Hello Mark:

Thank you for contacting McDonald’s and for sharing your concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to share the following information with you.

Please know that McDonald’s food safety and quality assurance standards are among the highest in the industry. With extensive food safety measures in place throughout the entire supply chain process, McDonald’s standards meet or exceed government requirements. McDonald’s uses only 100 percent USDA-inspected ground beef in their hamburger patties.

Be assured that we do not add ammonia to our hamburger patties. In fact, ammonia is only used by our suppliers as a processing aid to kill harmful bacteria. This process is approved by the USDA and ensures safe, quality food.

Additionally, ammonia is a basic building block of protein and occurs naturally in beef, both raw and cooked. It is a key component of the flavor of cooked beef. Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound in meats and fish – (fish and shellfish have more than beef). Ammonia is a nitrogen containing compound and so are proteins.

As you may not know, lean beef trimmings are approved by the USDA and are a widely used and well-established industry practice. They are subject to the same stringent standards, and inspection and testing practices, required for all beef used in the production of our hamburger patties.

McDonald’s continues to work with its suppliers, local, state and federal agencies, our industry and others, to ensure these standards are rigorously maintained. And, more importantly, that we serve safe, high quality products to every customer, every time they visit our restaurants.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact McDonald’s.

Lisa
McDonald’s Customer Response Center

ref#:6773682

I had some issues trying to use a symbol

session[:user_credentials_id]

vs. a string

session["user_credentials_id"]

Here is my solution:

require 'test_helper'

class LoginTest < ActionController::IntegrationTest
  context 'A user' do
    setup do
      @user = Factory(:user)
      # puts @user.inspect
    end

    should 'be able to login with a valid username and password' do
      visit '/user_session/new'
      assert_equal '/user_session/new', path
      fill_in 'Login', :with => @user.login
      fill_in 'Password', :with => @user.password
      click_button 'Login'
      # puts "user.id: #{@user.id}"
      # puts "session: #{session.inspect}"
      # puts "session[:user_credentials_id] #{session["user_credentials_id"]}"
      assert_equal @user.id, session["user_credentials_id"]
    end

    should 'be denied access with an invalid username or password' do
      visit '/user_session/new'
      assert_equal '/user_session/new', path
      fill_in 'Login', :with => @user.login
      fill_in 'Password', :with => 'wrongpassord'
      click_button 'Login'
      assert_nil session["user_credentials_id"]
    end

  end
end

I was quoted today in the following article in the New Times Broward-Palm Beach:

With the spread of cloud computing, social networking, and client-based technologies, fewer and fewer of our computing tasks are taking place on our personal computers. More of them are going online — into the cloud. We have more usernames and passwords to manage than ever.

The most reckless web surfers use the same login and password on dozens of sites, making themselves vulnerable to identity theft. The rest of us try to memorize a huge variety of them, which isn’t a practical solution either.

That’s where OpenID, Google ID, and Yahoo! ID come in handy. You can literally log into almost any website now using nothing more than a click to allow the information to be passed. No more entering username and password into a form. And there’s more on the horizon.

Now browsers like the new Chrome are supporting Information Cards. These are

information files stored by the browser that can be accessed by websites with your permission.  You can log into sites without entering any information. It just takes a mouse click on an authorize link.  A lot of information can be potentially stored on those cards, but right now it’s mainly name and default username.

“For social media, maintaining separate usernames and passwords for each site we visit will certainly become secondary to OpenID, OAuth, Facebook Connect, and myriad other players in this new space,” says Parkland-based IT consultant Mark Richman, whose clients include major financial institutions, e-commerce firms, and startups.

For highly secure web applications, such as banking, the adoption rate will certainly be slowest. Privacy concerns, lack of centralized identity management, and the need for banks to support the least technical users will always be barriers to adoption.

In the future, these could store default privacy settings, default avatars, links to your favorite sites for instant sharing, and more. This kind of integration is going to become very, very cool.

Read the original article here.

Here’s a quandary – we, as value-based IT consultants, aspire to charge value-based fees for our services (how obvious!). We know that doing so requires tight scope control. As such, this often requires a detailed specification. However, this is the very waterfall model that the agile movement shuns. How do you reconcile scope control, customer satisfaction, and ever-changing requirements with value-based fees? I don’t think it’s preferable – or practical – to do two week iterations on a value-based fee basis. Just as much as value-based fees benefit the client by not requiring them to make an investment decision every time they wish to engage you, they also may trap the consultant into having a value discussion/negotiation with the client for each iteration. Thoughts?

A phenomenally inspiring presentation by Whitney Hess from IA Summit 2009. This really hits home for me, as I’m also a self-promoting introvert.

Situation A: Is Faster Service Worth More?
Your computer is not working properly. You have tried to understand the problem and find a solution that you can implement yourself. Yet, after trying, you are no closer to a solution, you find the situation aggravating, and you decide that there’s no point in continuing to attempt fixing the problem yourself. Your time and attention are better spent on productive activities and should not be wasted on this computer problem any more.

The computer technician that you call asks a few questions then says to bring the computer in to his shop. He charges $60 per hour and predicts the computer ready in two business days. Once he has the computer, he will diagnose the problem then call you with an estimate.

Q1 As you consider not having your computer on hand for two business days, and the opportunities to use it productively that you must forego, would you be willing to pay more to have it fixed and back in use much sooner?

Q2 If the computer technician offered to fix your computer within 24 hours, satisfaction guaranteed, for a fixed fee agreed in advance, how attractive would that be to you?

Situation B: Evaluating Your Next Car

You and your spouse are shopping for a new car. Having visited a few car dealers, conducted research on the web, and spoken to a trusted person at your usual auto-service shop, you and your spouse have narrowed your search to two cars, both of which you have taken on a test drive together.

Q1 As you consider the value of each car, do you care how quickly or slowly either car was built, or how much time the manufacturer put into design & engineering?

Q2 As you consider the asking prices of the cars, does it matter to you how much time the car salesperson has spent on the sales process with you?

Situation C: the Value of a Salad

At a restaurant, you order a supper salad. The menu says that the salad costs $7.99. As usual, you expect the salad to be served to you in a few minutes.

When your order reaches the kitchen, the manager finds that the supply of tomatoes has gone too low. She sends somebody out to buy tomatoes so that your salad can include them. The errand runner breaks a sweat to get the tomatoes to the kitchen in time for your salad to be served with the rest of the meal.

Your salad is served with the rest of the meal, and it is billed at $7.99.

Q1 As you sit at your table waiting for your meal to be served (unaware of the restaurant’s tomato supply) does it matter to you if the kitchen’s supply of tomatoes has gone too low, causing the manager to send somebody out to buy more?

Q2 If you knew about the low tomato supply and the decision to send somebody out to buy tomatoes, how would that affect your expectations about the timing of the meal being served or the amount billed?

Situation D: How Much Trust When the Meter is Running?

Jacquie has been self-employed as a graphic designer for four years. She has found that her prospective clients (for example to design new logos and use those logos in designing stationery) typically start the buying process by asking her, “How much?”

In her first year, Jacquie found this frustrating because she could not answer right away. She needed to learn each client’s needs and expectations before she could provide a reasonable estimate, and her estimates were based on how much of her time would be needed.

Eventually, she learned to redirect that question to gauge the scope of each new project. This allowed her to provide reasonable estimates and close sales. Still, from that first question until the client signed her estimate, there was always uncomfortable uncertainty and a sense of risk.

There seemed to be a problem of trust intrinsic to the pricing aspect of the sales process. For example, one prospective client said, “I understand that you’ll show me three logo options with samples of how they’ll look on stationery. I am then supposed to choose and you’ll proceed from there. But what if I don’t like any of them as-is and want you to adjust or mix-and-match before I approve one? Would your fees stay the same?”

Jacquie dreaded this. If the client was not satisfied with her initial work, then she would have to charge more or make less money for her time and effort. Under the circumstances, neither possibility was welcome.

She considered that she would have to improve her skill at developing trust. She also longed for a way to make buying from her easier – especially if she could avoid the tension involved in estimating and hoping to make a decent profit when working for clients whose need for her billable time could exceed their budget.

Q1 What if Jacquie reviews her process for each type of project to establish a range of cost? This way, somebody interested in a new logo and stationery, for example, could ask, “How much?” and Jacquie could reply, “It would cost between X and Y dollars. Let’s discuss what you’d get.”

Q2 What if, in addition to replying as above when asked, “How much?” Jacquie would say, “If we can discuss how important it is to you, then we can fix the fees in advance with a satisfaction guarantee”?

Situation E: Paying for the Solution – Not the Time It Takes

Dexter is a management consultant with an accounting firm. He has been advising the owners, directors, and senior managers of various companies long enough that he typically begins formulating solutions to their problems during the initial stage of discovering the problem. Understanding that each situation is unique, Dexter still pays close attention throughout the discovery stage.

Because he always brings to bear his years of experience, and because he has the expertise to “sometimes come up with a $10,000 solution in 10 minutes,” Dexter eschews the billable hour as unfair. Rather, his firm charges fixed fees, established up-front based on the client’s gauge of importance, and includes a satisfaction guarantee. When the scope of any project changes while underway, the fee is adjusted on the same basis – all in writing.

Q1 Would it still be more fair for Dexter’s firm to charge according to his time spent, with his rate per hour linked to his seniority?

Q2 Should any other professions that apply experience and expertise to solve client problems also consider value-based fees, fixed up-front with a satisfaction guarantee, and accommodate any changes in scope by adjusting the fees?

Situation F: Fixing the Cost of a Pizza

In Canada, there is a great number of pizzerias. Even small towns typically have more than one pizza place. Though there are pizza chains, there is also a variety of independent pizzerias across the country. Despite the number and variety, the industry has certain standards for ordering and pricing, anywhere you go, based on size of pizza and number of toppings.

As Emile considered opening a pizzeria in Morocco, he had the opportunity to consider the Canadian model: standard sizes of pizza, each with its own basic price, then standard pricing for toppings, plus free delivery within a certain radius. Emile analyzed the pizza business and found that toppings do vary in cost to the pizzeria. He also found that, with the overhead to keep a pizza oven at operating temperature, the cost to bake a pizza would vary with size each and number per day. The cost of any one ingredient could also vary over time, as would the price of fuel for a delivery car. These all factored into Emile’s business plan.

Q1 How important is it to you to know how much a pizza will cost when you order it?

Q2 If your pizza order today matches your pizza order from a month ago, do you consider it reasonable for the price to be the same, even if the pizzeria’s costs might have varied?

Situation G: Original, Custom Newsletters for Standard Prices

Robert was a professional writer, not of screenplays or magazine articles, but of original custom newsletters. Despite his ability as a wordsmith in a range of contexts, the market consistently regarded him as a newsletter specialist and brought that business to him. Robert decided to embrace this reputation. The rationale behind his business model was simple: Give people what they want.

He developed a business model that would always create original, authentic newsletters – best to maintain a credible connection between his clients and their readers – and in an apparent paradox, make profits charging standardized fees.

The reputation for newsletters that had driven demand for his writing was based on reliably good writing with a degree of original authenticity that made his third-party authorship invisible. He trained and managed a small cohort of writers in his techniques also so that readers would assume the writing to be the issuer’s. Robert also ensured that each newsletter would have a look unique to the issuer. Then, each issue would be laid out with client-approved text and photos by the same person who designed the original template.

Robert paid his writers and designers fixed fees and had them work under a contract that protected the business interests of all parties. Likewise, he charged his clients fixed fees under a purchase agreement that both encouraged decisive collaboration on newsletter contents and allowed the flexibility necessary to make each issue fulfil its potential as a timely reflection of the issuer-reader relationship. His purchase agreement even included a pay-upon-approval satisfaction guarantee.

Q1 If you could have original, custom work performed for you by a small team of creative people with the security of fixed fees and a satisfaction guarantee, would you bypass low-cost, off-the-shelf alternatives?

Q2 If you were to read a newsletter that seems to be a generic, impersonal product with the name and photo of an individual pasted in, would you consider it worth much more to that individual to issue an original, custom newsletter like those Robert and his team create?

– Glenn R Harrington, Articulate Consultants Inc.

About the Author:

Glenn Harrington is the Principal Consultant of Articulate Consultants Inc. Since 1996 he has specialized in consulting on authentic key messages as the basis for effective marketing, brand management, and client loyalty. http://www.articulate.ca/

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Questioning the Billable Hour part 3: Seven Industries

By Alan Weiss
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Source: http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/101-questions-for-any-sales-situation/
Reprinted with permission

I. Qualifying the Prospect

This is the process of determining whether the inquiry is appropriate for your business in terms of size, relevance, seriousness, and related factors. In other words, you don’t want to pursue a lead which can’t result in legitimate—and worthwhile—business.

Questions:
1. Why do you think we might be a good match?
2. Is there budget allocated for this project?
3. How important is this need (on a scale of 1-10)?
4. What is your timing to accomplish this?
5. Who, if anyone, is demanding that this be accomplished?
6. How soon are you willing to begin?
7. Have you made a commitment to proceed, or are you still analyzing?
8. What are your key decision criteria in choosing a resource?
9. Have you tried this before (will this be a continuing endeavor)?
10. Is your organization seeking formal proposals for this work?

Key Point: You want to determine whether the potential work is large enough for your involvement, relevant to your expertise, and near enough on the horizon to merit rapid responsiveness.

II. Finding the Economic Buyer

The economic buyer is the person who can write a check in return for your value contribution. He or she is the ONLY buyer to be concerned about. Contrary to a great deal of poor advice, the economic buyer is virtually never in human resources, training, meeting planning, or related support areas.

Questions
11. Whose budget will support this initiative?
12. Who can immediately approve this project?
13. To whom will people look for support, approval, and credibility?
14. Who controls the resources required to make this happen?
15. Who has initiated this request?
16. Who will claim responsibility for the results?
17. Who will be seen as the main sponsor and/or champion?
18. Do you have to seek anyone else’s approval?
19. Who will accept or reject proposals?
20. If you and I were to shake hands, could I begin tomorrow?

Key Point: The larger the organization, the more the number of economic buyers. They need not be the CEO or owner, but must be able to authorize and produce payment. Committees are never economic buyers.

III. Rebutting Objections

“Obstacles are those terrible things you see when you take your eyes off the goal,” said philosopher Hannah More. Objections are a sign of interest. Turn them around to your benefit. Once you demolish objections, there is no longer a reason not to proceed in a partnership.

Questions (in responding to an economic buyer’s objections)
21. Why do you feel that way? (Get at the true cause.)
22. If we resolve this, can we then proceed? (Is this the sole objection?)
23. But isn’t that exactly why you need me? (The reversal approach.)
24. What would satisfy you? (Make the buyer answer the objection.)
25. What can we do to overcome that? (Demonstrate joint accountability.)
26. Is this unique? (Is there precedent for overcoming it?)
27. What’s the consequence? (Is it really serious or merely an annoyance?)
28. Isn’t that low probability? (Worry about likelihoods, not the remote.)
29. Shall I address that in the proposal? (Let’s focus on value.)
30. Why does it even matter in light of the results? (The ROI is the point.)

Key Points: Don’t be on the defensive by trying to slay each objection with your sword, or you’ll eventually fall on it. Embrace the buyer in the “solutions,” and demonstrate that some objections are insignificant when compared with benefits (e.g., there will always be some unhappy employees in any change effort).

IV. Establishing Objectives

Objectives are the outcomes which represent the client’s desired and improved conditions. They are never inputs (e.g., reports, focus groups, manuals) but rather always outputs (e.g., increased sales, reduced attrition, improved teamwork). Clear objectives prevent “scope creep” and enable a rational engagement and disengagement to take place, resulting in much greater consulting efficiency and profit margins. (Note that items IV, V, and VI—objectives, measures, and value—are the basis of conceptual agreement.)
Questions
31. What is the ideal outcome you’d like to experience?
32. What results are you trying to accomplish?
33. What better product/service/customer condition are you seeking?
34. Why are you seeking to do this (work/project/engagement)?
35. How would the operation be different as a result of this work?
36. What would be the return on investment (sales, assets, equity, etc.)?
37. How would image/repute/credibility be improved?
38. What harm (e.g., stress, dysfunction, turf wars, etc.) would be alleviated?
39. How much would you gain on the competition as a result?
40. How would your value proposition be improved?

Key Points: Most buyers know what they want but not necessarily what they need. By pushing the buyer on the end results you are helping to articulate and formalize the client’s perceived benefits, thereby increasing your own value in the process. Without clear objectives you do not have a legitimate project.

V. Establishing Metrics

“Metrics” are measures of progress toward the objectives, which enable you and the client to ascertain the rate and totality of success. They assign proper credit to you and your efforts, and also signify when the project is complete (objectives are met) and it is proper to disengage.

Questions
41. How will you know we’ve accomplished your intent?
42. How, specifically, will the operation be different when we’re done?
43. How will you measure this?
44. What indicators will you use to assess our progress?
45. Who or what will report on our results (against the objectives)?
46. Do you already have measures in place you intend to apply?
47. What is the rate of return (on sales, investment, etc.) that you seek?
48. How will we know the public, employees, and/or customers perceive it?
49. Each time we talk, what standard will tell us we’re progressing?
50. How would you know it if you tripped over it?

Key Points: Measures can be subjective, so long as you and the client agree on who is doing the measuring and how. For example, the buyer’s observation that he or she is called upon less to settle “turf” disputes and has fewer complaints from direct reports aimed at colleagues are valid measures for the objective of “improved teamwork.”

VI. Assessing Value

Determining the value of the project for the client’s organization is the most critical aspect of conceptual agreement and pre-proposal interaction. That’s because when the buyer stipulates to significant value, the fee is placed in proper perspective (ROI) and is seldom an issue of contention. Conversations with the buyer should always focus on value and never on fee or price.

Questions
51. What will these results mean for your organization?
52. How would you assess the actual return (ROI, ROA, ROS, ROE, etc.)?
53. What would be the extent of the improvement (or correction)?
54. How will these results impact the bottom line?
55. What are the annualized savings (first year might be deceptive)?
56. What is the intangible impact (e.g., on repute, safety, comfort, etc.)?
57. How would you, personally, be better off or better supported?
58. What is the scope of the impact (on customers, employees, vendors)?
59. How important is this compared to your overall responsibilities?
60. What if this fails?

Key Points: Subjective value (stress alleviated) can be every bit as important as more tangible results (higher sales). Never settle for “Don’t worry, it’s important.” Find out how important, because that will dictate the acceptable fee range.

VII. Determining the Budget Range

Too much guessing takes place in the absence of a general understanding about how much the prospect intends to invest (prior to understanding the full value proposition). In many cases, the budget is fixed and entirely inappropriate, and in others it represents a better understanding of the ROI than that of the consultant! (Don’t forget, this presupposes you’re talking to an economic buyer.)

Questions
61. Have you arrived at a budget or investment range for this project?
62. Are funds allocated, or must they be requested?
63. What is your expectation of investment required?
64. So we don’t waste time, are there parameters to remain within?
65. Have you done this before, and at what investment level?
66. What are you able to authorize during this fiscal year?
67. Can I assume that a strong proposition will justify proper expenditure?
68. How much are you prepared to invest to gain these dramatic results?
69. For a dramatic return, will you consider a larger investment?
70. Let’s be frank: What are you willing to spend?

Key Points: There is nothing wrong with exceeding the budget expectation if you muster a strong enough value proposition. But don’t even proceed with a proposal if the prospect has a seriously misguided expectation of the investment need, or simply has an inadequate, fixed budget.

VIII. Preventing Unforeseen Obstacles

As comedienne Gilda Radnor used to say, “It’s always something.” Inevitably, it seems, the best laid plains are undermined by objections, occurrences, and serendipity from left field. Fortunately, there are questions to establish some preventive actions against even the unforeseen.

Questions
71. Is there anything we haven’t discussed which could get in the way?
72. In the past, what has occurred to derail potential projects like this?
73. What haven’t I asked you that I should have about the environment?
74. What do you estimate the probability is of our going forward?
75. Are you surprised by anything I’ve said or that we’ve agreed upon?
76. At this point, are you still going to make this decision yourself?
77. What, if anything, do you additionally need to hear from me?
78. Is anything likely to change in the organization in the near future?
79. Are you awaiting the results of any other initiatives or decisions?
80. If I get this proposal to you tomorrow, how soon will you decide?

Key Points: Make sure that your project isn’t contingent upon other events transpiring (or not transpiring). If the buyer is holding out on you, these questions will make it more difficult to dissemble. Build into your proposal benefits to outweigh the effects of any external factors.

IX. Increasing the Size of the Sale

Once conceptual agreement is gained, it makes sense to capitalize on the common ground and strive for the largest possible relationship. Most consultants don’t obtain larger contracts because they don’t ask for or suggest them. You can’t possibly lose anything attempting to increase the business at this juncture.

Questions
81. Would you be amenable to my providing a variety of options?
82. Is this the only place (division, department, geography) applicable?
83. Would it be wise to extend this through implementation and oversight?
84. Should we plan to also coach key individuals essential to the project?
85. Would you benefit from benchmarking against other firms?
86. Would you also like an idea of what a retainer might look like?
87. Are there others in your position with like needs I should see?
88. Do your subordinates possess the skills to support you appropriately?
89. Should we run focus groups/other sampling to test employee reactions?
90. Would you like me to test customer response at various stages?

Key Points: If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Don’t throw everything including the kitchen sink into your proposal in an attempt to justify your fee. Instead, “unbundle” what you’re capable of providing and add them back in at additional fee.

X. Going for the Close

Home stretch, but not across the finish line. Runners who slow up at the approaching tape lose to someone else with a better late “kick.” Run through the tape at full speed by driving the conversation right through the close of the sale and the check clearing the bank.

Questions
91. If the proposal reflects our last discussions, how soon can we begin?
92. Is it better to start immediately, or wait for the first of the month?
93. Is there anything at all preventing our working together at this point?
94. How rapidly are you prepared to begin once you see the proposal?
95. If you get the proposal tomorrow, can I call Friday at 10 for approval?
96. While I’m here, should I begin some of the preliminary work today?
97. Would you like to shake hands and get started, proposal to follow?
98. Do you prefer a corporate check or to wire the funds electronically?
99. May I allocate two days early next week to start my interviews?
100. Can we proceed?

Key Points: There is never a better time than when you’re in front of the buyer and he or she is in agreement and excited about the project. Even without a proposal, beginning immediately “pours cement” on the conceptual agreement and greatly diminishes the possibility of being derailed by surprise.

XI. The Most Vital Question

All of the preceding 100 questions are actually based on the reaction to one question which we often fail to ask of the most difficult person of all. And unlike most of the prior inquiries, it’s a simple binary question, with a clear “yes or no” response.

Question
101. Do you believe it yourself?

Key Points: The first sale is always to yourself.

© Alan Weiss 2009. All rights reserved.

If you’ve been reading my blog for any length of time, you know that I’m an advocate of Value-Based Fees. In a nutshell, here is the value proposition to the prospective client:

1. There is a cap on your investment. You know exactly what is to be spent and there are no surprises.
2. There is never a “meter running.” You do not have to worry each time my help is requested that I might be here for an hour, a day, or a week.
3. It is unfair to you to place you in the position of making an investment decision every time you may need my help. Otherwise, you’re trying to determine the impossible: Is this an issue that justifies a $2,000 visit or a $500 phone call. No client should ever be in that position.
4. Your people should feel free to use my assistance and to ask for my help without feeling they have to go to someone for budgetary approval. This only makes them more resistant to sharing their views, and at best delays the flow of important information.
5. If I find additional work that was unanticipated but must be performed, I can do it without having to come to you for additional funds. In those instances, legitimate, additional work would otherwise be viewed as self-aggrandizing and an attempt to generate addition hours or days.
6. If you find additional, related work that must be done, you can freely request it without worry about increased costs.
7. The overall, set fee, in relation to the project outcomes to be delivered, is inevitably less of a proportional investment than hourly billing.
8. If conditions change in your organization, you won’t be in the difficult situation of having to request that the project be completed in less time. The quality approach is assured, since the fee is set and paid.
9. If I decide that additional resources are necessary, there is no cost to you and I can employ additional help as I see fit.
10. This is the most uncomplicated way to work together. There will never be a debate about what is billable time (e.g., travel, report writing) or what should be done on site or off site.

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church/temple/mosque.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of G-d and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”

Many of my colleagues in the Ruby on Rails community have been posting a “tools of the trade” blog post, covering their hardware and software preferences. Now that I am nearly Microsoft-free, I figured I’d update my list.

Hardware

• Apple Mac Pro 8-core Xeon, 10GB RAM, 320GB + 500GB 7200rpm SATA drives. This is my main box and the best computer I’ve ever owned. I use the 500GB drive as my Time Machine backup drive, but I am looking into other backup options as Time Machine is slow and there are anecdotal reliability issues, but now that I’m running Snow Leopard, I haven’t experienced any (not that I’ve attempted a restore yet either). I’m going to look into SuperDuper!
• Dual Dell FP1905 19″ LCD monitors. I hate them. The colors don’t match, no matter how I calibrate them, and they are too small for the type of work I do now. They also suffer from burn-in and ghosting. I’m considering a new Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP 30-inch, unless Apple announces something better for less money (ain’t gonna happen).
• External WD USB/FireWire hard drive for additional backups.
• M-Audio Fast Track Pro audio interface. I play guitar, and use this to record via the Shure SM-57 mic in front of my amps (not that this has anything to do with my work, but it’s cool nonetheless). My music gear is the subject for another blog entry.
• Apple iPhone 3G.

Software

• Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard
• Mail.app
• Terminal.app
• Vienna RSS Reader
• Firefox
• TextMate
• Things
• VMware Fusion
• OpenOffice
• Adium
• Colloquy
• iTunes
• TweetDeck
• Skype
• Chax
• PostgreSQL
• Ruby on Rails
• Power*Architect

Hosting

• Linode
• GoDaddy