NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:5, Interesting)
But the pattern of responses is always the same -- a few well-known JAPHs coming out against it, and the rank-and-file community members taking neutral, or strongly favorable positions, because they don't want to convert to Java/C++ etc. just to gain employment, and certification might help there (see my TPJ article [teachmeperl.com]). As I've argued in that article, and in postings on the
Dr. Tim Maher
CEO, Consultix
Perl and UNIX Training [teachmeperl.com]
Re:Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:2)
There is no need to devolve this debate into personal attacks. Let's stick to arguing the mertis.
You still ignore my most important concern, and the one I have expressed for years---who is going to take on the legal laibility. No one has ever answered that. Cisco, Sun, and Microsoft know how to answer that question because they have legal departments and deep pockets.
Re:Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:2)
Is there such a thing as a legal liability at all? In my understanding, no certificate ever guaranteed infallibility. And that should be easy to settle in a sort of disclaimer.
And since you mentioned them: Has anyone ever seen one of the certificates as offered by Cisco, Sun or Microsoft? I haven't, but I am pretty sure that they refuse to take on any legal liability.
Re:Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:2)
Lawsuits do not have to have merit to destroy you. They do not bother deep pockets because to them the risk is minimal. To someone like TPJ, it could be the last thing they ever do, however. I do not see it worth the risk.
Re:Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:2)
Coffee which was hotter by a significant margin than the generally accepted / legal limit for hot beverage temperatures. That case is completely incorrect to use in this type of discussion, because the woman had a perfectly legitimate case. The coffee was considerably hotter than it should have been for her safety as a consumer. If you're going to pick examples, pick relevant ones. If you can't find relevant ones, p
Re:Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:2)
You are incorrect about the former, and the latter is an opinion (borne out by the result of the case, of course). There is no legal limit for the temperature of such beverages, and what is acceptable differs among people. The whole point was that the patrons complai
Re:Certification has Merits; Don't Panic! (Score:1)
(I know I should keep my mouth shut...) Actually, there is a legal limit, largely dependent on the boiling point of said beverage. To cross this limit, it will no longer be a beverage (in the nominal sense of the word). It's the law, baby!
The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once.
Reply to This
Parent