I basically agree with you. In spades.
As for my peninsula house, I might even be willing to have it demolished and replaced with 6-story condo, because I could probably walk away from the deal two million dollars richer, but NIMBYism is never going to allow it.
The Bay Area has decided to create green spaces, a policy that I support. But part of the price of having green spaces that box in growth is that we should be positively managing growth upwards in the places where infrastructure will best be able to support density. Unfortunately, we mostly to the exact opposite, and SF is the worst offender. Peninsula cities are only now meekly embracing 3 and 4 stories in locations that could darn well justify 8 and 10 story buildings.
You are paying the price through the nose.
I am paying the price, to a lesser extent. I really wish their were more poor people living nearby. It is good for the poor. It is good for the rich. It is good for society. Heck, you know how hard it is to find a baby sitter on the peninsula who will work for $15 per hour and will show up on time? (You probably do.)
[IBM] attempts to transition from a hardware-dependent business to one that more fully embraces the cloud and services
I though that IBM was already mainly a services business...
Which makes sense enough. If you are a services company, getting complex enterprise solution projects up and running is what you get paid for. Agile can help there, even if it is not a magic bullet that will save you from an architecture that looked good on the power point slide but fails at scale, for example.
It is a dirty little secret that complex enterprise solution projects fail more than half the time, often to the tune of 8 figures. Companies do not issue press releases about the money they threw down the toilet on IT, so getting statistics on this kind of thing is difficult unless you delve into the fine details of the quarterly reports.
I am sorry unless you have hard evidence of a major and specific conspiracy that everyone of your students participated in you CANT fail an entire class. The reality is there was probably a few students who are innocent or whose infractions don't justify an automatic failing grade, so its punishing the innocent. The optics of that just are not appropriate for an academic institution.
Yup. By making a blanket judging that is clearly unfair to at least a few students, the professors is demolishing his own case. Challenging the 'F' is a slam dunk. When it came to having guards in his class, he should have quietly made his ultimatum to the department already -- that they were going to back him with X, Y, and Z or he would resign. That it came to this suggests egregious failures by the school itself.
(BTW, kudos for your coherently made points.)
I guess the heart of the matter is what is "reasonable suspicion" in this context and what "reasonable suspicion" allows. Police can do all kinds of positive information gathering actions based on "reasonable suspicion" based on good sense in the given context. Did the officer in question have "reasonable suspicion"? Did the kind of "reasonable suspicion" here, presuming he had such, justify detaining a citizen?
It is not obvious, given the law of the land. The Court made a determination that sounds okay to me.
That you for the clarification, but my point still stands. The officer did not have probable cause to force the citizen to stay put beyond the time to complete the write up of the citation, which is a kind of detainment, for him to acquire the additional resources to employ this other kind of evidence gathering that steps up to the line of the 4th amendment. What the officer in question did, in some sense, laudable, obviously; but not all arguably laudable police actions are legal under the 4th amendment.
Whether the dog or psychic or dowsing rod is in his vehicle, right now, or 8 minutes down the road is irrelevant. In his good judgement, he should have more resources on hand to employ this other kind of inspection.
My reading of the Court ruling is that he had the option to use his dog immediately. That he chose otherwise is probably wisdom -- he does not want his unprotected back turned to a possible criminal if he stumbles upon evidence of a crime. Good for him.