Do you really not understand the difference between a personal and a professional reference?
A personal reference is an endorsement of you by someone who knows you, speaking in a personal capacity. A professional reference is an endorsement of you by a company.
Companies don't like to give professional references because it's just an effort that leads to additional risk -- if you're a fuckup, and the new employer has a professional reference, there's a chance the new employer sues the old employer for misrepresentation of your abilities. Much more difficult to pursue an individual in that way.
That's why most companies will only give the essential facts: start and end dates, and that's it.
I'm surprised to hear HP Enterprise was asking for professional references. I think they may actually have meant a reference as to your professional skills from someone in a position to know, not a reference as to your professional skills from your former employer.
Wow. I knew you were dim, but hadn't realised it was as bad as all that.
Shall we spell it out? Why not, it'll be fun. You can have a rising real terms budget for the NHS, and yet have a falling budget in percentage of GDP terms. Which is in fact what's happened -- who'd have thought?! You can even look on the very same King's Fund website you so cleverly reference and find out the details. I've spent 20 years working in healthcare, so I reckon I'm a mite more informed on this subject than you. Also, I didn't vote Leave, so unlike you, I'm not a muppet and I haven't publicly demonstrated my inability to cope with maths. And I'm also sufficiently well informed to realise that the major driver of cost in healthcare is increasing life expectancy. I'm old enough to remember the halcyon days prior to the Tories fucking the NHS up when we had a whizzy slogan on just this point: World-class Commissioning, adding life to years, and years to life. Bracing stuff, eh?
"I may or may not be xenophobic but you have no way to judge that" That's a corker! That is genuinely a line up there with the very best of such masterly Brexit witticisms as "the people have had enough of experts". I'll judge you by the content and tone of your posts, and the fact that you've voted to Leave. You're a xenophobe, although you may be one who's not got the guts to admit it.
So add all that together, and I'm really quite pleased I managed to piss you off. You and your fucknugget friends have damaged our economy and given cover to violent bigots, so it was really the least I could do to return the favour. If you have an apoplexy at this grave set of insults to your character that I've launched, do be sure to insist on only true English-born clinicians for your treatment. Wouldn't want to count yourself a hypocrite, as well as a bigot, after all.
I live in London. London has lots of immigrants. They drive the success of the city, and they support the delivery of public services.
Public services, utilities etc are under strain because we've had years and years of cuts and failure to invest. The NHS was in the best state it's ever been in at the time the Coalition government came to power, and Lansley and Hunt fucked it up royally in six short years. Migrants made fuck-all difference to any of this. Taking % of GDP spend from approaching 10 to 6 had a catastrophic impact. The fact that the best leaders the NHS ever had eventually gave up in despair and left made a huge difference.
But you go ahead and blame foreigners. It'll make you feel better, despite being an idiotic, xenophobic misdiagnosis of the problem.
Did you even read the Full Fact article to which you linked? It found that the evidence to support Theresa May's assertion was, to put it mildly, not robust.
The UK isn't full. It isn't even close to full. The notion it doesn't have any more room is risible. If you don't want to make social security payments to kids in Poland, we're going to have to repatriate 1.5 million retirees from France and Spain and that will fuck over our health and social services systems. Migration does not cause any of what you think it causes.
Alexander de Pfeffel Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are *just as much the elite* as Cameron.
Where do people like you get your economic insights from? The Daily fucking Mail?
The reason wages don't match house prices in the UK is that UK governments keep house prices high because the people who elected them feel richer when their primary asset inflates (and house purchasers vote much more than renters).
The evidence shows that immigration as a whole drives long term improvements to economic performance for a country. There is some contested evidence that unskilled migration may have a depressive effect on incomes for the lowest skilled people in society, and it's patently clear that heartland towns like Bury and Sunderland need structural investment to secure their future, but that really isn't the same thing *at all* as a claim that migration is bad for national economies, long-run.
I think it is, however, clear that the Brexit camp have not a fucking clue what they have just unleashed: - Either we get a legal route by which EU people can reach mainland UK without passing through a border control - Or, we get a hard border right across the single most sensitive security spot in the British Isles and quite likely restart Irish terrorism
I think a huge amount of people genuinely do not get international relations. They don't understand that the UK has signed fourteen thousand treaties, every single one of which involves conceding some element of joint sovereignty, because *surprise* -- when two or more countries agree to abide by a set of rules, they are voluntarily giving up the power to break those rules in pursuit of common interests.
It is unbelievably depressing how many drooling morons there are in my country, banging on about sovereignty and taking back our country (bleurch).
I beg your fucking pardon? It's called the *European* Working Time Directive for a reason, ya know. The UK stayed out of the social chapter *precisely* because it wanted more labour market flexibility. And Patrick Minford, Dan Hannan, Dominic Cummings and the rest of the swivel-eyed free-trade faction of the Leave campaign have always been absolutely explicit about saying that they want out from EU labour market laws (among other things).
You people are really really fucking clueless. And the fact that you think you aren't is even scarier.
Please don't mistake my post for an endorsement of these plans. I happen to think they're stupid. I was simply trying to describe the plans in more detail, and more precisely.
Given that you were exposed to spelling and grammar for years at school, yet remain functionally illiterate, that seems the triumph of hope over expectation.
On the consumption tax, as I understand it, he's proposing eliminating state and federal income tax, instituting a flat-rate consumption tax instead. Taxes for purchases of "basic necessities" would be prebated (which actually appears to amount to a universal basic income in the form of a check to anyone holding a social security number).
I'm from the UK. In my country, the police *are* routinely unarmed.
It's fabulous. It's why, last year, there were 3 gun deaths at the hands of police for the whole of the UK. (That's all gun deaths, not just innocent victims). In the 26 years since 1990, there've been 60 gun deaths at the hands of police.
In 2011, there were 44 gun murders in the whole of the UK. 44! Just to remind you, in the same year, the US had 11,101. That's 250 times as many for a population that was five times the size, a fifty-fold difference in the rate. If you could get your gun murder rate down to ours, you'd have about 200 murders a year. Conversely, if our rate increased to the same as yours, we'd have more than 2,000.
For someone who doesn't like the extremes of argument, you do spend an awful lot of time putting forward very absolutist statements. Like this one: "In the United States you don't get make another person's self-defense choices for them. For better or worse we have the right to keep and bear arms in this country."
The situation is not nearly so black-and-white as this. The right to bear arms is not a right to bear *any type* of arms. So, yes, in the United States, the government (not individuals, except insofar as the government reflects their views and votes) does "get to make another person's self-defence choices for them". In particular, the government gets to say: there are some types of arms which you may not bear in self-defence. These include: nuclear bombs, conventional bombs, RPGs, tanks, Apaches, etc. The government also used to include assault rifles on that list. One day, it may do so again. Even if that does disgruntle people who think it's very unfair. We can but hope.
I read your post quite carefully. While you said you do not feel the need to carry a firearm in all situations, you also described at some length your views on the likelihood or otherwise of a blue-on-blue incident occurring "in the midst of chaos", as you put it. You made it quite clear that you thought it would be easy to distinguish the good from the bad. So complaining that my assumption that you would make such a judgement based on your own lived experience, rather than simply hand-waving about a theoretical good guy, seems a bit overdone, to be honest. If you didn't make such a judgement based on your own experience, what on earth *is* the basis for your confident assertions that it's easy to tell the good guys from the bad in a shooting situation? Why would you downplay the long experience of war, policing and trainers, all of which points to blue-on-blue as being a significant issue? I mean, I linked to a home-defence organisation's training site -- it's not exactly a site that's a mecca for gun control, is it?
Furthermore, it's a bit rich of you to complain about my not reading your posts carefully. My OP says: "So each good guy *could* make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad. Yet you characterised this as: "the oft-repeated notion that the "good guys" will *automatically* start shooting each other". From my "could" to your "automatically": you assign to me an extremeness of rhetoric that is not present in my actual statement, and then use it to berate me. That, my friend, is the quintessence of strawman argumentation.
All that said, your argument is stupid. It's the stuff of people who do not like firearms and grasp to any argument -- no matter how tenuous -- that can be made to discredit their use. You want to know how you tell the good guys from the bad in the midst of such chaos? The good guys are not fucking walking around shooting masses of unarmed people who are begging for their lives!!!!
You are absolutely deluding yourself about your ability to distinguish between good guys and bad guys -- just like everyone is convinced they're a better than average driver. There is a reason why the military train regularly and hard on situational awareness -- the ability to make muscle memory and rational thinking count for more than fight/flight/freeze instincts in a surprise high-stress situation is a very perishable skill. Many people struggle even to draw a weapon from a holster in an unexpected gunfight, all the more so if concealed. The assertion that it takes extensive initial training and high levels of maintenance training to be able to respond effectively in a firefight is hardly my conceit, it's widely accepted and forms the basis of much training for the police and the armed forces in countries around the world -- and firearms training courses aimed at civilians too. For example: http://www.homedefensegun.net/...
The fact that you think this is some kind of contentious straw man, and that by implication, you think it would be straightforward to reliably identify and accurately shoot a bad guy, is a clear example of false confidence.
What a pile of bollocks in relation to the UK. You could not possibly provide credible back up to that claim of a link between Muslim immigration levels and violence in the UK. Not least because violence in the UK has been *declining* for two decades. You could literally count every gun massacre in the UK in the past several decades on one hand: there was the Dunblane shooting in 1996 (18 deaths), the Cumbria shooting in 2010 (12 deaths) and the Hungerford shooting of 1987 (16 deaths). Gun attacks and gun deaths are not part of the lived experience of the overwhelming majority of British people. Would that the same could be said of US citizens.
More accurately, some facts support one argument, and other facts support the countervailing position.
There is a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths when you look by geography (between US states, and between countries). There is a clear inverse correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths when you look over time within the US.
You are envisaging a situation where a single good guy pulls out a gun and accurately shoots and kills the single bad guy, and that's it.
This is, to put it mildly, optimistic: more than one good guy will pull out a gun, they won't all be accurate, and the bad guy being killed would not guarantee the shooting stops, because -- and here's the crucial bit -- the good guys won't be wearing special good guy uniforms. So each good guy could make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad.
Slashdot Mirror
High house prices are a significant problem. They indicate an excess of demand over supply.
Rapidly falling house prices are a significant problem. They indicate a rapid loss of faith in the economy.
It is perfectly possible for both of these things to be true at the same time.
If I have a sore finger, taking an axe to it is not a cure.
Too low a bar for constitutionally significant decisions. It's why it's not used in other countries who hold referendums.
Why you couldn't look this up yourself on about a gazillion websites addressing politics is beyond me.
What a pile of arse. Britain does not have the strongest of European economies. It hasn't for decades. It won't for decades in the future.
The strongest economy in Europe is Germany.
Can you cite any actual evidence that the British economy is stronger than the Germany economy?
Can you cite any actual evidence about anything at all? Other than the fact that you know fuck-all about Europe and the UK?
Most companies won't even want to do that. They don't want to be sued for defamation by an ex-employee.
Do you really not understand the difference between a personal and a professional reference?
A personal reference is an endorsement of you by someone who knows you, speaking in a personal capacity. A professional reference is an endorsement of you by a company.
Companies don't like to give professional references because it's just an effort that leads to additional risk -- if you're a fuckup, and the new employer has a professional reference, there's a chance the new employer sues the old employer for misrepresentation of your abilities. Much more difficult to pursue an individual in that way.
That's why most companies will only give the essential facts: start and end dates, and that's it.
I'm surprised to hear HP Enterprise was asking for professional references. I think they may actually have meant a reference as to your professional skills from someone in a position to know, not a reference as to your professional skills from your former employer.
Wow. I knew you were dim, but hadn't realised it was as bad as all that.
Shall we spell it out? Why not, it'll be fun. You can have a rising real terms budget for the NHS, and yet have a falling budget in percentage of GDP terms. Which is in fact what's happened -- who'd have thought?! You can even look on the very same King's Fund website you so cleverly reference and find out the details. I've spent 20 years working in healthcare, so I reckon I'm a mite more informed on this subject than you. Also, I didn't vote Leave, so unlike you, I'm not a muppet and I haven't publicly demonstrated my inability to cope with maths. And I'm also sufficiently well informed to realise that the major driver of cost in healthcare is increasing life expectancy. I'm old enough to remember the halcyon days prior to the Tories fucking the NHS up when we had a whizzy slogan on just this point: World-class Commissioning, adding life to years, and years to life. Bracing stuff, eh?
"I may or may not be xenophobic but you have no way to judge that"
That's a corker! That is genuinely a line up there with the very best of such masterly Brexit witticisms as "the people have had enough of experts".
I'll judge you by the content and tone of your posts, and the fact that you've voted to Leave. You're a xenophobe, although you may be one who's not got the guts to admit it.
So add all that together, and I'm really quite pleased I managed to piss you off. You and your fucknugget friends have damaged our economy and given cover to violent bigots, so it was really the least I could do to return the favour. If you have an apoplexy at this grave set of insults to your character that I've launched, do be sure to insist on only true English-born clinicians for your treatment. Wouldn't want to count yourself a hypocrite, as well as a bigot, after all.
I live in London. London has lots of immigrants. They drive the success of the city, and they support the delivery of public services.
Public services, utilities etc are under strain because we've had years and years of cuts and failure to invest. The NHS was in the best state it's ever been in at the time the Coalition government came to power, and Lansley and Hunt fucked it up royally in six short years. Migrants made fuck-all difference to any of this. Taking % of GDP spend from approaching 10 to 6 had a catastrophic impact. The fact that the best leaders the NHS ever had eventually gave up in despair and left made a huge difference.
But you go ahead and blame foreigners. It'll make you feel better, despite being an idiotic, xenophobic misdiagnosis of the problem.
Did you even read the Full Fact article to which you linked? It found that the evidence to support Theresa May's assertion was, to put it mildly, not robust.
Christ, you really are a muppet, aren't you.
The UK isn't full. It isn't even close to full. The notion it doesn't have any more room is risible.
If you don't want to make social security payments to kids in Poland, we're going to have to repatriate 1.5 million retirees from France and Spain and that will fuck over our health and social services systems.
Migration does not cause any of what you think it causes.
Alexander de Pfeffel Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are *just as much the elite* as Cameron.
Where do people like you get your economic insights from? The Daily fucking Mail?
The reason wages don't match house prices in the UK is that UK governments keep house prices high because the people who elected them feel richer when their primary asset inflates (and house purchasers vote much more than renters).
The evidence shows that immigration as a whole drives long term improvements to economic performance for a country. There is some contested evidence that unskilled migration may have a depressive effect on incomes for the lowest skilled people in society, and it's patently clear that heartland towns like Bury and Sunderland need structural investment to secure their future, but that really isn't the same thing *at all* as a claim that migration is bad for national economies, long-run.
I agree it's not a given that NI will join RoI.
I think it is, however, clear that the Brexit camp have not a fucking clue what they have just unleashed:
- Either we get a legal route by which EU people can reach mainland UK without passing through a border control
- Or, we get a hard border right across the single most sensitive security spot in the British Isles and quite likely restart Irish terrorism
Fuckweasel Brexit fucknuggets.
Ahem. I understand you're cross, but you might not want to go on about colonies when Spain still owns Ceuta and Melilla...
I think a huge amount of people genuinely do not get international relations. They don't understand that the UK has signed fourteen thousand treaties, every single one of which involves conceding some element of joint sovereignty, because *surprise* -- when two or more countries agree to abide by a set of rules, they are voluntarily giving up the power to break those rules in pursuit of common interests.
It is unbelievably depressing how many drooling morons there are in my country, banging on about sovereignty and taking back our country (bleurch).
I beg your fucking pardon? It's called the *European* Working Time Directive for a reason, ya know. The UK stayed out of the social chapter *precisely* because it wanted more labour market flexibility. And Patrick Minford, Dan Hannan, Dominic Cummings and the rest of the swivel-eyed free-trade faction of the Leave campaign have always been absolutely explicit about saying that they want out from EU labour market laws (among other things).
You people are really really fucking clueless. And the fact that you think you aren't is even scarier.
Please don't mistake my post for an endorsement of these plans. I happen to think they're stupid. I was simply trying to describe the plans in more detail, and more precisely.
Given that you were exposed to spelling and grammar for years at school, yet remain functionally illiterate, that seems the triumph of hope over expectation.
Why is this moderated as Interesting? It's a re-hash of a set of tropes that everyone has surely heard before.
On the consumption tax, as I understand it, he's proposing eliminating state and federal income tax, instituting a flat-rate consumption tax instead. Taxes for purchases of "basic necessities" would be prebated (which actually appears to amount to a universal basic income in the form of a check to anyone holding a social security number).
I'm from the UK. In my country, the police *are* routinely unarmed.
It's fabulous. It's why, last year, there were 3 gun deaths at the hands of police for the whole of the UK. (That's all gun deaths, not just innocent victims). In the 26 years since 1990, there've been 60 gun deaths at the hands of police.
In 2011, there were 44 gun murders in the whole of the UK. 44! Just to remind you, in the same year, the US had 11,101. That's 250 times as many for a population that was five times the size, a fifty-fold difference in the rate. If you could get your gun murder rate down to ours, you'd have about 200 murders a year. Conversely, if our rate increased to the same as yours, we'd have more than 2,000.
For someone who doesn't like the extremes of argument, you do spend an awful lot of time putting forward very absolutist statements. Like this one: "In the United States you don't get make another person's self-defense choices for them. For better or worse we have the right to keep and bear arms in this country."
The situation is not nearly so black-and-white as this. The right to bear arms is not a right to bear *any type* of arms. So, yes, in the United States, the government (not individuals, except insofar as the government reflects their views and votes) does "get to make another person's self-defence choices for them". In particular, the government gets to say: there are some types of arms which you may not bear in self-defence. These include: nuclear bombs, conventional bombs, RPGs, tanks, Apaches, etc. The government also used to include assault rifles on that list. One day, it may do so again. Even if that does disgruntle people who think it's very unfair. We can but hope.
I read your post quite carefully. While you said you do not feel the need to carry a firearm in all situations, you also described at some length your views on the likelihood or otherwise of a blue-on-blue incident occurring "in the midst of chaos", as you put it. You made it quite clear that you thought it would be easy to distinguish the good from the bad. So complaining that my assumption that you would make such a judgement based on your own lived experience, rather than simply hand-waving about a theoretical good guy, seems a bit overdone, to be honest. If you didn't make such a judgement based on your own experience, what on earth *is* the basis for your confident assertions that it's easy to tell the good guys from the bad in a shooting situation? Why would you downplay the long experience of war, policing and trainers, all of which points to blue-on-blue as being a significant issue? I mean, I linked to a home-defence organisation's training site -- it's not exactly a site that's a mecca for gun control, is it?
Furthermore, it's a bit rich of you to complain about my not reading your posts carefully. My OP says: "So each good guy *could* make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad. Yet you characterised this as: "the oft-repeated notion that the "good guys" will *automatically* start shooting each other". From my "could" to your "automatically": you assign to me an extremeness of rhetoric that is not present in my actual statement, and then use it to berate me. That, my friend, is the quintessence of strawman argumentation.
All that said, your argument is stupid. It's the stuff of people who do not like firearms and grasp to any argument -- no matter how tenuous -- that can be made to discredit their use. You want to know how you tell the good guys from the bad in the midst of such chaos? The good guys are not fucking walking around shooting masses of unarmed people who are begging for their lives!!!!
You are absolutely deluding yourself about your ability to distinguish between good guys and bad guys -- just like everyone is convinced they're a better than average driver. There is a reason why the military train regularly and hard on situational awareness -- the ability to make muscle memory and rational thinking count for more than fight/flight/freeze instincts in a surprise high-stress situation is a very perishable skill. Many people struggle even to draw a weapon from a holster in an unexpected gunfight, all the more so if concealed. The assertion that it takes extensive initial training and high levels of maintenance training to be able to respond effectively in a firefight is hardly my conceit, it's widely accepted and forms the basis of much training for the police and the armed forces in countries around the world -- and firearms training courses aimed at civilians too. For example: http://www.homedefensegun.net/...
The fact that you think this is some kind of contentious straw man, and that by implication, you think it would be straightforward to reliably identify and accurately shoot a bad guy, is a clear example of false confidence.
What a pile of bollocks in relation to the UK. You could not possibly provide credible back up to that claim of a link between Muslim immigration levels and violence in the UK. Not least because violence in the UK has been *declining* for two decades. You could literally count every gun massacre in the UK in the past several decades on one hand: there was the Dunblane shooting in 1996 (18 deaths), the Cumbria shooting in 2010 (12 deaths) and the Hungerford shooting of 1987 (16 deaths). Gun attacks and gun deaths are not part of the lived experience of the overwhelming majority of British people. Would that the same could be said of US citizens.
More accurately, some facts support one argument, and other facts support the countervailing position.
There is a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths when you look by geography (between US states, and between countries).
There is a clear inverse correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths when you look over time within the US.
You are envisaging a situation where a single good guy pulls out a gun and accurately shoots and kills the single bad guy, and that's it.
This is, to put it mildly, optimistic: more than one good guy will pull out a gun, they won't all be accurate, and the bad guy being killed would not guarantee the shooting stops, because -- and here's the crucial bit -- the good guys won't be wearing special good guy uniforms. So each good guy could make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad.