Posts made by david.wiese

@Dashrender

@Dashrender said in Microsoft Teams:

Teams requires the meeting owner to attend to make make the meeting happen (at least we haven't found a way around this yet). Zoom does not have this requirement.
Said another way - in a Zoom meeting, you have the option "Enable join before host" This allows the meeting to happen with or without the person who scheduled it.

This was a problem for us, as we want schedulers to schedule meetings for their bosses (providers) and the schedule not be involved in the meeting at all. Luckily we found that if you have calendar delegation rights to the person who will be in the meeting, though Outlook, you can schedule a Teams meeting on their behalf.

False: As long as someone has the auto generated link (generated from within teams calendar or the via the outlook plugin) anyone can start the meeting. I have been using Teams for 2 years now and have never had to have the person that created the meeting actually attend.

Example: A meeting request is sent by me. My co-worker clicks Join Meeting from outlook, teams, or the meeting reminder (if one is setup) the meeting is started. All attendees will get a pop-up (assuming the teams client is running) saying XYZ has started the meeting, do you want to join?

Not just you that is having this issue..... https://www.engadget.com/2020/02/05/windows-10-search-down-microsoft-outage/

@scottalanmiller not knowing to much about the whole situation, can you elaborate on the the whole financial side? I mean I was have been apart of the community for 6 years so i have seen things on the decline, but i didn't think things were that bad.

they were disabled because of this" Around 200 people purchased the phones via Project Fi and shipped them directly to a reseller in sales tax-free state New Hampshire, according to bargain-hunting site Dan's Deals. The phones were then resold to others, and the small profit split with the buyers."

source: https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/17/google-blocks-pixel-phone-resellers/

so yeah, it is expected to be disabled. you violated the t&s. You knowingly violate sales tax laws and expect to not get punished. Go cry and throw a hissy fit with someone who cares.

how did a PT Cruiser survive but not a tree????

@IRJ The models are still not in agreement. The GFS (American model and less accurate) and the ECMWF (European model (more accurate and pinpointed superstorm sandy)) are not 100%. The GFS has the storm pushing further east and further up the coast, the ecmwf has it pushing west and making landfall in florida.

edit: I should add that this all depends on the low that is moving through the great plains right now. If that moves faster then the storm stays further off the coast, if it slows down (or stays at its current pace) the storm will make landfall further west.

I found this cool weather site (http://preview.weather.gov/edd/) where you can turn the different layers on and off. Such as the current hazards (across the US) and see any current tropical storms (tracks and intensity).

current track: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/153536.shtml?5-daynl#contents

NHC is still tracking this as at least a cat 3 hurricane through Friday.

This is because Frontier borked the transition from the switchover. They underestimated the complexity and blew the timeline. At first frontier said it would only be a few hours for the outage when it came time to switch. But it literally took months for some people to get reconnected after the buyout.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/frontier-needs-until-mid-april-to-fix-verizon-fios-changeover-problems/

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/05/frontier-outages-persist-35-days-after-switch-from-verizon/

@IRJ it depends on how the company is structured. So for me I won't get paid out for the remaining 4 days that I have since I haven't "earned" them yet. You earn them based on the amount of hours you work and when you leave, they can pro-rate that amount. It is perfectly legal.

I just handed in my 2.5 weeks 1.5 weeks ago. I was originally going to give 3 weeks but my appendix decided it no longer wanted to be apart of my body. I am the only computer support guy here so I felt bad, plus my new gig doesn't start until Sept. 6th and I didn't want to go a week without being paid. That being said, the company just posted the job last Friday, still haven't posted the job internally, and very few know that I am leaving. Now I get to train a contractor for 2 days and try and find motivation to stay the entire day of my last day. I went to my boss and told him I would like to leave a few hours early (so I could get a head start driving north to go camping) and he said "I fully expect you to put in a full day and wrap up the remaining projects."

@wirestyle22

@wirestyle22 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@JaredBusch

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Regarding paid time off. I get $2/hour more for not having 80 hours of PTO.

If my rate was $30, then in a 2087 hour year I would earn $62,610 with $2,400 of that being the 80 hours of PTO. So that means I was paid $60,210 for the 2007 worked hours.

So making $2 more means a rate of $32 in a 2007 hour year (assuming unpaid 80 hours were taken) means I was paid $64,224.

That is $1,614 more than the full 2087 hour with PTO $30 wage.

i'll take a $1600 hit for having my nights and weekends and not being on call 24/7

He's not on call. He explained that before. I made the same assumption.

if you are working on weekends updating servers then you are on call (in my opinion). On call to me means you work when the client has time for you to work. IE you put your life on hold for the client.

@JaredBusch

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Regarding paid time off. I get $2/hour more for not having 80 hours of PTO.

If my rate was $30, then in a 2087 hour year I would earn $62,610 with $2,400 of that being the 80 hours of PTO. So that means I was paid $60,210 for the 2007 worked hours.

So making $2 more means a rate of $32 in a 2007 hour year (assuming unpaid 80 hours were taken) means I was paid $64,224.

That is $1,614 more than the full 2087 hour with PTO $30 wage.

i'll take a $1600 hit for having my nights and weekends and not being on call 24/7

@JaredBusch

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@wirestyle22 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@Veet said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@Veet said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

I work 24/7. I may only average 6 to 8 hours per day and 42 hours per week. But those hours are spread out over all 24 hours of the day and all 7 days of the week.
Any employee of ours will be expected to do the same.

In return what can an employee expect from the organization ?

Depending on skill, an hourly rate between $30 and $50.

Seriously ? Is that all an employee can expect from your company ? An hourly wage ? pity ...

I'm sure they have healthcare, dental, vision, 401k, etc too. What is to be expected?

Actually, nope nothing except an IRA match. Everything else is in the rate.

wow, just wow. I would never work for you then if this is the attitude you have towards your employees.

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@JaredBusch

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

I will add to this discussion with this.

When I look to hire another person for @Bundy-Associates that I will most certainly be looking for the self motivated person that is going to be able to work in a very atypical environment compared to most places.

Someone with a lab environment that teaches themselves outside of work will most certainly rank over some 8-5 working Joe. @david-wiese and @RojoLoco will most certainly not be employed by me.

I work 24/7. I may only average 6 to 8 hours per day and 42 hours per week. But those hours are spread out over all 24 hours of the day and all 7 days of the week.

Any employee of ours will be expected to do the same.

I personally wouldn't want to work for an organization like that. I value my time and would not be expected to work like that. That sounds horrible. I guess for positions like that it takes a special kind of person that has no life outside of the job.

Also that description right there is what is wrong with the American culture. To much emphasis put on work and not enough put on life outside of it. Like I have already stated, I work to live, not live to work.

Read the reply I made about about math and hours.

yup and my comments do not change. I do not want to work 7 days a week. Even if you are only putting in an average of 42 hours a week, you are still putting in time each day therefore not taking time off to do other things.

@JaredBusch

@JaredBusch said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

I will add to this discussion with this.

When I look to hire another person for @Bundy-Associates that I will most certainly be looking for the self motivated person that is going to be able to work in a very atypical environment compared to most places.

Someone with a lab environment that teaches themselves outside of work will most certainly rank over some 8-5 working Joe. @david-wiese and @RojoLoco will most certainly not be employed by me.

I work 24/7. I may only average 6 to 8 hours per day and 42 hours per week. But those hours are spread out over all 24 hours of the day and all 7 days of the week.

Any employee of ours will be expected to do the same.

I personally wouldn't want to work for an organization like that. I value my time and would not be expected to work like that. That sounds horrible. I guess for positions like that it takes a special kind of person that has no life outside of the job.

Also that description right there is what is wrong with the American culture. To much emphasis put on work and not enough put on life outside of it. Like I have already stated, I work to live, not live to work.

@Breffni-Potter

@Breffni-Potter said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said

This is my opinion. You absolutely shouldn't need to have a home lab to get into IT and to make your way up the ladder and shouldn't be considered when hiring. Those that can afford to great, the more power to you. But those that cannot (me) shouldn't be ruled out just because we don't fit the "ideal candidate" that the company has set forth.

Should you be excluded from jobs because you lack

• A degree
• A certification
• A zip code

Companies get to pick and choose their candidates for a number of reasons, NTG has made a choice that those with a home lab are more likely to be the ideal candidate same way another company will say those with whatever magical quality they seek, will be the ideal candidate.

I would say you ABSOLUTELY should not have to get a degree to get a job in IT but look at the number of jobs that explicitly require it before they will even touch you.

Just my 2 cents.

Nope, you shouldn't be excluded. Personality and people skills tumps technical knowledge to some degree.

@art_of_shred

@art_of_shred said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@RojoLoco said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@Dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@art_of_shred said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

It's kinda simple. You're building a team. Do you pick people looking for a paycheck, or people with a passion about what you're doing? If you have the option, you're looking for passion... or you shouldn't be the one doing the hiring.

once again passion shouldn't be determined on if they do stuff outside of working hours. I work to get a paycheck yes, but I also show passion for my job while doing so.

Not good enough when there is a huge line of people behind you who show not only passion while at work, but also while at home. You're hamstringing yourself and saying it's not fair that they choose to be passionate always, and you only some of the time.

it's your choice - it's not a wrong choice, it's simply a choice.. and as such, your life will go different directions.

Bring this to Scott's constant talks about college. The person who goes into hotel staff our of HS, versus the one who goes to college. The non college guy will be light years ahead learning wise in the real world.

Sadly, so many uppers today will hold the non college people down because they (the uppers) think that college is some kind of right of passage - but that's becoming less and less the case these days.

So the people like me (that have hobbies in something other than what I do for a living) get screwed because they aren't willing to put time in after work to learn more things?

I have been successful in my life thus far, and not having a home lab hasn't held me back (that I am aware of). I learn what I need to for the job I am doing right now. If a new job requires me to learn new things, then I will. I am just not willing to sacrifice the few hours I have at home with my family to dedicate to a job. I already spend 50+ hours a week doing IT related things at work, the last thing I want to do is go home and do more of that. I guess I am just different and like my time outside of the IT world.

Amen. I can't believe this view is unacceptable to the NTG minions (not just the employees). Life is for living, and much of that (for me anyway) occurs NOT in front of a screen. I used to do the whole "eat, drink, live, breathe, shit IT stuff 24/7" thing when I was younger, but eventually doing IT for 40-60 hours a week becomes enough. I've never had a job where I didn't have the luxury of on the clock learning time (of which I have taken great advantage), so maybe my view is fuct, but at 42, I have other (better) shit to do after I clock out.

So, back in your ambitious youth, did that serve you well? Now that you've put in the extra time to get real experience in a broader form, do you not enjoy the benefits of having gained that experience? And once again, the opponents seem to be missing the point; it's not that we would never hire someone without a home lab. It's that we're looking for avid learners. With the number of options we have to sift through, we're going to go for the ones who possess the traits we feel are beneficial. Why is that so seemingly difficult to grasp? I'm certainly NOT saying that it is an official prerequisite for employment, which I think has been demonstrated numerous times. But, given the choice, that's where we are going to lean.

But once again, just because we don't have home labs doesn't mean we aren't avid learners. It just means we chose to spend our time differently.

@wirestyle22

@wirestyle22 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@Dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@art_of_shred said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

It's kinda simple. You're building a team. Do you pick people looking for a paycheck, or people with a passion about what you're doing? If you have the option, you're looking for passion... or you shouldn't be the one doing the hiring.

once again passion shouldn't be determined on if they do stuff outside of working hours. I work to get a paycheck yes, but I also show passion for my job while doing so.

Not good enough when there is a huge line of people behind you who show not only passion while at work, but also while at home. You're hamstringing yourself and saying it's not fair that they choose to be passionate always, and you only some of the time.

it's your choice - it's not a wrong choice, it's simply a choice.. and as such, your life will go different directions.

Bring this to Scott's constant talks about college. The person who goes into hotel staff our of HS, versus the one who goes to college. The non college guy will be light years ahead learning wise in the real world.

Sadly, so many uppers today will hold the non college people down because they (the uppers) think that college is some kind of right of passage - but that's becoming less and less the case these days.

So the people like me (that have hobbies in something other than what I do for a living) get screwed because they aren't willing to put time in after work to learn more things?

I have been successful in my life thus far, and not having a home lab hasn't held me back (that I am aware of). I learn what I need to for the job I am doing right now. If a new job requires me to learn new things, then I will. I am just not willing to sacrifice the few hours I have at home with my family to dedicate to a job. I already spend 50+ hours a week doing IT related things at work, the last thing I want to do is go home and do more of that. I guess I am just different and like my time outside of the IT world.

That is a completely reasonable decision to make. Dad passed last year and mom lives in England. No kids yet (that I know of). Fiance and I are balancing my learning schedule with planning for a wedding very well. My job is also my hobby so I get a lot of enjoyment out of testing. Point being that I don't feel like I'm sacrificing anything. You are in a different position though

If it is your hobby, great, you love to test and play around, that is awesome. But should it really be grounds to base a hiring decision off of? That is what I am failing to understand. Does it really set you that much farther apart from me? Does it show a difference in how hungry I am to find that golden job that needs all of these self taught skills?

My point at the end of all of 128 posts, it has been determined that ntg (as an organization) is looking at a specific subset of people (that I don't fall into, which is fine) with a passion which is defined as having IT as a job and as a hobby. Eat/sleep/breath technology and willing to do anything to be apart of that.

This is my opinion. You absolutely shouldn't need to have a home lab to get into IT and to make your way up the ladder and shouldn't be considered when hiring. Those that can afford to great, the more power to you. But those that cannot (me) shouldn't be ruled out just because we don't fit the "ideal candidate" that the company has set forth.

@Dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@david.wiese said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@art_of_shred said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

It's kinda simple. You're building a team. Do you pick people looking for a paycheck, or people with a passion about what you're doing? If you have the option, you're looking for passion... or you shouldn't be the one doing the hiring.

once again passion shouldn't be determined on if they do stuff outside of working hours. I work to get a paycheck yes, but I also show passion for my job while doing so.

Not good enough when there is a huge line of people behind you who show not only passion while at work, but also while at home. You're hamstringing yourself and saying it's not fair that they choose to be passionate always, and you only some of the time.

it's your choice - it's not a wrong choice, it's simply a choice.. and as such, your life will go different directions.

Bring this to Scott's constant talks about college. The person who goes into hotel staff our of HS, versus the one who goes to college. The non college guy will be light years ahead learning wise in the real world.

Sadly, so many uppers today will hold the non college people down because they (the uppers) think that college is some kind of right of passage - but that's becoming less and less the case these days.

So the people like me (that have hobbies in something other than what I do for a living) get screwed because they aren't willing to put time in after work to learn more things?

I have been successful in my life thus far, and not having a home lab hasn't held me back (that I am aware of). I learn what I need to for the job I am doing right now. If a new job requires me to learn new things, then I will. I am just not willing to sacrifice the few hours I have at home with my family to dedicate to a job. I already spend 50+ hours a week doing IT related things at work, the last thing I want to do is go home and do more of that. I guess I am just different and like my time outside of the IT world.

@wirestyle22

for me, if it is for work, it is on company provided equipment, period. I do not use personal stuff for work in any capacity without getting reimbursed (such as using my car).