There are plenty of companies who value experience.
There are. Thankfully my current employer seems to be one of them. I'm in my 50's and got hired a few years ago. It may not hurt that my boss, and the only guy who really counted in hiring me, is the same age as me. There are quite a few older people there though (and plenty of younger ones), so I doubt that's all of it. I also know people a bit older than me who got hired there in recent years.
The fact that some companies are like that though doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of age discrimination.
I imagine he doesn't. Standard American practice, for as long as anyone can remember, was to use a résumé. It makes sense, since a résumé includes all the information that should be relevant to employment. I know cv's are common in Europe, but I don't like the practice. Neither age nor marital status should be any concern of a prospective employer. Also, are they really worried about what elementary school I attended? I've heard of cv's getting that ridiculous.
Typically they ask for bachelor's and master's graduation dates. That isn't necessarily about age discrimination though. If you have a master's and they want your HS grad date, it's another matter. BS and MS say something about your experience level in that field. If you spent 10 years after HS doing something else though, it shouldn't really be their concern. Also, they often (and I have no problem w/ this practice) confirm that you actually got the degree you say from the universities you list. IIRC the fact that a given person graduated from a university, and the degree and year, are considered public information. You need a person's permission to get a transcript, but I'd have no problem giving that since your university record is a legitimate consideration for employment (not that anybody's ever asked for it though).
Can you say "scumbags"? How about "illegally discriminating scumbags"? Good luck proving it though. And even if you have the evidence, it's not like anyone cares about enforcing labor laws anymore. That's been dead since Reagan took office.
Back in the 60's my father had a wrongful termination suit that he pursued through the Dept. of Labor (no need to hire a lawyer, etc.). He won hands down. Think that happens today?
I've always had mixed feelings about unions at best. I've never belonged to one and never wanted to. Back when they still had power though, they served a very good purpose for people in non-union shops - they made employers afraid of them. As a result, it was considered good business practice to treat employees well enough that they didn't want to unionize. Partly as a result of that fear, and the actual enforcement of labor laws, people my father worked with, including his immediate supervisor, had no qualms about testifying on his behalf. Think that would happen today?
I know a lot of people are expressing shock about NSA's overseas SIGINT activities
I'd only be shocked (and upset) if they weren't spying on foreign governments, etc. Germany? Why not. Spying on the average Joe (Fritz, whatever) is another story, though I'm less concerned about it than spying on US citizens, since the US government has much less ability to harm German citizens than US citizens.
Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has inflicted serious blow-back to US foreign policy
Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has resulted in serious kabuki. As you point out, you'd have to be naive to think this wasn't happening, so how much will it actually affect foreign relations?
I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations
Notice how the NSA, and the elected officials of the US government that are supposed to control them, have been rushing to end the domestic abuses? Until they do, keep leaking the embarrassing (but as you point out, hardly surprising) foreign stuff. I don't know whether that's the motivation, but it would be a good justification.
Meanwhile, don't shoot the messenger. The NSA and the elected officials that are supposed to control it have been grossly incompetent, or just plain stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American. If it wasn't for that, Snowden likely would still be in Hawaii. If you go too far, expect it to bite you in the ass.
The fact that you conflate Snowden, Manning, Radack, Rowley, et al, with actual traitors, like the conspirators in Lincoln's assassination, the Rosenbergs (or at least Julius), et al (why did you omit the Walkers?) shows that you suffer from from an extreme authoritarian streak and an inability to use judgment. You seem to think that everyone that the US government claims did something to endanger the "national security" is a traitor. Learn to think for yourself.
P.S. For people like the Walkers, I think they should have brought back drawing and quartering. Some of the other people you mention should have monuments erected to them.
Terrible idea. There is an entire cottage industry devoted to arguing about that. Many books are sold. Considering how bad the economy still is, why would you want to destroy another part of it?
If the USA was smart, they would silently negotiate a deal with Snowden where he is absolved of all charges and is allowed to live freely, perhaps in some undisclosed country, under the protection of US authorities.
1. That would be sensible, and hence contrary to government policy.
2. If I were Snowden, I wouldn't trust a proposed deal like that as far as I could throw a potato chip.
There are a lot of things, actually. None of them have to do with anyone's personal porn stash, or the fever-dreams of people who hate the U.S.
In which case the NSA is grossly incompetent, or to use plainer language, stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American. Maybe they should stick to the important stuff. If they hadn't been unconstitutionally monitoring every American, would Snowden have done what he did? Personally it doesn't bother me if the NSA looks up Merkel's ass every time she takes a dump. If they don't do that with Kim Jong-un, I'd like to know why. But monitoring every American? That's a whole 'nother story, and a good reason for what Snowden did. If they'd stuck to what's important, useful and Constitutional, they wouldn't have this problem. Snowden is a patriot, not a traitor.
Sounds right to me. In fact, Facebook is responsible for most of the world's ill's. Eliminate Zuck and his legion of peons, and we'll end ill health, eliminate hunger, end war, and never have an ingrown toenail again. Sounds good to me.
Forget C++11 - switch to D. No, I can't do it either, but I can dream. C++11, for all that it has some nice features, continues the endless quest to make C++ ever more baroque, and to give it a syntax that makes the result of an obfuscated code contest look the same as any other code. It can be done so much more cleanly. In fact Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu already have.
One of the interesting things about D is that both Bright and Alexandrescu are serious C++ experts. I don't think Bright decided to implement "C++ done right" because he didn't understand the features and nuances of C++.
In the 20+ years I've been coding, I've never once picked a compiler on the basis of how long it takes to spit out a binary.
Then you don't compile big projects. Neither do I, but there are projects where a full build can take hours. Sure build farms and stuff help, but so does a 2x faster compiler.
Why are you only blaming the cops? What about the legislators who drafted and passed the law, the governor who signed it, and (if it's prosecuted) the DA who pursues it.
So it's OK to have a hidden compartment in your car as long as it does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.
Which is one of the reasons laws like this are ridiculous. If they find "a controlled substance or visible residue" anywhere in your car, secret compartment or otherwise, then they can charge you with drug possession, so what's the point of this?
It depends on how the law is written. Strict liability doesn't require mens rea, and even due diligence is not a defense. While the link claims that "United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions", it then goes on to say that:
In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. Frequently, this applies to all sex offenses.
Guess which direction American law is headed in? We have to throw out centuries old protections like the common law requirement of mens rea, because of the existential threat of drug dealers, or terrorists, or NSA leakers, or somebody boinking a 17 year old.
Does this law apply if you buy a used car and you don't even know about the hidden compartment? Surely this can't be Constitutional.
I don't know if this law is written this way, but it is possible to write a law, even a criminal law, with strict liability. That means you're guilty regardless of your intent or even what actions you took to ensure you weren't breaking the law. Nice, huh? Definitely not how things where done in the past. The common law required mens rea (guilty mind). Even absent that, generally due diligence was an acceptable defense. Strict liability in criminal law should be reserved for police states.
then his lawyer should have a pretty easy case for defense
A few years wondering whether you're going up the river (when did the right to a speedy trial become a joke?), the choice between rolling the dice on a trial and accepting a plea bargain even if you did nothing, a few tens of thousands in legal fees, and you're off Scot free. What a reasonable application of an utterly absurd law.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of companies who value experience.
There are. Thankfully my current employer seems to be one of them. I'm in my 50's and got hired a few years ago. It may not hurt that my boss, and the only guy who really counted in hiring me, is the same age as me. There are quite a few older people there though (and plenty of younger ones), so I doubt that's all of it. I also know people a bit older than me who got hired there in recent years.
The fact that some companies are like that though doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of age discrimination.
"Just for Men". This has been an advertisement.
I also remember when "gray beard" was a positive reference for an experienced programmer, just like for a long-time NCO.
you surely do not live in Europe
I imagine he doesn't. Standard American practice, for as long as anyone can remember, was to use a résumé. It makes sense, since a résumé includes all the information that should be relevant to employment. I know cv's are common in Europe, but I don't like the practice. Neither age nor marital status should be any concern of a prospective employer. Also, are they really worried about what elementary school I attended? I've heard of cv's getting that ridiculous.
Aren't you a clever one. Who cares if you could write 10 lines of code - they'll want you as a proofreader instead.
Typically they ask for bachelor's and master's graduation dates. That isn't necessarily about age discrimination though. If you have a master's and they want your HS grad date, it's another matter. BS and MS say something about your experience level in that field. If you spent 10 years after HS doing something else though, it shouldn't really be their concern. Also, they often (and I have no problem w/ this practice) confirm that you actually got the degree you say from the universities you list. IIRC the fact that a given person graduated from a university, and the degree and year, are considered public information. You need a person's permission to get a transcript, but I'd have no problem giving that since your university record is a legitimate consideration for employment (not that anybody's ever asked for it though).
Same here. It's pretty sick that having graduated at a non-traditional age is such an advantage.
Can you say "scumbags"? How about "illegally discriminating scumbags"? Good luck proving it though. And even if you have the evidence, it's not like anyone cares about enforcing labor laws anymore. That's been dead since Reagan took office.
Back in the 60's my father had a wrongful termination suit that he pursued through the Dept. of Labor (no need to hire a lawyer, etc.). He won hands down. Think that happens today?
I've always had mixed feelings about unions at best. I've never belonged to one and never wanted to. Back when they still had power though, they served a very good purpose for people in non-union shops - they made employers afraid of them. As a result, it was considered good business practice to treat employees well enough that they didn't want to unionize. Partly as a result of that fear, and the actual enforcement of labor laws, people my father worked with, including his immediate supervisor, had no qualms about testifying on his behalf. Think that would happen today?
I know a lot of people are expressing shock about NSA's overseas SIGINT activities
I'd only be shocked (and upset) if they weren't spying on foreign governments, etc. Germany? Why not. Spying on the average Joe (Fritz, whatever) is another story, though I'm less concerned about it than spying on US citizens, since the US government has much less ability to harm German citizens than US citizens.
Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has inflicted serious blow-back to US foreign policy
Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has resulted in serious kabuki. As you point out, you'd have to be naive to think this wasn't happening, so how much will it actually affect foreign relations?
I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations
Notice how the NSA, and the elected officials of the US government that are supposed to control them, have been rushing to end the domestic abuses? Until they do, keep leaking the embarrassing (but as you point out, hardly surprising) foreign stuff. I don't know whether that's the motivation, but it would be a good justification.
Meanwhile, don't shoot the messenger. The NSA and the elected officials that are supposed to control it have been grossly incompetent, or just plain stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American. If it wasn't for that, Snowden likely would still be in Hawaii. If you go too far, expect it to bite you in the ass.
The fact that you conflate Snowden, Manning, Radack, Rowley, et al, with actual traitors, like the conspirators in Lincoln's assassination, the Rosenbergs (or at least Julius), et al (why did you omit the Walkers?) shows that you suffer from from an extreme authoritarian streak and an inability to use judgment. You seem to think that everyone that the US government claims did something to endanger the "national security" is a traitor. Learn to think for yourself.
P.S. For people like the Walkers, I think they should have brought back drawing and quartering. Some of the other people you mention should have monuments erected to them.
As long as it exposes who killed JFK
Terrible idea. There is an entire cottage industry devoted to arguing about that. Many books are sold. Considering how bad the economy still is, why would you want to destroy another part of it?
If the USA was smart, they would silently negotiate a deal with Snowden where he is absolved of all charges and is allowed to live freely, perhaps in some undisclosed country, under the protection of US authorities.
1. That would be sensible, and hence contrary to government policy.
2. If I were Snowden, I wouldn't trust a proposed deal like that as far as I could throw a potato chip.
In other words, Snowden is neither stupid nor suicidal.
There are a lot of things, actually. None of them have to do with anyone's personal porn stash, or the fever-dreams of people who hate the U.S.
In which case the NSA is grossly incompetent, or to use plainer language, stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American. Maybe they should stick to the important stuff. If they hadn't been unconstitutionally monitoring every American, would Snowden have done what he did? Personally it doesn't bother me if the NSA looks up Merkel's ass every time she takes a dump. If they don't do that with Kim Jong-un, I'd like to know why. But monitoring every American? That's a whole 'nother story, and a good reason for what Snowden did. If they'd stuck to what's important, useful and Constitutional, they wouldn't have this problem. Snowden is a patriot, not a traitor.
Sounds right to me. In fact, Facebook is responsible for most of the world's ill's. Eliminate Zuck and his legion of peons, and we'll end ill health, eliminate hunger, end war, and never have an ingrown toenail again. Sounds good to me.
Forget C++11 - switch to D. No, I can't do it either, but I can dream. C++11, for all that it has some nice features, continues the endless quest to make C++ ever more baroque, and to give it a syntax that makes the result of an obfuscated code contest look the same as any other code. It can be done so much more cleanly. In fact Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu already have.
One of the interesting things about D is that both Bright and Alexandrescu are serious C++ experts. I don't think Bright decided to implement "C++ done right" because he didn't understand the features and nuances of C++.
In the 20+ years I've been coding, I've never once picked a compiler on the basis of how long it takes to spit out a binary.
Then you don't compile big projects. Neither do I, but there are projects where a full build can take hours. Sure build farms and stuff help, but so does a 2x faster compiler.
"Just following orders" is not a legal excuse
No, but neither is issuing those orders.
Ok, you've reinforced my point.
Why are you only blaming the cops? What about the legislators who drafted and passed the law, the governor who signed it, and (if it's prosecuted) the DA who pursues it.
So it's OK to have a hidden compartment in your car as long as it does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.
Which is one of the reasons laws like this are ridiculous. If they find "a controlled substance or visible residue" anywhere in your car, secret compartment or otherwise, then they can charge you with drug possession, so what's the point of this?
Please tell us what defense the lawyer will use, or what grounds he will use to invalidate the law.
But he was driving a Tesla. He kept a fire extinguisher in the secret compartment.
It depends on how the law is written. Strict liability doesn't require mens rea, and even due diligence is not a defense. While the link claims that "United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions", it then goes on to say that:
In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. Frequently, this applies to all sex offenses.
Guess which direction American law is headed in? We have to throw out centuries old protections like the common law requirement of mens rea, because of the existential threat of drug dealers, or terrorists, or NSA leakers, or somebody boinking a 17 year old.
Does this law apply if you buy a used car and you don't even know about the hidden compartment? Surely this can't be Constitutional.
I don't know if this law is written this way, but it is possible to write a law, even a criminal law, with strict liability. That means you're guilty regardless of your intent or even what actions you took to ensure you weren't breaking the law. Nice, huh? Definitely not how things where done in the past. The common law required mens rea (guilty mind). Even absent that, generally due diligence was an acceptable defense. Strict liability in criminal law should be reserved for police states.
then his lawyer should have a pretty easy case for defense
A few years wondering whether you're going up the river (when did the right to a speedy trial become a joke?), the choice between rolling the dice on a trial and accepting a plea bargain even if you did nothing, a few tens of thousands in legal fees, and you're off Scot free. What a reasonable application of an utterly absurd law.