Another twist: H.R. personnel think they are "computer savvy" because the can use Word. If you can compile something in gcc you're automatically over-qualified for any job.
I know that the scales are tipped towards the employer by every measurement we have right now, but a job interview is supposed to be a *two way* process. If something is done that makes you uncomfortable, the way it works in a perfect world is that you don't accept a job or go any further even if the company is interested in you.
In my most recent search, I had an interview like that. Of course I was in a position where I could wait for another opportunity and I know some people aren't.
We need to fire these people and do the hiring ourselves. I don't care if it takes more time. If I am ever lucky to run a business this is how I will do it, and I a guarantee you I'll have the best staff of anyone.
I know this is a joke, but this is the type of B.S. conclusion that H.R. folks are now TRAINED to jump to. There are tons of these.
The one that has been making me angry lately is: "the person sent their resume in PDF so we will throw it away since they must not know Office and thus be computer illiterate." It's the exact OPPOSITE of what you want as the person probably used PDF to be friendly to cross platforms. I had a recruiting officer give me a lecture about this while I was job hunting. I don't even own a copy of Microsoft Office.
I think H.R. procedure is akin to voodoo right now.
Oh.. I see what you did there. Yes, since corporations, boards, stockholders aren't held accountable for this breaking the law ISN'T a bad choice in their eyes.
In the mid-90s I sometimes had to handle dial-up tech support through a relay.
I felt sad for the operators. I had some where I had to give bad news to the caller that ended with the operator having to say something like "Fuck you." Again, adding anonymous to any conversation involves the "unified fuckwad theory."
This is another reason phone based tech support is the worst job in the industry.
Greenspan was in disbelief because he was a blind follower of a bankrupt philosophy.
One of the many major problems of Objectivism is that power corrupts. People won't always act rationally and they will steamroll people just because they can.
I happen to believe that the deregulation of the banks was A if not THE major cause of the collapse we saw in 2008, however the question isn't whether all regulation is bad or all regulation is good. That's the way the debate is framed in our rock-stupid political discourse and our current dumbass presidential campaign.
The *real* debate should be what regulation is appropriate in what situation. When you talk about over-regulation of small business most people have a good point. Small business can't bring down the economy and small businesses individually don't have much political power. When you talk about huge banks with millions of dollars tied up you have a different issue. They have huge power and they could hurt millions of customers.
It's always what is appropriate. If you believe set of ideas fits all situations then you aren't being realistic or you're a professional troll like Rush Limbaugh.
Every action that Congress makes, especially THIS particular election cycle, is what their lobbyist buddies want first and what is good for the overall country second. The common good motive has totally gone out the window and it's totally corrupt. There was doubt before but there isn't now.
I don't personally have the RMS point of view. I have no problem with commercial software (with caveats of course, I think software patents are wrong and I think locking up file formats is wrong, etc). There are some small areas of the economy that would never get software if everything was open source because open source require a huge number of users to work (which is why it works so well with Apache, Linux, etc). However, I think the open source model works better.
Not every person that this FOSS is better think the way RMS does. I am happy with both.
I think you should re-read the comment. I didn't posit any fanatic point of view. I think they have a shewed view of linux. Period. Nothing to do with think Linux is better. It's my preference and I think it works better than it is given credit for. That doesn't sound fanatical to me.
Linux us NOT missing features. This is the same B.S. we heard constantly with MacOS in the days before OS X came out. There wasn't features (or software) missing then and there isn't now for either MacOS or Linux.
What it is missing is simply the user base to get past the tipping point where the even the worst and laziest developers and companies have to take notice because enough people squeal when you do something idiotic like put PHP code in your web page that blocks a non-Windows browser. As a Linux desktop user I still have to deal with this (though not nearly as much as I used to) when all that has to be done is to make the site work with WebKit and/or Firefox. Simple.
The second biggest category are just companies that are haters, and I have to believe Adobe falls into this area. They have the expertise in house to port the Adobe suite to Linux and Unix but they just won't do it. You can see by their other offerings that they have the ability to do it but they just won't, whether it is because of bean counting or because of OS religious hate. I also think MS probably bends their ear about it because there are plenty of developers that would leave MS behind forever (those that can't afford to go the Macintosh already) if Adobe ported their various tools to Linux.
Having said that there is a legitimate OS alternative for just about every Adobe tool now except for the super-high-end items (and yes, if you get off your butt and learn it Gimp will do just about everything PS will do save some of the newest of the new items Adobe has come up with. PS is in its place because it made itself the standard and that is what people learned. It's a great application, but 99% of the users won't use the power embedded in it).
However, with the fact that the RIAA has just a broad definition of "piracy" (a word that has been misused to the point it is now meaningless for any precise usage) this becomes the classic slippery slope problem. The *AAs can just as easily start to call *in store* usage piracy as well. It would been shooting their own foot, but they have essentially already shot their own foot with demonizing music lovers with piracy witch hunts.
Copyright isn't about "intellectual property." It's about telling people what they can or can not do with property the legally bought or otherwise aquired. It's about controlling something that has made it out to the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Another twist: H.R. personnel think they are "computer savvy" because the can use Word. If you can compile something in gcc you're automatically over-qualified for any job.
I know that the scales are tipped towards the employer by every measurement we have right now, but a job interview is supposed to be a *two way* process. If something is done that makes you uncomfortable, the way it works in a perfect world is that you don't accept a job or go any further even if the company is interested in you.
In my most recent search, I had an interview like that. Of course I was in a position where I could wait for another opportunity and I know some people aren't.
H.R. procedure.
We need to fire these people and do the hiring ourselves. I don't care if it takes more time. If I am ever lucky to run a business this is how I will do it, and I a guarantee you I'll have the best staff of anyone.
Forth rule of hiring: There are no qualified local candidates.. ever.
Have you looked for a job recently? HR = silly.
Go ahead and flame, but it's an entire profession of people who are 95% incompetent.
Welcome to the paradox of H.R. People with procedures virtually guaranteed to get you a bad candidate.
In most cases they are asking for it to snoop, not as a security test. Most of them aren't that savvy.
But an H.R. drone isn't going to know what slashdot is.
To H.R. drone, not knowing what something is means it is not important. Therefore you're at the same outcome.
I know this is a joke, but this is the type of B.S. conclusion that H.R. folks are now TRAINED to jump to. There are tons of these.
The one that has been making me angry lately is: "the person sent their resume in PDF so we will throw it away since they must not know Office and thus be computer illiterate." It's the exact OPPOSITE of what you want as the person probably used PDF to be friendly to cross platforms. I had a recruiting officer give me a lecture about this while I was job hunting. I don't even own a copy of Microsoft Office.
I think H.R. procedure is akin to voodoo right now.
So it's not a bad choice to break the law?
Oh.. I see what you did there. Yes, since corporations, boards, stockholders aren't held accountable for this breaking the law ISN'T a bad choice in their eyes.
Hold the damn people accountable. Find a way.
Rick Scott is the poster boy for this issue.
In the mid-90s I sometimes had to handle dial-up tech support through a relay.
I felt sad for the operators. I had some where I had to give bad news to the caller that ended with the operator having to say something like "Fuck you." Again, adding anonymous to any conversation involves the "unified fuckwad theory."
This is another reason phone based tech support is the worst job in the industry.
I thought thought the politically correct phrase was "Deaf as a Bat" or maybe "Deaf as a Post."
Where the hell is Garrett Morris? He wouldn't charge as much, I'm sure.
omg! don't hold corporations accountable!
get a grip.
It's already legalized. It's called Credit Default Swaps.
Greenspan was in disbelief because he was a blind follower of a bankrupt philosophy.
One of the many major problems of Objectivism is that power corrupts. People won't always act rationally and they will steamroll people just because they can.
I happen to believe that the deregulation of the banks was A if not THE major cause of the collapse we saw in 2008, however the question isn't whether all regulation is bad or all regulation is good. That's the way the debate is framed in our rock-stupid political discourse and our current dumbass presidential campaign.
The *real* debate should be what regulation is appropriate in what situation. When you talk about over-regulation of small business most people have a good point. Small business can't bring down the economy and small businesses individually don't have much political power. When you talk about huge banks with millions of dollars tied up you have a different issue. They have huge power and they could hurt millions of customers.
It's always what is appropriate. If you believe set of ideas fits all situations then you aren't being realistic or you're a professional troll like Rush Limbaugh.
You may be right, but you need to remember it's a pretty god damn easy thing to do to second guess someone.
I wish I could mod this up.
Every action that Congress makes, especially THIS particular election cycle, is what their lobbyist buddies want first and what is good for the overall country second. The common good motive has totally gone out the window and it's totally corrupt. There was doubt before but there isn't now.
I don't personally have the RMS point of view. I have no problem with commercial software (with caveats of course, I think software patents are wrong and I think locking up file formats is wrong, etc). There are some small areas of the economy that would never get software if everything was open source because open source require a huge number of users to work (which is why it works so well with Apache, Linux, etc). However, I think the open source model works better.
Not every person that this FOSS is better think the way RMS does. I am happy with both.
I think you should re-read the comment. I didn't posit any fanatic point of view. I think they have a shewed view of linux. Period. Nothing to do with think Linux is better. It's my preference and I think it works better than it is given credit for. That doesn't sound fanatical to me.
I actually work with a large Linux installed base. We use cfengine and it's actually more manageable IMHO than anything AC.
good point, but obsolete... at least with the debian distros (your distro may vary).
Linux us NOT missing features. This is the same B.S. we heard constantly with MacOS in the days before OS X came out. There wasn't features (or software) missing then and there isn't now for either MacOS or Linux.
What it is missing is simply the user base to get past the tipping point where the even the worst and laziest developers and companies have to take notice because enough people squeal when you do something idiotic like put PHP code in your web page that blocks a non-Windows browser. As a Linux desktop user I still have to deal with this (though not nearly as much as I used to) when all that has to be done is to make the site work with WebKit and/or Firefox. Simple.
The second biggest category are just companies that are haters, and I have to believe Adobe falls into this area. They have the expertise in house to port the Adobe suite to Linux and Unix but they just won't do it. You can see by their other offerings that they have the ability to do it but they just won't, whether it is because of bean counting or because of OS religious hate. I also think MS probably bends their ear about it because there are plenty of developers that would leave MS behind forever (those that can't afford to go the Macintosh already) if Adobe ported their various tools to Linux.
Having said that there is a legitimate OS alternative for just about every Adobe tool now except for the super-high-end items (and yes, if you get off your butt and learn it Gimp will do just about everything PS will do save some of the newest of the new items Adobe has come up with. PS is in its place because it made itself the standard and that is what people learned. It's a great application, but 99% of the users won't use the power embedded in it).
However, with the fact that the RIAA has just a broad definition of "piracy" (a word that has been misused to the point it is now meaningless for any precise usage) this becomes the classic slippery slope problem. The *AAs can just as easily start to call *in store* usage piracy as well. It would been shooting their own foot, but they have essentially already shot their own foot with demonizing music lovers with piracy witch hunts.
Copyright isn't about "intellectual property." It's about telling people what they can or can not do with property the legally bought or otherwise aquired. It's about controlling something that has made it out to the world.
Those of us in the middle think you should really think about the text and what it has to say.