What are your rights as a consumer?
As Americans, we are aware of what are rights are as citizens. But, are we aware of our rights as consumers or customers?
Are you aware that you are a consumer whenever you buy a good or a service and are protected by certain laws?
Technically, a consumer is someone who acquires goods or services for their personal use or ownership rather than for resale, or production.
Consumer interests can also be protected by promoting competition in the markets which directly and indirectly serve consumers, consistent with economic efficiency, but this topic is treated in Competition law.
According to a wiki definition on the web, consumer laws were designed to ensure fair competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace.
The main goal of consumer advocacy or consumer law is to educate the clients with the best skills.
Education should be conveyed in detail with all the rights that a client can have when they are being followed by a debt collector.
These rights are being provided by the state laws and FDCPA means, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Consumer advocacy is not only created to impart education in detail but all together to provide you a protection shield. If you are dealing with the web site which are truly not listening to you after the work is done by you. Then, you can absolutely fight against the web sites for getting the payment from them through and with the help of consumer advocacy.
In the United States a variety of laws at both the federal or state levels regulate consumer affairs. Among them are the following:
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act, Truth in Lending Act
Fair Credit Billing Act
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Federal consumer protection laws are mainly enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.
At the state level, many states have a Department of Consumer Affairs devoted to regulating certain industries and protecting consumers who use goods and services from those industries.
For example, in the U.S. state of California, the California Department of Consumer Affairs regulates about 2.3 million professionals in over 230 different professions, through its forty regulatory entities.
In addition, California encourages its consumers to act as private attorneys general through the liberal provisions of its Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq.
California has the strongest consumer protection laws of any US state, partly because of rigorous advocacy and lobbying by groups such as Utility Consumers’ Action Network, Consumer Federation of California and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Other states have been the leaders in specific aspects of consumer protection. For example Florida, Delaware and Minnesota have legislated requirements that contracts be written at reasonable readability levels as a large proportion of contracts cannot be understood by most consumers who sign them.
To overcome with the huge credit card bills which you receive at the end of each month is to select consumer advocacy.
The work of the consumer advocacy Group is to provide clients with the maximum protection from false and misleading advertising and sales practices.
There are consumer advocacy that have specialized their selves in debt collection work which can be definitely an effective option to get you help through credit collection process. There are consumer advocacy or few unions like American Consumers Union, United Consumer Advocacy Network, and many more are set up to act as a lawyer for the protection between both of the parties. Most of the advocates help clients in all possible manners by giving them with their education and protection.
LetterChamp is a full-service firm, handling aspects of the customer service dispute resolution process, including research, documentation, written correspondence, phone calls and product returns. We help our clients obtain cash refunds or product replacements from manufacturers, retailers and service providers around the country. Contact us at www.letterchamp.com.
Recent events with the large Toyota recall for problems with the software controlling inputs from the brake and accelerator (which are no longer mechanically linked to the systems they control) highlight one of my pet peeves in the approach a company takes toward software development. Whether Toyota is guilty of this or not, I have no idea, but it’s a serious issue.
There is a related topic, which is whether software development is treated as software or as electronics. I’d like to deal with that separately, because it’s equally important (and usually, equally tied to a corporate approach to product development).
Regardless of how the software in a system is designed or architected, it is ultimately coded, reviewed and debugged by coders. When coders are driven by management to meet management goals such as adding features, closing open issues, etc. it is easy for them to lose sight of one of the most essential parts of software development: root cause analysis.
Root cause analysis has a motto: “fixes are cheap, bugs are precious.” When actual reproducible problems are found, they need to be cherished and treated as precious opportunities to find defects in design or in implementation. But for middle managers, this might mean that the programmer will be spending a few extra hours investigating a problem that could be fixed with a simple workaround. Although there is often the justification of “we can come back to that later,” we all know that especially in these crunch economic times, later never comes.
Sometimes a major defect manifests early warning symptoms in a seemingly innocuous bug which is only an annoyance. If a programmer feels empowered to follow the natural instinct to fully understand the problem, he/she can put some additional effort into chasing it down. Of course, this can be done in excess because while it’s nice to pursue zero defects in software, we have to get products out or do whatever pays the bills. But having the right balance in any software development organization is definitely the responsibility of leaders and management.
Managers need to understand the importance of root cause analysis, and need to encourage the front-line coders to pursue leads, because who knows? The next annoying little glitch you find in your test program’s results could be the next recall of 6 million vehicles, and a lone vigilant coder could be the one who went out on a limb to find it.
Yesterday I had a discussion about what I think is important in software engineering. My single biggest complaint in reading code (sometimes my own code) is that the author didn’t take the time to write concise, clear comments.
Use what I call the “6-month rule”: you’re writing or modifying a section of code. You’ve been immersed in it for hours or even days, and at the time you know exactly why you’re adding that code or making that change. It all seems obvious (or it should; programming on purpose is the topic for another post). But what if you didn’t look at or think about this project for six months, and in the meantime your memory was erased? Maybe it was a Vulcan mindwipe or maybe you just had millions of lines of other code to work on in the meantime, but you come back to that code and you can’t even remember if you were the one who wrote it.
So now, ask yourself how you would put concise, relevant comments in that would help you get back up to speed as quickly and accurately as possible?
There are a few do’s and don’ts that I’ve found helpful:
- Do connect comments to the code they apply to. Big block comments have their place but often go unread, and therefore run the risk of becoming untrue. One-liners in exactly the right place can be moved along with the code.
- Do be concise. Say what you need to say to help your six-month-ahead analog know what’s going on and do the right thing. You probably won’t be less busy in six months than you are now so don’t make your future self take more precious seconds than needed to grasp the concept.
- Do be clear. Concise is good but not at the risk of being obtuse. Comments like “// Now do it” might satisfy a requirement to add comments but don’t really tell you anything. I once worked on a product that consisted of about a million lines of assembler, and the rule was that every line had to have a meaningful trailing comment. It could be a real challenge at times but was a good exercise in commenting.
- Don’t be lazy. If you code properly, your code should keep working for years to come in completely unforeseen environments, and future generations of programmers will look at your code and be impressed with how well you organized things logically and did exactly what you set out to do. But most of us don’t write such flawless code, and adding a comment that says what you intended to do will help future maintainers answer the question “what was this coder thinking?”
- Don’t get on a soapbox. Keep your comments relative to what’s in front of you and avoid indulging in rants about the likely ancestry of the person who designed this, or why you don’t like Perl or PHP or whatever. It may be cathartic but adds to the noise level and makes it less likely that others will take the trouble to maintain your comments.
- Don’t make your comments personal. If you sign all your comments as a personal statement of opinion, future maintainers will be less likely to change the comments to reflect a better understanding of the code. They may add more comments so that it’s necessary to read an entire trail of comments to grasp what’s happening. That may work when the trail length is <= 2 but breaks down somewhere after 1. Make your comments functional and treat them as if they are snippets of logical thought revealing design decisions driving this particular code.
- Don’t write comments that only you will understand. Others should eventually read your comments as well, so be clear (see above) and don’t make the language in your comments harder to understand than need be.
Commenting in a way that helps you and others quickly grasp the intention, implementation details and context of code is as much an art as a part of good tactical software development. Like any art, your commenting skills can only improve with practice.
One of the keys to quality in software development are deltas, or changes. This is an aspect of what I call tactical software development, or those aspects of software development that are more focused on “how you should write and test code” rather than “how should you plan and organize projects.”
Pair programming, for example, is often considered a part of Extreme Programming, a popular lightweight methodology, yet it falls under the umbrella of what I’d call tactics.
Pair programming is effective because it puts two pairs of eyes on every line of code that is written, as it is written. One person is always waiting to get his or her hands on the keyboard, and in the meantime can think about how the next piece of code can be written. Pair programming also speeds up the ramp-up time for getting a new person started on a project – the new programmer is paired with someone who is already familiar with the project, so there is very little time needed for the new programmer to try to figure out where to start.
Pair programming has its drawbacks, however. It only works when schedules are normalized so that everyone works the same hours – not always a problem in the traditional office environment, but it means that alternatives like occasionally working from home will either be restricted or will be done outside the pair programming paradigm.
Adding a lightweight process called Technical Walk-Through (or TWT for short) provides many of the benefits of pair programming but with added flexibility. Here’s how Technical Walk-Through works:
- All changes to a project, whether changes to existing code or adding new code or components, are broken into change units. A change unit should correspond to a single version control commit, and should always represent a functional change. It is unacceptable to check in code that will break the build or that is incomplete, other than in some exceptional circumstances.
- Before a change unit is checked in, the person who worked on it will prepare a directory where copies of the before and after code along with diff listings are available for review. They will then write a document which explains the changes enough so that another software engineer looking at the diff or source listings will be able to make sense of the changes.
- Another team member will then go through the document and all the changes. Reading code changes can be tedious but is meant to catch oversights. It also provides cross-training on different areas of codes. The reviewer need not be someone as experienced as the person preparing the changes, but they are responsible for understanding every change.
- Finally, if the reviewer is satisfied that the changes make sense – the reviewer is not responsible for testing the actual code, only for making sure that the changes make sense and don’t have any obvious errors or omissions – the changes are checked in with a checkin comment which may contain a synopsis from the change document, and perhaps a unique identifier for the TWT.
If one prolific coder has worked for two weeks adding a new subsystem to the Linux kernel, for example, it could take another experienced programmer an entire day just to read through and understand the changes. Part of the benefit of this process is that it makes the person who’s about to commit changes think about “why did I do this?” and in many cases, problems or loose ends will be caught before even submitting the TWT for review.
It also makes coders more aware of the need to write code in a way that appropriate comments help someone who is reading the code for the first time to quickly grasp what’s going on. But that’s a topic for another day…
There has been a lot of hoopla over the years regarding various software development methodologies. Personally, I’ve found that many of them distract from the real issues in software development. The only one that I’ve found appealing is Scrum, which is far more lightweight than most of the more traditional methods.
I find one thing missing from Scrum, however. Like most methodologies, it focuses on the strategic aspects of software development: what are we going to do, what are the steps we can break it into, how can we track our progress through those steps. It does not deal with tactics: how should code be organized, how should code be written, how should code be reviewed (if at all).
Advocates of various methodologies and certification models such as CMM (Capabilities Maturity Model) are probably jumping up and down and screaming, “But our approach WORKS!!!”
And I agree with them. All of the methodologies that have survived do so because they work. However, I’m more concerned with WHY they work than WHETHER they work at all.
Good software development aims at a balance between creative drive and consideration of consequences. There are many bright young engineers who can write code that works and find creative and well thought-out solutions to difficult problems. However, in my experience there is a widespread lack of considering the consequences of code changes or rewrites. Finding a better balance, where “better” means that the quality of code produced is superior, more maintainable, less bug-ridden, and better fits the requirements, involves a different approach.
This is what I like to call “delta-driven coding.” Anyone who spends a good deal of their time managing large chunks of other people’s code through merges will relate to this idea. Creating new code is also introducing a delta, or change.
And this is where we get back to tactics. Most methodologies are successful for a number of reasons, but one prominent (and slightly embarrassing) reason is this: they produce better code simply because they slow things down. In other words, most methodologies produce better software for the same reason that reduced speed limits are claimed to save lives: when people drive slower, they think more about where they are going and have time to react intelligently (if sober).
If we recognize the importance of delta or change, we can focus on the aspects of lightweight methodologies that encourage us to consider the impact of every change. This is the key to effective delta-driven software development.
Recently the CEO of InfoSys generated a bit of buzz by claiming that American programmers are mostly unemployable. I’d have to agree with him on one count – someone with his outdated ideas of organizational behavior should probably go elsewhere to find people more experienced in passive-aggressive colonial dynamics.
To put this in perspective, let me recount an adventure I had while in India a few years back. I was living in a rural area at the time, and on a visit to the greater New Delhi area to get a laptop fixed I ended up in the same building as a recent acquaintance named Ganpathi. I called him to ask if I could visit and he agreed. I came upstairs, signed in, and he took me into the office where he worked, and introduced me to his boss. The boss asked Ganpathi and I to follow him to a conference room and told Ganpathi he was not allowed to have any visitors here, and when we were done chit-chatting he could go home and don’t bother coming back again. Then he left the room.
In case you missed that, the guy was fired without notice or warning. And in case you were wondering, he didn’t work in the control room of a nuclear reactor. This is the management paradigm that InfoSys can’t really keep in the US because of employment law, but at the very least they would prefer to hire people who don’t object to being treated this way.
However, the companies that are really successful in India, like Microsoft and Convergys, have taken a more open approach to management which fosters creativity rather than the old-school colonial approach. They suffer from the same problems as technology companies elsewhere, such as competition amongst middle management and pressure to work more hours, but have discovered the real key to taking advantage of the Indian talent pool: you have a lot of raw talent to pick from, and you just need to create the right environment (both literally and organizationally) for them to thrive.
There are also those who feel the advantage of outsourcing is just getting things done cheaper, and there’s a niche for them as well. InfoSys is happy to take on their big projects and put hordes of people on them, and if any of them misbehave, they will be fired and replaced because with a billion people you can always find a replacement.