and we appreciate your business." Well, DUH! They just rooked another customer of another $15 in a fee that bought the customer nothing. I'd appreciate that business, too.
But, we can trust the banks - they're too big to fail, they keep the economy alive (with their $400,000 yacht cruises and such). In short:
WE DON'T NEED TO REGULATE THE BANKS AT ALL!
Right? Right? Is anyone out there?
HSBC offers a "service" whereby a debtor can make a credit card payment online, but there is a one or two day delay built into the payment processing time. Why? Because they like to make money, of course. Given that banks can afford the fastest computers in creation and that most electronic transactions take a few microseconds to perform, even allowing for a few milliseconds for the disks to record the transactions, and even then allowing a few seconds for trans-network transmissions - these folks don't use the internet for transactions like these - a one day delay is purely for show. Actually, it is entirely possible that the delay is arranged so the bank can use the money during that time to make even more off of it through other investment services, but I can't prove that. (But think about it - why would a virtually instantaneous transaction be delayed for 24 hours, 86400 seconds, 86.4 billion microseconds, or longer, other than to make more money off of it through back channels that don't have such delays?)
To get past this, they offer another "service" called "Rush Payment," whereby they say the one day delay won't apply. What they don't really say is that the payment will actually be processed the same day or by the next day. They don't say this because, although the "offer" of such a service to get the payments processed faster, for a fee, generates lots of rush payments and, hence, more money to HSBC, frequently out of the pocket of someone who is already having trouble making the payments in the first place, the actual payment is not rushed at all.
So this person I know sent HSBC a message through HSBC's internal messaging system for contacting them, explaining the situation and asking for a refund on the rush payment.
Here is what HSBC sent back, verbatim, with identifying data removed (and some emphasis added):
from: HSBC Card Services Customer Care
| ||||||||||||||||||
We are writing to you in response to your inquiry regarding your Account ending in [redacted] issued by HSBC Bank Nevada N.A.
We can certainly understand your concern regarding the payment hold on your account. Your payment in the amount of $115.00 was received and posted on 02/01/2010; however, a temporary hold for the same amount has been placed onyour account. * The available funds will be released no later than 14 days after the payment posts to your account. At this time, you have no available credit on your account. Please refer to the Maximum Credit Limit portion of your Cardmember Agreement and Disclosure Statement for more details.
*On your online statement, the temporary hold will show as a Pending Charge in your Recent Transactions. The Merchant Name will be HCS (HSBC Credit Services) and the transaction amount will be $1.00 less than your payment amount.
Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with your request to remove the fee for rush payment from your account . Our rush payment service has been added as a convenient option for our Cardmembers. Although there is a charge for this service, it frequently helps our Cardmembers avoid late charges. We guarantee payment will be applied the fastest way possible at a cost that is less than a late penalty.
You are important to us and we appreciate your business.
Sincerely,
[I shouldn't redact this person's name, but I will anyway]
HSBC Card Services Customer Care
HSBC Bank Nevada will not send or request sensitive personal or account information through e-mail or the telephone. If you receive suspicious email or phone calls regarding your credit card account, contact us immediately at the phone number printed on the back of your credit card or on your billing statement.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., P.O. Box 703, Wood Dale, IL 60191-0703
© Copyright HSBC Finance Corporation. 2010. All rights reserved.
---
In other words, the payment is marked as posted on the account, but even though electronic funds transfers are virtually instantaneous, they're going to hold onto the money anyway, just for the heck of it, for up to 14 days. Back in the days when these funds transfers were done via U.S. Mail, or at least not posted until the paper proof of transaction was transmitted and received, this might make sense, but with EFTs???
Unfortunately, HSBC is "unable to comply" with the request to remove the rush fee from the account. Apparently, they are incapable of changing their rules or making exceptions that actually benefit the customer. Notice that credit card issuers have no trouble amending their credit card contracts at any time when they want to increase their fess, penalties, interest (usury) rates, and so on, but when you want an adjustment in your favor, they are "unable to comply." So my source paid $15 for nothing, and HSBC is going to keep that, too.
However, "You are important to us and we appreciate your business." Well, DUH! They just rooked another customer of another $15 in a fee that bought the customer nothing. I'd appreciate that business, too.
But, we can trust the banks - they're too big to fail, they keep the economy alive (with their $400,000 yacht cruises and such). In short:
WE DON'T NEED TO REGULATE THE BANKS AT ALL!
Right? Right? Is anyone out there?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Credit Card Predators
I was going to say something about salt - sodium content in our food supply - but this one kind of hit me like something hard and fast out of the unexpected area.
As some of you know, I've been out of work for over a year now, but I freely admit that my credit card woes go back a few years further than that.
A long, long time ago, when I was employed, getting raises and more or less living the high life of an upper middle class nitwit, I had lots and lots of credit. I had so much credit at one time that I found myself in a position where I was forced to face a few facts about having lots of credit. The main one is that each dollar of credit is roughly the equivalent of some measure of the amount of rope I had with which to hang myself. I had, at one time, over 120,000 feet of rope.
Needless to say, that's long gone, but the curious part is that, despite record bankruptcies and defaults among credit card holders, the issuers don't seem to get it. They think that the obvious way to make a credit card holder who has fallen on rough times, due to their own stupidity or for other, less culpable reasons, is to blackmail them.
That's right, except it's "legal blackmail." It's legal because Congress doesn't have the balls to regulate the banks and other credit card issuers (CCIs) the way they so desperately need to be regulated, and that also feeds back into the current economic mess we're in, which is almost 100% due to financial misdeeds by the banks and their owners. You know, those guys (mostly) who are out on $400,000 yacht junkets on our dime, courtesy of the Congressional sell-out - oops! I meant bail-out - which saved their utterly useless asses from the financial ruin they so richly deserve but we so poorly get stuck with.
(Surprisingly, Congress does have the balls to act like they represent us, the people, when they're kowtowing to their corporate masters right in front of us. Almost every last member of Congress does it, and that must make it right.)
But I digress.
The reason their blackmail is legal is two fold. First, it's contractual. That means that when you get a credit card, all the sneaky little tricks, fees, fines, and other assorted punishment they will nail on you if you dare to make a single payment late are all right there in that glob of fine print you probably did not read when you signed it (because you need a law degree and an accountant certification to understand it, or a bankruptcy or two). And because they're such sweet folks, they usually will give you one or two months before they slam the lid on your fingers so you may never be able to pay them back. If that doesn't make any sense to you, you're not alone.
Secondly, there used to be laws about how much interest a lending institution could charge you. It was called usury (which, actually, refers to any rate of interest, if you read the Bible). This is no longer the case. Those 30% and higher "fees" and interest rates are only that low because the banks haven't raised them again, yet. Congress took the limit off during the Bush years because the banks are such trustworthy embodiments of something that they'd never do wrong to their own customers. They learned from the Great 1929 Depression, didn't they? They're too big for that! They're also too big to fail, but that doesn't mean they can't fail, it means we can't afford to let them fail. Big difference.
What happens when you can't make the payments after a certain number of them, which ranges anywhere from 1 to 3 or more, but usually not more than 3, is that they jack up your interest rate as high as they can. These days, with savings accounts paying less than 1% interest, it's pretty obvious that the minimum high rate for those bad credit risks should be roughly the same - times 30. Why, they might never get any of it back if they don't put the screws to you!
Yes, you read that right. If you did not know it before, be assured: your savings with them pays you less than 1%, but if you borrow from them and miss a payment, you get jacked with 30% interest. That's almost 1/3 of what you owe them in the first place.
It used to be loan sharks and the Mafia that were the only ones who could charge that much interest, and it wasn't legal. Nowadays, the loan sharks are nicer than the banks, or they work for them. Okay, maybe not, but it seems that way. Why commit a crime when you can now do the same thing and get away with it legally?
So, back to the first missed payment. You get socked with a fee for a late payment. This used to be around $5 per month, but now it's $29, $39, whatever they want. It's in the contract you signed.
If you happen to be a displaced worker (like me), there's a chance your charge balance will run over your credit limit at some point, probably sooner than later. They say (yes, that infamous "they" said it) that you should never have more than 1/2 of your credit limit as a balance on any of your credit cards at any time. In these wonderful times of financial crunch, that's harder than ever, and we Americans are notorious for spending close to the limit all the time. But, as soon as you go over that limit, bam, there's another charge they tack on.
Sometimes it's not even your fault. After all, the credit limit is there to limit their risk and your indebtedness, right? Wrong. It's there to limit their risk all right, but they don't give a hoot about your indebtedness. If they did, you'd never be able to go over your limit because their system would calculate all pending and actual charges and decline anything that might take it over the top. Instead, they don't. In fact, they don't even stop charges that come in after you've gone over your limit if, for example, you have an ongoing payment set up to charge against that card. Like what? Like, oh, I dunno, maybe a monthly fee for your kids' gymnastics lessons that you used to be able to afford. As long as the credit card issuer approves the charges, you can afford it. I mean, after all, they do know what they're doing, don't they?
(Yeah, just like they did with credit default swaps, and sub-prime mortgages, and all their other get-rich-quick-and-forever schemes that we are now paying for, to the tune of $12 TRILLION and climbing.)
I know someone who, mainly because of the over-limit allowed charges, has fallen behind in their payments and cannot catch up because they're on a limited income (retired, elderly, not as healthy as once, etc.). As you probably figured out by now, they are now paying 30%+ interest on what used to be much lower rate accounts, plus $39 over-limit fees, plus $39 late fees, or they would if they had a prayer of catching up.
Some people in this situation just stop paying and ignore all the phone calls from the banks and the collectors. I mean, if they can't pay, what else is there to do? If they're patient enough, eventually one of the collection agencies will offer a reduced payment, sometimes as low as 50% of the original defaulted balance (before all the fees and interest kicked in) or less.
(If I had that kind of money, I'd pay them off just to settle the account. I've done it on a couple of accounts and it at least stopped the late payment and default reports that were piling up at Experian, Transunion and Equifax. Those are the companies that don't even recognize mercy as a word. It didn't clear the notices from my credit report, but one step at a time.)
I have a better solution. I plan to suggest this to my friend who is about to get drowned in this situation, though I doubt that their credit card issuer will take it. I'll get back to that.
Here's the solution:
1) Temporarily raise the credit limit on the account such that the existing balance is at or less than the limit. (Oh, well, no more over-limit charges.)
2) Lower the interest rate to something reasonable, maybe like what it was before it was jacked up to 30%+.
3) Recalculate the minimum payment and go with that, instead of the total balance over the limit plus the former minimum payment.
Why won't they do that? It would give the customer a shot at making good on the debt, they get money coming in again, and everyone is better off.
They won't because it's not what they are "owed." They have a contract with (on) you. They want all the money, period, so why settle for less than everything? They "can't" raise the credit limit because the customer can't be trusted not to do the same thing all over again. Never mind that it was the CCI's stupid error in accepting charges when the account was already over the "limit." Never mind that this customer actually wants to make good on the debt, no matter how it went up.
They can't lower the interest rate. That would mean less money for them. They're willing to overlook the fact that they're not getting any money on the account right now anyway. In fact, they'd rather go bankrupt themselves than make allowances to get their debtors to pay them back. That is unless they can convince (i.e. bribe) Congress to pay them out of your grandchildren's pockets by extorting it from the government instead.
Finally, if they recalculated based on the above scenario, they won't get the over-limit amount back, either. So what if they never get it back at all because of a bankruptcy or a collector's half-off deal!
Wait, I have an idea - let's blame it on those liberal Democrats! If they'd just spend money without ever raising taxes, like the Republicans want, that would solve everything! The government would collapse, free markets would rule once again, and all would be the way it once was - a world of brotherly love and peace, with the rich on top where they belong and everyone else in abject poverty and slavery, where we belong. Right?
As some of you know, I've been out of work for over a year now, but I freely admit that my credit card woes go back a few years further than that.
A long, long time ago, when I was employed, getting raises and more or less living the high life of an upper middle class nitwit, I had lots and lots of credit. I had so much credit at one time that I found myself in a position where I was forced to face a few facts about having lots of credit. The main one is that each dollar of credit is roughly the equivalent of some measure of the amount of rope I had with which to hang myself. I had, at one time, over 120,000 feet of rope.
Needless to say, that's long gone, but the curious part is that, despite record bankruptcies and defaults among credit card holders, the issuers don't seem to get it. They think that the obvious way to make a credit card holder who has fallen on rough times, due to their own stupidity or for other, less culpable reasons, is to blackmail them.
That's right, except it's "legal blackmail." It's legal because Congress doesn't have the balls to regulate the banks and other credit card issuers (CCIs) the way they so desperately need to be regulated, and that also feeds back into the current economic mess we're in, which is almost 100% due to financial misdeeds by the banks and their owners. You know, those guys (mostly) who are out on $400,000 yacht junkets on our dime, courtesy of the Congressional sell-out - oops! I meant bail-out - which saved their utterly useless asses from the financial ruin they so richly deserve but we so poorly get stuck with.
(Surprisingly, Congress does have the balls to act like they represent us, the people, when they're kowtowing to their corporate masters right in front of us. Almost every last member of Congress does it, and that must make it right.)
But I digress.
The reason their blackmail is legal is two fold. First, it's contractual. That means that when you get a credit card, all the sneaky little tricks, fees, fines, and other assorted punishment they will nail on you if you dare to make a single payment late are all right there in that glob of fine print you probably did not read when you signed it (because you need a law degree and an accountant certification to understand it, or a bankruptcy or two). And because they're such sweet folks, they usually will give you one or two months before they slam the lid on your fingers so you may never be able to pay them back. If that doesn't make any sense to you, you're not alone.
Secondly, there used to be laws about how much interest a lending institution could charge you. It was called usury (which, actually, refers to any rate of interest, if you read the Bible). This is no longer the case. Those 30% and higher "fees" and interest rates are only that low because the banks haven't raised them again, yet. Congress took the limit off during the Bush years because the banks are such trustworthy embodiments of something that they'd never do wrong to their own customers. They learned from the Great 1929 Depression, didn't they? They're too big for that! They're also too big to fail, but that doesn't mean they can't fail, it means we can't afford to let them fail. Big difference.
What happens when you can't make the payments after a certain number of them, which ranges anywhere from 1 to 3 or more, but usually not more than 3, is that they jack up your interest rate as high as they can. These days, with savings accounts paying less than 1% interest, it's pretty obvious that the minimum high rate for those bad credit risks should be roughly the same - times 30. Why, they might never get any of it back if they don't put the screws to you!
Yes, you read that right. If you did not know it before, be assured: your savings with them pays you less than 1%, but if you borrow from them and miss a payment, you get jacked with 30% interest. That's almost 1/3 of what you owe them in the first place.
It used to be loan sharks and the Mafia that were the only ones who could charge that much interest, and it wasn't legal. Nowadays, the loan sharks are nicer than the banks, or they work for them. Okay, maybe not, but it seems that way. Why commit a crime when you can now do the same thing and get away with it legally?
So, back to the first missed payment. You get socked with a fee for a late payment. This used to be around $5 per month, but now it's $29, $39, whatever they want. It's in the contract you signed.
If you happen to be a displaced worker (like me), there's a chance your charge balance will run over your credit limit at some point, probably sooner than later. They say (yes, that infamous "they" said it) that you should never have more than 1/2 of your credit limit as a balance on any of your credit cards at any time. In these wonderful times of financial crunch, that's harder than ever, and we Americans are notorious for spending close to the limit all the time. But, as soon as you go over that limit, bam, there's another charge they tack on.
Sometimes it's not even your fault. After all, the credit limit is there to limit their risk and your indebtedness, right? Wrong. It's there to limit their risk all right, but they don't give a hoot about your indebtedness. If they did, you'd never be able to go over your limit because their system would calculate all pending and actual charges and decline anything that might take it over the top. Instead, they don't. In fact, they don't even stop charges that come in after you've gone over your limit if, for example, you have an ongoing payment set up to charge against that card. Like what? Like, oh, I dunno, maybe a monthly fee for your kids' gymnastics lessons that you used to be able to afford. As long as the credit card issuer approves the charges, you can afford it. I mean, after all, they do know what they're doing, don't they?
(Yeah, just like they did with credit default swaps, and sub-prime mortgages, and all their other get-rich-quick-and-forever schemes that we are now paying for, to the tune of $12 TRILLION and climbing.)
I know someone who, mainly because of the over-limit allowed charges, has fallen behind in their payments and cannot catch up because they're on a limited income (retired, elderly, not as healthy as once, etc.). As you probably figured out by now, they are now paying 30%+ interest on what used to be much lower rate accounts, plus $39 over-limit fees, plus $39 late fees, or they would if they had a prayer of catching up.
Some people in this situation just stop paying and ignore all the phone calls from the banks and the collectors. I mean, if they can't pay, what else is there to do? If they're patient enough, eventually one of the collection agencies will offer a reduced payment, sometimes as low as 50% of the original defaulted balance (before all the fees and interest kicked in) or less.
(If I had that kind of money, I'd pay them off just to settle the account. I've done it on a couple of accounts and it at least stopped the late payment and default reports that were piling up at Experian, Transunion and Equifax. Those are the companies that don't even recognize mercy as a word. It didn't clear the notices from my credit report, but one step at a time.)
I have a better solution. I plan to suggest this to my friend who is about to get drowned in this situation, though I doubt that their credit card issuer will take it. I'll get back to that.
Here's the solution:
1) Temporarily raise the credit limit on the account such that the existing balance is at or less than the limit. (Oh, well, no more over-limit charges.)
2) Lower the interest rate to something reasonable, maybe like what it was before it was jacked up to 30%+.
3) Recalculate the minimum payment and go with that, instead of the total balance over the limit plus the former minimum payment.
Why won't they do that? It would give the customer a shot at making good on the debt, they get money coming in again, and everyone is better off.
They won't because it's not what they are "owed." They have a contract with (on) you. They want all the money, period, so why settle for less than everything? They "can't" raise the credit limit because the customer can't be trusted not to do the same thing all over again. Never mind that it was the CCI's stupid error in accepting charges when the account was already over the "limit." Never mind that this customer actually wants to make good on the debt, no matter how it went up.
They can't lower the interest rate. That would mean less money for them. They're willing to overlook the fact that they're not getting any money on the account right now anyway. In fact, they'd rather go bankrupt themselves than make allowances to get their debtors to pay them back. That is unless they can convince (i.e. bribe) Congress to pay them out of your grandchildren's pockets by extorting it from the government instead.
Finally, if they recalculated based on the above scenario, they won't get the over-limit amount back, either. So what if they never get it back at all because of a bankruptcy or a collector's half-off deal!
Wait, I have an idea - let's blame it on those liberal Democrats! If they'd just spend money without ever raising taxes, like the Republicans want, that would solve everything! The government would collapse, free markets would rule once again, and all would be the way it once was - a world of brotherly love and peace, with the rich on top where they belong and everyone else in abject poverty and slavery, where we belong. Right?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Fix the Problem, NOT the Symptom....
Everyone probably knows by now about the wonderful Supreme Court decision that enshrines in the law two utterly anti-human concepts: corporations are people and money is speech.
While it is true that corporations act like morons in their blind, lustful and often criminal (or criminally negligent) pursuit of profit at the expense of everyone and everything that might otherwise be worth preservation, and enough money can buy anyone a lot of speech, the bottom line here is that it just ain't so.
The trouble is that the USSC has a long history of turning what should be obvious, basic, human concepts into the most convoluted, inverted exercises in twisted logic imaginable. Rights that are embodied in the first ten amendments to the Constitution have been systematically and methodically limited because, as we progress through history, the Court seems to forget that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the government, not outline how they could be expanded beyond all reason.
Remember, the authors of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) had just been through a hellish war to fight off the yoke of the British Crown and the world's most infamous monopoly, the British East India Tea Company, followed by years of failure in the form of the Articles of Confederacy.
But today, in spite of this knowledge and history, I get this message from Common Cause, which is supposed to be on our side against the corporations and the overreaches of the government:
"Are you going to allow five Supreme Court justices to have the last word on our democracy?
I didn't think so.
The horrendous ruling by the Roberts Court to allow unlimited political spending by corporations and unions requires a game-changing response. On Friday, I shared the cornerstone of Common Cause's plan with Keith Olbermann and his viewers: Pass the Fair Elections Now Act."
Yeah, that'll teach those nasty Justices - pass another law they can overturn at the first opportunity!
Does anyone else see what's wrong with this approach? How does that "change the game" at all?
The solution is to fix the Constitution so that decisions about what the rights of fictional entities are and whether a medium of exchange is equivalent to the ability of a person to say something are out of the Court's hands.
In other words, we need a Constitutional amendment, or two, to establish, once and for all, that corporations are not persons under the law and only living, breathing human beings have any legal rights as persons, and that media of exchange are commercial entities with no equivalent or legal relationship to the making of sound by a human being, or any expression of same (e.g., press, electronic broadcast, internet, etc).
Fix the problem, not the symptoms, and really fix them. Now.
That would change the game, at least for a few generations of living beings....
While it is true that corporations act like morons in their blind, lustful and often criminal (or criminally negligent) pursuit of profit at the expense of everyone and everything that might otherwise be worth preservation, and enough money can buy anyone a lot of speech, the bottom line here is that it just ain't so.
The trouble is that the USSC has a long history of turning what should be obvious, basic, human concepts into the most convoluted, inverted exercises in twisted logic imaginable. Rights that are embodied in the first ten amendments to the Constitution have been systematically and methodically limited because, as we progress through history, the Court seems to forget that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the government, not outline how they could be expanded beyond all reason.
Remember, the authors of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) had just been through a hellish war to fight off the yoke of the British Crown and the world's most infamous monopoly, the British East India Tea Company, followed by years of failure in the form of the Articles of Confederacy.
But today, in spite of this knowledge and history, I get this message from Common Cause, which is supposed to be on our side against the corporations and the overreaches of the government:
"Are you going to allow five Supreme Court justices to have the last word on our democracy?
I didn't think so.
The horrendous ruling by the Roberts Court to allow unlimited political spending by corporations and unions requires a game-changing response. On Friday, I shared the cornerstone of Common Cause's plan with Keith Olbermann and his viewers: Pass the Fair Elections Now Act."
Yeah, that'll teach those nasty Justices - pass another law they can overturn at the first opportunity!
Does anyone else see what's wrong with this approach? How does that "change the game" at all?
The solution is to fix the Constitution so that decisions about what the rights of fictional entities are and whether a medium of exchange is equivalent to the ability of a person to say something are out of the Court's hands.
In other words, we need a Constitutional amendment, or two, to establish, once and for all, that corporations are not persons under the law and only living, breathing human beings have any legal rights as persons, and that media of exchange are commercial entities with no equivalent or legal relationship to the making of sound by a human being, or any expression of same (e.g., press, electronic broadcast, internet, etc).
Fix the problem, not the symptoms, and really fix them. Now.
That would change the game, at least for a few generations of living beings....
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Employment Opportunities
I've been unemployed now for more than a year, and I've been meaning to say something about this for a few weeks now. Actually, this subject is one that inspired me to create a blog to share with all you fans, interested people, enemies and so on.
One of the great things about being unemployed is that I have been privileged to see lots and lots of job openings and how they're written, and why they don't work. I can tell you right here that the main reason they don't work is that they are not written for the job seeker at all, they're mostly written from the employer's HR perspective, and that really hurts.
For one thing, we seekers are looking for something that describes a position where we would feel competent, capable, contributory and challenged to do well. Most of the job descriptions I've seen are so idealistic that they would not be available at all if the ideal candidate existed. (In other words, if that employer could find a candidate like that, they would already be employed and not looking for a job.)
I say this because I've seen a whole lot of job openings that are easily jobs where I could perform well and contribute a lot, and with over 30 years in my field now, I can learn what I don't already know. But most of the job descriptions are written as if the candidate has to fit perfectly, and my take on that is - if that person existed, they wouldn't be looking at the description to find a new job, they'd already have it.
I should probably also say that I have yet to find a job description that fits me that well, but, then, I'm not employed, either.
I'm going to go through a few actual job postings I've seen right here, so I can make it clear what I'm saying and you, the employer or seeker reading this blog, will have no trouble understanding what I mean.
These are actual job listings taken from CalJobs, LinkedIn and a few other places, with names and other unique identifiers removed so as not to make it too obvious who goofed (especially if that would be me).
Here's one from LinkedIn:
"Looking for talented PHP developer - for company in Israel 2+ years experience"
This is one I like: it tells me what the company is looking for and where it's located, right up front. In fact, most of the postings I've seen on LinkedIn are really good. The ones that are not either don't include the location or have other deficiencies in common with the rest, which I will now proceed to cover.
I'm registered for searches at CalJobs, a free job listing service provided by the California Employment Development Department, with a resume built in their system using their forms, designed to get me a job in software development in C or C++ on UNIX or Linux systems, applications server-side or system level (except that I don't do device drivers, but there's no way to say that), OR providing PC services. Their search engine doesn't have a lot of flexibility, so my primary area of focus is software applications development.
Here are four from CalJobs:
(Column four is the rate of pay, if you didn't guess....)
These aren't too bad, although the job titles are kind of bland and unrevealing. Let's take a closer look at the job descriptions themselves.
COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER
"Providing pre-sales technical and business support Work closely with Sales Delivery Teams Manage project timelines, scope, budget, risk and resource allocation and scheduling Help Project teams and assist resources in the technical development Manage POCs Conduct Presentations and demos Participate in information gathering, define work problems, and design programs and procedures to resolve problems. Gather, understand and document client requirements. Prepare for and actively participate in client meetings when required Other Build a Microsoft Business Intelligence Practice working under the auspices of the BI Program Manager"
(The format is also an artifact of the CalJobs system - it's pretty flat and, thus, a little tricky to read, but that's not what wrong with this entry.)
To begin with, a software engineer is a person who engineers, or in plain English, develops, software. This position is for someone in pre-sales and technical support. In fact, there is nothing in this job description that even relates to the profession of software engineering.
Okay, so maybe the listing employer has something a little different in mind from me when they call this a "computer software engineer" position. However, that makes it no less a complete waste of my time because I am a computer software engineer and this is nothing like what I do. I could do it, but it's not what I want or in my areas of expertise, and the misleading title makes it look like something it is not. Foo.
SOFTWARE SOLUTION ARCHITECT
(Let me say up front that I knew from this title it wasn't what I'm looking for, but it is such a broad-scope title it could mean anything. Let's take a look....)
"Providing pre-sales technical and business support Work closely with Sales Delivery Teams Manage project timelines, scope, budget, risk and resource allocation and scheduling Demonstrates architecture and design expertise in the area of Microsoft BI and SharePoint Help Project teams and assist resources in the technical development Manage POCs Conduct Presentations and demos Participate in information gathering, define work problems, and design programs and procedures to resolve problems. Gather, understand and document client requirements. Prepare for and actively participate in client meetings when required Build a Microsoft Business Intelligence Practice working under the auspices of the BI Program Manager"
Hold on a minute - isn't that almost verbatim what the Computer Software Engineer position said? It's pretty close, but the names make them seem worlds apart. I think this is the same company, and that worries me, too. Here's the one distinction between these two positions:
"Demonstrates architecture and design expertise in the area of Microsoft BI and SharePoint"
So what was the point of all that other stuff that was word-for-word the same between these two positions? Why was it buried in the middle?
Another really big point here is that both of these descriptions clearly involve Microsoft expertise, but neither one of them includes that tiny little tidbit ("MS") up front in the job title. In fact, a whole lot of the CalJobs and other job search listings leave out this rather salient fact that could be called out in the title with just two letters. In general, I haven't done a lot of Windows-specific development, and my expertise is in UNIX and Linux, not Microsoft, so these little distinctions are extremely important in my field.
Let's try number three:
SENIOR ENGINEER
"Participate in the architecture and development of software utilities and tools that are used to develop, validate and support Western Digital disk drives. Provide technical guidance for developing applications in the Windows and Linux environments. Develop driver, kernel and application level solutions with SAS, SATA, legacy ATA, and serial IO drivers. Under moderate supervision, write drive testing tools for CPU architecture, including PPC, ARM x86-64, and perform system-level programming in Linux with Slax, Fedora, Ubuntu and RedHat. Interface with other groups to define and develop new tools and enhance existing software utilities. Perform PCI device driver development utilizing T10/1760-D SAS and T10/1826-D SAT-2 protocol. Implement the Linux driver stack for storage devices. Write software applications that interface directly with hardware in C/C++ and Java with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. Support Western Digitals integration of advanced features into new drive products. Required skills include: System-level programming experience in Linux: Slax, Fedora, Ubuntu and RedHat; Linux driver stack for storage devices; PCI device driver development; C/C++ and Java; writing software applications that interface directly to hardware; SAS ,SATA, legacy ATA, and serial IO driver; writing drive testing tools for CPU architecture, including PPC, ARM x86-64; and T10/1760-D SAS, T10/1826-D SAT-2 protocol. Education and experience requirement: Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering or Electronics Engineering or Computer Science + 5 years progressively responsible and post-baccalaureate experience. Will also accept a Masters degree in one of the same fields + 3 years experience."
When you get through all of that, what it boils down to is a senior-level Linux device driver writer (okay, engineer). This is more of a hard engineer position than the average software engineer and it is a low-level, close-to-the-hardware kind of job. The question is, how do I get that from the title "Senior Engineer?" I don't, and neither do you. Why? Because "Senior Engineer" is an HR title for a particular level of technical developer in this company's internal parlance. I was a "Senior Engineer" early in my career, for two years after I had been an "Engineer" for a year and a half and before I became "Principal Engineer" for at least two years after that. In all that time, I never once wrote a single device driver (nor since, but I digress) - I was a key software engineer in the development of a brand new operating system, and I loved that job.
Here's one more chance:
SOFTWARE ENGINEER
"This engineer will design, code and test medium to large software modules as they apply to a specific product. Will also create the requirements analysis, functional design, and detailed design specifications as they relate to the implementation of the software. Essential Functions: Designs, codes, and tests medium to large software modules Participate in short term planning of IT projects and programs Participate in group design meetings Analyze, interpret and make decisions affecting work methods and procedures within an overall program Participates in the development of larger modules which may also include requirements analysis, architectural design, or detailed design tasks under the direction of a more experienced engineer Will write technical documentation Develop software using at least one programming language and platform Will utilize source control tools and related build mechanisms Will install and configure software development tools and/or operating systems Will debug and correct problems in existing software Estimates the complexity of a certain task and an appropriate schedule Will create the requirements analysis, functional design, and detailed design specifications as they relate to the implementation of a software module Will provide direction to less experienced engineers Can resolve complex software problems/bugs via advanced debugging techniques Will follow all company standards, including the software coding standards document Additional Functions: Must be able to work independently with little supervision. Must practice regular continued self-education. Exercise troubleshooting and problem solving skills. Must have a willingness to teach others. Requirements: Candidate must be experienced with OO concepts and have a working knowledge of Java. B.S. Computer Science or equivalent experience. Strong understanding of object oriented analysis, design and programming. At least 4 years of Java programming experience, object oriented analysis, design and programming. Ability to work both individually and in team environments is essential. The individual must be articulate and communicate effectively, both in written and oral formats. Experience in a J2EE application server environment. Experience in Ajax, JSP, hibernate Experience in an enterprise transactional environment, a plus. Experience in XML, UML and SQL a plus. Real time programming or other thread management, a plus. Box Office Management or other ticketing experience, a plus. Experience as a group Leader a plus. All other duties as assigned."
Wow, now that's a mouthful - 363 words. Here's the sad part - the first mention of what this job is really about doesn't occur until word number 243, 2/3 of the way through the description. What is that? "OO" which is computer parlance for Object Oriented, followed a few words later by a really important key word, Java. Do you remember what I said earlier about what I do? I develop software in C or C++. No mention of Java.
So, what, Mark? For crying out loud, what do you want, anyway?
See, there are lots of languages used in programming computers, a.k.a., developing software. Some are similar, some are so different you wouldn't know they even fall into the same class of anything unless you happen to know the field anyway.
My point is this: what this company is looking for is a Java Developer, not just any software developer. This routinely excludes people who specialize in C, LISP, COBOL, PHP or any other 4GL, SQL - in fact, it pretty much excludes anyone who doesn't know Java specifically, or, at the closest, C++ or C#. As a job seeker, I not only want to know this up front, I need to know it, for their benefit as well as mine.
There are just a couple more things I'd like to go through here, and they're pretty simple.
PRINCIPAL SOFTWARE ENGINEER - [COMPANY] CLIENT DEVELOPMENT - [unique identifier]
"Location(s) US - California - IrvineTitle Principal Software Engineer - [Company] Client Development - [omitted]Job Description [Company]’s software utilizes patented data de-duplication technology to backup data once – and only once – on a global basis. [Company] identifies redundant data segments at the source, thereby reducing the amount of network bandwidth used and data stored. Using this and other patented [Company] technology, customers can achieve an industry leading 300:1 daily data reduction in real-world applications. [Company] already leverages [---]’s broad portfolio of offerings, such as [unique identifier] as a target for disk-based backup. For customers that require both disk- and tape-based data protection solutions, [Company] wants to talk to candidates interested in the position of Principal Software Engineer located in our Irvine, CA facility.Principal Software Engineer - [Company] Responsibilities* Software engineer to work on development and support of an advanced, multi-platform, disk-based backup system. Work on a small development team in Irvine, CA on a dynamic and fast growing product within a large, stable, publicly traded company.* Development tasks: designing, developing and maintaining multi-threaded, client/server C++ code, correcting bugs, handling field escalations, etc.* Possibly acting as a project leader or liaison in coordinating communications between development teams, QA & Customer Support.Skills* Experience with development of Unix/Linux and Windows software products highly desired* Experience with backup, data compression and filesystem internals highly desired* Experience with databases (Oracle, SQL Server, Exchange, DB/2, etc.) or multiple operating systems (Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOSX, HP-UX, AIX, Netware, etc.) highly desired* Understanding of requirements for Enterprise-class software products highly desired* Very good problem-solving analytical skillsExperience /Education* B.S. (or better) in Computer Science* 8+ years industry level software experience* Skilled in C++ programming* Excellent English communication and writing skills* Enjoys working on a team and helping others [EOE disclaimer, etc.]"
I know this company, I interviewed there a few years ago, when they were looking for this exact same position. I didn't get the job then, which always left me a little mystified, but I know it's one I could not only do and well, but excel at - it's in my area, I'm familiar with the technologies, and so on. My suspicion is that it's one of those openings where they want an exact fit, and the sad part is that they won't find one. After this many years and still having the same opening, anyone they hired between then and now didn't work out, for whatever reason, and they're either too picky or they don't really need this position filled. Either way, it's a lose-lose for them. (BTW, I did apply, haven't heard back, may apply again with a better cover letter - we'll see....)
To make the rest short, I saw a whole slew of listings on another job search site for "Software Developer III," "Software Developer IV," "Software Engineer II" and the like. Do you have any idea what those are? Don't they sound a lot alike?
In fact, they are not (of course), and for the same reasons I noted above about those positions, too.
So, what's the point?
Employers: if you have a job opening for a Java Applications Developer, please call it that, not just "Software Engineer." If you're looking for a hardware engineer, please do not call it "Applications Engineer" - yes, I saw a few like that. If you can just step a word or two outside your HR title boxes, you make it easier for those of us looking for work to find a good fit and benefit you.
Job Seekers: remember that the majority of employers don't do what I just asked, and be patient. Above all, don't expect the perfect description you find to be a perfect fit. If you should happen to find a really good fit, make sure you write a really good cover letter that says so. Otherwise, your resume will wind up with every other not-quite-perfect match - in the HR file for "future prospects" or just the circular file....
One of the great things about being unemployed is that I have been privileged to see lots and lots of job openings and how they're written, and why they don't work. I can tell you right here that the main reason they don't work is that they are not written for the job seeker at all, they're mostly written from the employer's HR perspective, and that really hurts.
For one thing, we seekers are looking for something that describes a position where we would feel competent, capable, contributory and challenged to do well. Most of the job descriptions I've seen are so idealistic that they would not be available at all if the ideal candidate existed. (In other words, if that employer could find a candidate like that, they would already be employed and not looking for a job.)
I say this because I've seen a whole lot of job openings that are easily jobs where I could perform well and contribute a lot, and with over 30 years in my field now, I can learn what I don't already know. But most of the job descriptions are written as if the candidate has to fit perfectly, and my take on that is - if that person existed, they wouldn't be looking at the description to find a new job, they'd already have it.
I should probably also say that I have yet to find a job description that fits me that well, but, then, I'm not employed, either.
I'm going to go through a few actual job postings I've seen right here, so I can make it clear what I'm saying and you, the employer or seeker reading this blog, will have no trouble understanding what I mean.
These are actual job listings taken from CalJobs, LinkedIn and a few other places, with names and other unique identifiers removed so as not to make it too obvious who goofed (especially if that would be me).
Here's one from LinkedIn:
"Looking for talented PHP developer - for company in Israel 2+ years experience"
This is one I like: it tells me what the company is looking for and where it's located, right up front. In fact, most of the postings I've seen on LinkedIn are really good. The ones that are not either don't include the location or have other deficiencies in common with the rest, which I will now proceed to cover.
I'm registered for searches at CalJobs, a free job listing service provided by the California Employment Development Department, with a resume built in their system using their forms, designed to get me a job in software development in C or C++ on UNIX or Linux systems, applications server-side or system level (except that I don't do device drivers, but there's no way to say that), OR providing PC services. Their search engine doesn't have a lot of flexibility, so my primary area of focus is software applications development.
Here are four from CalJobs:
| COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER | Irvine | 92612 | Not stated | Long Term | 1/15/2010 |
| SOFTWARE SOLUTION ARCHITECT | Irvine | 92612 | Not stated | Long Term | 1/15/2010 |
| SENIOR ENGINEER | Lake Forest | 92630 | Not stated | Long Term | 1/15/2010 |
| SOFTWARE ENGINEER | Costa Mesa | 92626 | Fair market | Long Term | 1/15/2010 |
(Column four is the rate of pay, if you didn't guess....)
These aren't too bad, although the job titles are kind of bland and unrevealing. Let's take a closer look at the job descriptions themselves.
COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER
"Providing pre-sales technical and business support Work closely with Sales Delivery Teams Manage project timelines, scope, budget, risk and resource allocation and scheduling Help Project teams and assist resources in the technical development Manage POCs Conduct Presentations and demos Participate in information gathering, define work problems, and design programs and procedures to resolve problems. Gather, understand and document client requirements. Prepare for and actively participate in client meetings when required Other Build a Microsoft Business Intelligence Practice working under the auspices of the BI Program Manager"
(The format is also an artifact of the CalJobs system - it's pretty flat and, thus, a little tricky to read, but that's not what wrong with this entry.)
To begin with, a software engineer is a person who engineers, or in plain English, develops, software. This position is for someone in pre-sales and technical support. In fact, there is nothing in this job description that even relates to the profession of software engineering.
Okay, so maybe the listing employer has something a little different in mind from me when they call this a "computer software engineer" position. However, that makes it no less a complete waste of my time because I am a computer software engineer and this is nothing like what I do. I could do it, but it's not what I want or in my areas of expertise, and the misleading title makes it look like something it is not. Foo.
SOFTWARE SOLUTION ARCHITECT
(Let me say up front that I knew from this title it wasn't what I'm looking for, but it is such a broad-scope title it could mean anything. Let's take a look....)
"Providing pre-sales technical and business support Work closely with Sales Delivery Teams Manage project timelines, scope, budget, risk and resource allocation and scheduling Demonstrates architecture and design expertise in the area of Microsoft BI and SharePoint Help Project teams and assist resources in the technical development Manage POCs Conduct Presentations and demos Participate in information gathering, define work problems, and design programs and procedures to resolve problems. Gather, understand and document client requirements. Prepare for and actively participate in client meetings when required Build a Microsoft Business Intelligence Practice working under the auspices of the BI Program Manager"
Hold on a minute - isn't that almost verbatim what the Computer Software Engineer position said? It's pretty close, but the names make them seem worlds apart. I think this is the same company, and that worries me, too. Here's the one distinction between these two positions:
"Demonstrates architecture and design expertise in the area of Microsoft BI and SharePoint"
So what was the point of all that other stuff that was word-for-word the same between these two positions? Why was it buried in the middle?
Another really big point here is that both of these descriptions clearly involve Microsoft expertise, but neither one of them includes that tiny little tidbit ("MS") up front in the job title. In fact, a whole lot of the CalJobs and other job search listings leave out this rather salient fact that could be called out in the title with just two letters. In general, I haven't done a lot of Windows-specific development, and my expertise is in UNIX and Linux, not Microsoft, so these little distinctions are extremely important in my field.
Let's try number three:
SENIOR ENGINEER
"Participate in the architecture and development of software utilities and tools that are used to develop, validate and support Western Digital disk drives. Provide technical guidance for developing applications in the Windows and Linux environments. Develop driver, kernel and application level solutions with SAS, SATA, legacy ATA, and serial IO drivers. Under moderate supervision, write drive testing tools for CPU architecture, including PPC, ARM x86-64, and perform system-level programming in Linux with Slax, Fedora, Ubuntu and RedHat. Interface with other groups to define and develop new tools and enhance existing software utilities. Perform PCI device driver development utilizing T10/1760-D SAS and T10/1826-D SAT-2 protocol. Implement the Linux driver stack for storage devices. Write software applications that interface directly with hardware in C/C++ and Java with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. Support Western Digitals integration of advanced features into new drive products. Required skills include: System-level programming experience in Linux: Slax, Fedora, Ubuntu and RedHat; Linux driver stack for storage devices; PCI device driver development; C/C++ and Java; writing software applications that interface directly to hardware; SAS ,SATA, legacy ATA, and serial IO driver; writing drive testing tools for CPU architecture, including PPC, ARM x86-64; and T10/1760-D SAS, T10/1826-D SAT-2 protocol. Education and experience requirement: Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering or Electronics Engineering or Computer Science + 5 years progressively responsible and post-baccalaureate experience. Will also accept a Masters degree in one of the same fields + 3 years experience."
When you get through all of that, what it boils down to is a senior-level Linux device driver writer (okay, engineer). This is more of a hard engineer position than the average software engineer and it is a low-level, close-to-the-hardware kind of job. The question is, how do I get that from the title "Senior Engineer?" I don't, and neither do you. Why? Because "Senior Engineer" is an HR title for a particular level of technical developer in this company's internal parlance. I was a "Senior Engineer" early in my career, for two years after I had been an "Engineer" for a year and a half and before I became "Principal Engineer" for at least two years after that. In all that time, I never once wrote a single device driver (nor since, but I digress) - I was a key software engineer in the development of a brand new operating system, and I loved that job.
Here's one more chance:
SOFTWARE ENGINEER
"This engineer will design, code and test medium to large software modules as they apply to a specific product. Will also create the requirements analysis, functional design, and detailed design specifications as they relate to the implementation of the software. Essential Functions: Designs, codes, and tests medium to large software modules Participate in short term planning of IT projects and programs Participate in group design meetings Analyze, interpret and make decisions affecting work methods and procedures within an overall program Participates in the development of larger modules which may also include requirements analysis, architectural design, or detailed design tasks under the direction of a more experienced engineer Will write technical documentation Develop software using at least one programming language and platform Will utilize source control tools and related build mechanisms Will install and configure software development tools and/or operating systems Will debug and correct problems in existing software Estimates the complexity of a certain task and an appropriate schedule Will create the requirements analysis, functional design, and detailed design specifications as they relate to the implementation of a software module Will provide direction to less experienced engineers Can resolve complex software problems/bugs via advanced debugging techniques Will follow all company standards, including the software coding standards document Additional Functions: Must be able to work independently with little supervision. Must practice regular continued self-education. Exercise troubleshooting and problem solving skills. Must have a willingness to teach others. Requirements: Candidate must be experienced with OO concepts and have a working knowledge of Java. B.S. Computer Science or equivalent experience. Strong understanding of object oriented analysis, design and programming. At least 4 years of Java programming experience, object oriented analysis, design and programming. Ability to work both individually and in team environments is essential. The individual must be articulate and communicate effectively, both in written and oral formats. Experience in a J2EE application server environment. Experience in Ajax, JSP, hibernate Experience in an enterprise transactional environment, a plus. Experience in XML, UML and SQL a plus. Real time programming or other thread management, a plus. Box Office Management or other ticketing experience, a plus. Experience as a group Leader a plus. All other duties as assigned."
Wow, now that's a mouthful - 363 words. Here's the sad part - the first mention of what this job is really about doesn't occur until word number 243, 2/3 of the way through the description. What is that? "OO" which is computer parlance for Object Oriented, followed a few words later by a really important key word, Java. Do you remember what I said earlier about what I do? I develop software in C or C++. No mention of Java.
So, what, Mark? For crying out loud, what do you want, anyway?
See, there are lots of languages used in programming computers, a.k.a., developing software. Some are similar, some are so different you wouldn't know they even fall into the same class of anything unless you happen to know the field anyway.
My point is this: what this company is looking for is a Java Developer, not just any software developer. This routinely excludes people who specialize in C, LISP, COBOL, PHP or any other 4GL, SQL - in fact, it pretty much excludes anyone who doesn't know Java specifically, or, at the closest, C++ or C#. As a job seeker, I not only want to know this up front, I need to know it, for their benefit as well as mine.
There are just a couple more things I'd like to go through here, and they're pretty simple.
PRINCIPAL SOFTWARE ENGINEER - [COMPANY] CLIENT DEVELOPMENT - [unique identifier]
"Location(s) US - California - IrvineTitle Principal Software Engineer - [Company] Client Development - [omitted]Job Description [Company]’s software utilizes patented data de-duplication technology to backup data once – and only once – on a global basis. [Company] identifies redundant data segments at the source, thereby reducing the amount of network bandwidth used and data stored. Using this and other patented [Company] technology, customers can achieve an industry leading 300:1 daily data reduction in real-world applications. [Company] already leverages [---]’s broad portfolio of offerings, such as [unique identifier] as a target for disk-based backup. For customers that require both disk- and tape-based data protection solutions, [Company] wants to talk to candidates interested in the position of Principal Software Engineer located in our Irvine, CA facility.Principal Software Engineer - [Company] Responsibilities* Software engineer to work on development and support of an advanced, multi-platform, disk-based backup system. Work on a small development team in Irvine, CA on a dynamic and fast growing product within a large, stable, publicly traded company.* Development tasks: designing, developing and maintaining multi-threaded, client/server C++ code, correcting bugs, handling field escalations, etc.* Possibly acting as a project leader or liaison in coordinating communications between development teams, QA & Customer Support.Skills* Experience with development of Unix/Linux and Windows software products highly desired* Experience with backup, data compression and filesystem internals highly desired* Experience with databases (Oracle, SQL Server, Exchange, DB/2, etc.) or multiple operating systems (Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOSX, HP-UX, AIX, Netware, etc.) highly desired* Understanding of requirements for Enterprise-class software products highly desired* Very good problem-solving analytical skillsExperience /Education* B.S. (or better) in Computer Science* 8+ years industry level software experience* Skilled in C++ programming* Excellent English communication and writing skills* Enjoys working on a team and helping others [EOE disclaimer, etc.]"
I know this company, I interviewed there a few years ago, when they were looking for this exact same position. I didn't get the job then, which always left me a little mystified, but I know it's one I could not only do and well, but excel at - it's in my area, I'm familiar with the technologies, and so on. My suspicion is that it's one of those openings where they want an exact fit, and the sad part is that they won't find one. After this many years and still having the same opening, anyone they hired between then and now didn't work out, for whatever reason, and they're either too picky or they don't really need this position filled. Either way, it's a lose-lose for them. (BTW, I did apply, haven't heard back, may apply again with a better cover letter - we'll see....)
To make the rest short, I saw a whole slew of listings on another job search site for "Software Developer III," "Software Developer IV," "Software Engineer II" and the like. Do you have any idea what those are? Don't they sound a lot alike?
In fact, they are not (of course), and for the same reasons I noted above about those positions, too.
So, what's the point?
Employers: if you have a job opening for a Java Applications Developer, please call it that, not just "Software Engineer." If you're looking for a hardware engineer, please do not call it "Applications Engineer" - yes, I saw a few like that. If you can just step a word or two outside your HR title boxes, you make it easier for those of us looking for work to find a good fit and benefit you.
Job Seekers: remember that the majority of employers don't do what I just asked, and be patient. Above all, don't expect the perfect description you find to be a perfect fit. If you should happen to find a really good fit, make sure you write a really good cover letter that says so. Otherwise, your resume will wind up with every other not-quite-perfect match - in the HR file for "future prospects" or just the circular file....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)