@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.

Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.

I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?

LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.

I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.

Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.

What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.

You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."

While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.

Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?

I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?

Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.

@IRJ said:

@art_of_shred said:

As a strong conservative Christian, I especially have to shake my head when reading those conversations. That Brendan guy is doing nothing to support his cause. What a moron. Can't say I agree with Rob at all, but he sure is right with regards to every comment that was made. Hilarious... and sad, like, for the whole human race.

I am a libertarian so I am somewhat in the middle politically. The fact of the matter is that you can find people with low IQs on both sides of the political spectrum.They generally tend to be extreme on both sides of the spectrum because they blindly believe what they are told by their political party leaders or biased news source.

True story.

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.

Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.

I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?

LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.

I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.

Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.

What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.

You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."

While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.

Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?

I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?

Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.

It doesn't have to happen in their minds, it only has to be traceable via email communications.

Even if they do let you go, by the time that decision has been made, it would be painfully obvious that management is messing with the business more than the employee was.

So what? You don't have a job. Is that a win for you?

@scottalanmiller said:

@coliver said:

Realistically, how much work is it to setup a Spicecorp/MangoBunch meeting? I don't know the amount of work that goes into, any ideas @Minion-Queen or @scottalanmiller ?

It's only easy because @Minion-Queen has unlimited access to sponsors and speakers. For people without those resources, it becomes a bit more difficult. It's easier now because many of us have been running them for years and know the processes.

This is a case where it might be wise to do somehting like what SW is now doing, where you can request assistance from HQ to get sponsors lined up for presenting at a local meeting.

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.

Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.

I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?

LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.

I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.

Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.

What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.

You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."

While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.

Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?

I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?

Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.

THere is no winning in that scenario. Doing a good job gets your fired, doing a bad job gets your fired. It's a corrupt environment (even if the corruption is just one owner that isn't capable of logic or kind thinking who just hates you personally) and the only good answer is to leave it as leaving it is the assumed end result regardless.

Sure, but that also takes time and effort, and it's not always a situation where the available jobs to go to are any better.

@scottalanmiller You gotta stop inviting ppl to my house without asking first...

If other projects are falling to the way side because you're stuck working on a bad choice, that choice needs to be replaced with a better one.

You're making the assumption that you have some say in that decision. If that were true, you wouldn't be in that position. The truth is that they would have to admit to making the bad decision in order to have any grounds for addressing the current issue. To avoid that, it's simpler to say that you are poorly managing your time.

@RojoLoco What am I missing here?

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:

This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.

Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.

I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?

LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.

I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.

Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.

What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.

So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"

Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.

Exactly, you are the filter. If you are making recommendations, they are YOUR recommendations. Otherwise, you are just being asked to list things regardless of viability... which if so, there is nothing whatsoever to blame you for.

I can't argue with that. However, having something legit to blame someone for doesn't have to be part of the equation when you just feel like passing blame. I'm not calling it legit, just saying that happens in the real world. I'm not saying you can't win in a court of law; I'm saying that it's not worth the effort to fight a battle you aren't going to win with a boss or owner in a SMB employment scenario.

Of course, BUT you can manage things better or worse. How options are presented, which ones are presented, how they are documented, how the decision is labeled... these things really matter, even to crazy, irrational owners.

You'd certainly like to think you can control these things, but the reality is you probably can't. I constantly have management asking - Why do the PCs we purchase cost more than the ones in Best Buy - it's just a computer right? They don't understand things like warranties, business class machines, Windows Pro vs Home editions, etc, etc... when you tell them those things.. they only hear words, rambling words.

What's worse is that they often have had their crappy BB computer at home for 5+ years, so all those things that you mention about business class being better - they don't don't believe it since they got the same 5+ out of their BB computer.

The solution to this is explain why their proposed solution doesn't work (and document the explanation). If they still choose to purchase BB computers for $200 bucks it's pure on them.

When it blows up, they lose credibility and trust of further up management.

I think you must be working in much larger medium sized business than I. There is at most 1 level between me and the owners of the company since I left a fortune 500 company. So if my boss is good buddies with the owner/CEO I'm sunk no matter what.

Correct, you are dealing with people who just don't care and, it sounds like, are kind of corrupt (if they will blame you for their own decisions, that's kind of just mean and vicious.) Scapegoating when there are no politics, just mean owners, is very bad.

Of course it's bad, but you don't think it happens every day in a majority of businesses, on some level?

It does, but there is also a recourse when it is not the owner. THere is someone to demonstrate it to.

If the owner agrees or cares.

Remember when we had a conversation about something being "broken"? You would contend that a car with non-functioning AC is "broken". I would contend that as long as the engine starts and it gets you from A to B, it's not functionally "broken". I think the same paradigm is at work here. I have seen many small businesses with broken parts that continue working and existing. The owner may be a moron. The management may be incompetent and do far less than profitable things for the company. Still, it can continue to make money and do business and satisfy its customers well enough to be a decent business. It's not "showroom condition", but it's not dead either. There is a large area of possibilities where business can operate while not being optimal in all of its functions. This scenario of a manager who would rather cover his tracks than own up to bad decisions happens all the time. It's not the best for the business, but the owner may not be that worried about it because the business still rolls under its own power and generates a paycheck for him. Crap rolls downhill, so the lowly IT guy is going to get the fallout that comes from that structure. Sure, you can quit and hope that you can find employment at a company that is better, but that's no guarantee. Everyone would love to have the dream job where management is competent and the owner's top priority is the greatest possible success of the business, but those companies are few and far between. You can continue to argue for the optimal as the only acceptable option, but there aren't enough of those jobs to go around, so I will continue to argue that you need to broaden your vision and realize that your argument really doesn't get a whole lot of traction in the real world we live and work in. Ideally, I agree with you completely. Pragmatically, I believe that you are way off-base.

@scottalanmiller said:

I'm like that with the Tropico series.

I lasted a whole weekend on that before I got utterly bored.
EDIT: Danielle and I both, that is.

The basic security risk is inherent in creating an opportunity for a single breach to affect multiple endpoints. A lone computer can only be compromised itself. An entire network can be compromised through the breaching of a single account (if it's the right account).

Half-horse, half-Santa, all Christmas spirit

"Everyone is familiar with the mythic Greek centaur, but we invite you to meet Santaur. Santaur is a bare-chested, half-horse half-Santa who travels around the globe on Christmas Eve without needing any reindeer! This 6" tall glass ornament commands attention on your tree. Probably will be described as weird by all your relatives, but you can be confident that it's really awesome no matter what they think. It can hang by the included string or stand on its own in the middle of the dinner table as a centerpiece. On Christmas Eve, don't leave Santa milk and cookies, leave Santaur a carrot and a sugar cube."

Awesome.

I'm still waiting for @pchiodo to come back with an appropriate (maybe not "appropriate") picture...

@BRRABill said:

@art_of_shred said:

Going to a Toys for Tots benefit tonight where I will raise money for kids by playing very loud renditions of Rage Against The Machine, Godsmack, and Metallica tunes, among others, to a crowd of drunken adults. And it's a benefit, so I don't get paid... but we might make it in the news. Yee ha.

Post some video!

Oh, it was awful.
I'm told that the event made the news last year, but I have no idea how. What a lame night. No announcements were made about "the cause", there were no signs or anything posted, and it was just another typical night of mostly crappy local bands at this place that usually has crappy local bands. Strange, though, is that national acts periodically play this place. I don't get why. It's in downtown Rochester, but not in a vibrant location. The sound guy there makes the stage volume incoherently loud and muddy, and there is so much low end in the main mix in the house that the bass feeds back. Who ever makes bass feed back? Seriously. And to top it off, I think they regularly run out of just about every beer by 2/3 of the way through every night I've ever played there (more times than I wish I had). But it's a nice stage and they have cool lights. Maybe that's the trick.

@Dashrender said in How to recover system image from Windows 7 using the backup & restore app:

I've never considered they wouldn't replace, say a bad motherboard, if you installed 3rd party RAM in it. Though considering this discussion now, I suppose they could try.

If they can find a way to blame it on the RAM, you bet.

We just got done watching Trapped in Paradise. Great "Christmas" movie!!

@dafyre I guess you make a good point there, but is that a real problem? I've not heard of that happening, at least not to any degree that I worry about it.

@scottalanmiller sure, but those look like ninja gloves or something. That's gotta count for something...

I just saw some of our customers come back up a minute ago. I had been testing since @JaredBusch said service was coming back up.

@travisdh1 said:

It's not a Faraday Cage, and it has no connection to ground......

Must work SO well.

No, you don't understand. It's got COPPER in it.