It isn't pretending, it is attempting to meet a standard. Humans always fall short of perfect standards and that is no secret, but that also doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive to achieve them.
Your suggestion seems to be to give up on that standard and let every sentence be applied without *any* objective standard. It seems to me that your approach would actually end up achieving the opposite of what you want--without any generally agreed upon standard, all sentences would be wildly variable and satisfy even less people.
So, yes, I can see why we disagree.
I dislike Palin as much as the next normal IQ American, but I can't agree with your end-justifies-the-means approach based on your heavily-stereotyped view of a particular group, especially since the reasoning is based on broad speculation and bigotry.
It sounds like you are saying what the kid did should be punished based on some sliding scale that takes into account who the victim is and whether or not the victim was doing something you agree with.
That sounds awfully subjective and impossible to translate into any population's diverse number of world-views.
No, because it wouldn't have had the same impact. His actions had influence on a major election. Would anyone upset by the verdict be as upset if the victim had been Joe Biden?
Ultimately, employers should be able to do what ever they believe will help them choose the best candidates, as long as it is within the law. But, remember that an interview is a two-way street... how the interviewer behaves and the expectations they reveal will tell you a great deal about the employer.
You will have to decide for yourself if this is a company you would want to work.
My sense is that the places that have asked me to test tend to want to treat IT professionals as a commodity, and thus not a place I want to work. If they can't field someone to talk with me to determine the depth of my knowledge then I usually see that as a problem.
Well, I'm not going to argue, but perhaps you should look at the FLSA, hope your brain doesn't hurt too much, andthen and ask why this had to be done. I think you also need to consider how IBM would have absorbed the cost of keeping the salaries the same and paying overtime, which more than half of the affected employees do as some articles are reporting.
Wait a minute. Hatred of Microsoft aside, why wouldn't this logic apply to any significant piece of software? All software salespeople have to contend with marketing against prior versions and new features, aging standards, lifecycle costs, etc. are all valid arguments, aren't they?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't pretending, it is attempting to meet a standard. Humans always fall short of perfect standards and that is no secret, but that also doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive to achieve them. Your suggestion seems to be to give up on that standard and let every sentence be applied without *any* objective standard. It seems to me that your approach would actually end up achieving the opposite of what you want--without any generally agreed upon standard, all sentences would be wildly variable and satisfy even less people. So, yes, I can see why we disagree.
I dislike Palin as much as the next normal IQ American, but I can't agree with your end-justifies-the-means approach based on your heavily-stereotyped view of a particular group, especially since the reasoning is based on broad speculation and bigotry. It sounds like you are saying what the kid did should be punished based on some sliding scale that takes into account who the victim is and whether or not the victim was doing something you agree with. That sounds awfully subjective and impossible to translate into any population's diverse number of world-views.
No, because it wouldn't have had the same impact. His actions had influence on a major election. Would anyone upset by the verdict be as upset if the victim had been Joe Biden?
Yeah, and if it is too hard for Viacom, exactly how is it easier for YouTube who has significantly less visibility into what is infringing?
Ultimately, employers should be able to do what ever they believe will help them choose the best candidates, as long as it is within the law. But, remember that an interview is a two-way street... how the interviewer behaves and the expectations they reveal will tell you a great deal about the employer. You will have to decide for yourself if this is a company you would want to work. My sense is that the places that have asked me to test tend to want to treat IT professionals as a commodity, and thus not a place I want to work. If they can't field someone to talk with me to determine the depth of my knowledge then I usually see that as a problem.
Well, I'm not going to argue, but perhaps you should look at the FLSA, hope your brain doesn't hurt too much, andthen and ask why this had to be done. I think you also need to consider how IBM would have absorbed the cost of keeping the salaries the same and paying overtime, which more than half of the affected employees do as some articles are reporting.
That the 15% cut comes with 1.5x regular pay for each hour worked over 40.
Wait a minute. Hatred of Microsoft aside, why wouldn't this logic apply to any significant piece of software? All software salespeople have to contend with marketing against prior versions and new features, aging standards, lifecycle costs, etc. are all valid arguments, aren't they?