Well, all of the places I have worked have always had a separate conference room away from the open work-area for any meetings, so that people don't get disturbed by them.
People who talk on the phone all day, people who play music, people who chat constantly about their insipid lives.. etc.
None of that behavior would be tolerated at any place I've worked for the past 20 years. Anyone who was incapable of conducting themselves professionally would likely be told to leave and come back when they've calmed down, and if it was a regular occurence with a person, they would be fired.
... the century has had an open concept plan... workers and QA routinely working in easy eyeshot of eachother, and only the project managers or the owners had their own private offices.
The number of times that another employee has distracted me in that entire time is zero.
If you ask me, I think that the devs are probably opposed to an open work environment is because it gives them less opportunity to waste company time using their computer for non-work-related activities.
If you must justify this position say "confidential to past employer".
So... lie?
I'm not saying you should necessarily disclose your previous salaries, but lying in a job interview is not a good way to start a relationship with any company.
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
Until you are shot with your own gun, of course, or any gun that was stolen for that matter... which is what most murders with guns are committed with.
Of course, since they can be cracked (and seriously, whoever doubted for a second that they wouldn't be?), even having a smart gun isn't a guarantee that it won't still be used against you.
I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but an additional 10 to 15% for human beings is only going to be another 8 to 12 years.... and I just don't see that as particularly revolutionary, because that's not even a single standard deviation more than the average life expectancy already. If you can push it past 2 or 3 standard deviations beyond the norm.... then you've really got something.
I'm not suggesting they would... I am suggesting that in general, a birth certificate would note the person's sex at birth, and if a person is representing themselves as a different gender than the one indicated on their birth certificate, then they are obviously transgender. It's quite simple, really. This would not work, of course, in the case where the birth certificate had no sex listed for the individual, but such certificates are still extraordinarily rare to the best of my knowledge.
Your birth certificate, perhaps? While gender neutral birth certificates exist now, it is still a new enough thing that not very many people have one... particularly since they must be explicitly requested.
100% of the service people are ready for combat theater deployment. You don't get to stay home because you have a combat ready weakness.
These two statements appear to contradict eachother. Either people who are not combat ready do not get into the military or you do not get to stay home because of a combat ready weakness. Which is it?
Even accepting your so-called logic, and further even accepting that US enemies are "not afraid of girly men", there would not be any way in practice to notice any so-called "girliness", because at least generally speaking, the soldiers of opposing sides do not routinely socialize with eachother enough to know them well enough to associate such traits to them. There is no objective standard by which anyone can say that your notion is acceptable... I can't even call it an argument, it is so abysmally flawed.
I wasn't suggesting that they were equivalent... I was simply observing that both religions appear to not place a very high priority on any of the bad stuff that may happen to one on account of their beliefs, and anticipating that in such religions, a devout believer would be inclined to not want to deny their faith simply because of what happens to be a minor material inconvenience in comparison to the scope of what they believe in.
It's a safe bet that if we waited until there was a job market for people who would get laid off on account of technology putting somebody out of work, I dare say we would be living in a very different world than we do. When cars went from being built by hand to being built by machine it put a staggering number of people out of work that had no idea what they were going to do next..... the thing is, once they were in that position, many figured out a way to move on.... a way that they would not have anticipated if they had not been put in the situation where they had to adapt or die.
I would suggest that those "believers" were not as devout as they may have claimed, or else they would not have denied their alleged beliefs. They claim to "believe", but in reality, the only do so at times when it is convenient for them, and are not, if you will forgive the expression, "religiously committed" to their beliefs. The Christian bible calls such people "lukewarm", and suggests an eternity for those people that is less than ideal if they do not change. It's my understanding that muslims are also promised a pleasant hereafter if they die for a righteous cause and in service to Allah... so again, the idea that one would deny their so-called faith on the simple grounds that they may face some worldly unpleasant consequence seems to run against the grain of some major religions that advocate the notion of an eternal hereafter.
Well, it's worth noting that not only was he afraid for himself, but his entire faith was also starting to falter as well... a person whom he thought was more powerful than the world itself was being subjugated by it. My point stands, a person that really believes in their religion, particularly one that subscribes to a notion of spending eternity somewhere isn't about to deny it simply because of some possibility for earthly consequence. It's worth noting that Peter repented of the transgression, and did not repeat it thereafter. In his later years, he risked prison and death several times by speaking out in Jesus' name, and he eventually paid for it with his life.
Of course, that doesn't make anything that he believed true... it simply means that he believed it more than he believed that the consequences of this world were not of any significant importance compared to eternity. Given the belief system that he had, it as even a perfectly rational decision.
If you think about that for just a moment you should realize how silly your question is. A person that truly believes in their religion isn't going to go and deny it, because adhering to their religion is more important than adhering to the laws and/or rules of this world. Reasonably, If one denim, then they clearly aren't passionate enough about any belief they may happen to have to be liable to pose a threat on account of any such beliefs.
Uhmm... why the fuck are they allowing any technology at all into the country then?
*EVERY* technology obsoletes some job that used to be done by human beings. Traffic lights put cops out of work. Automated assembly put thousands of employees out of work. The invention of the rifle pretty much spelled the end of bowsmithing. outside of a niche market. The light bulb put street lamp lighters out of work. The list goes on....
The guy is clearly so focussed on what he sees as some sort of immediate problem that his remark doesn't make even the slightest sense.
His wording indicates a complete misunderstanding of the different usages of the word "law". Laws of mathematics are not rules to be obeyed, as a law of the land is, they are natural laws that arise from how mathematics is defined, universally, and that can unerringly provide the result of any calculation that a given law governs.
Turnbull may as well be saying that the laws of physics don't apply in Australia either, if the only law he is willing to believe is applicable is that of the nation.
He is, of course, entirely mistaken... such laws apply whether anyone wants them to or not.
To the best of my understanding, packet prioritization is only an issue when a router is congested... if the devices are talking directly to eachother becuase they are on the same subnet (which vehicles should be, if they are communicating directly to eachother), then as long as you use dedicated wireless access points that are strictly for inter-vehicle communication, you won't need to worry about prioritizing your data before anyone else's. These access points can communicate directly with known nearby access points via their own layer1/layer2 mechanisms, rather that depending on a network or transport protocol to achieve it, and rather than using the greater Internet to achieve that communication (since vehicles that are far enough apart that you would even need to send data that far are unlikely to need to communicate with eachother anyways).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, all of the places I have worked have always had a separate conference room away from the open work-area for any meetings, so that people don't get disturbed by them.
None of that behavior would be tolerated at any place I've worked for the past 20 years. Anyone who was incapable of conducting themselves professionally would likely be told to leave and come back when they've calmed down, and if it was a regular occurence with a person, they would be fired.
The number of times that another employee has distracted me in that entire time is zero.
If you ask me, I think that the devs are probably opposed to an open work environment is because it gives them less opportunity to waste company time using their computer for non-work-related activities.
So... lie?
I'm not saying you should necessarily disclose your previous salaries, but lying in a job interview is not a good way to start a relationship with any company.
Is it normal for people to put their salaries for previous jobs on a resume?
Rich is relative.... The fact that it caps at only $300K is what makes it a middle-income figure.
Until you are shot with your own gun, of course, or any gun that was stolen for that matter... which is what most murders with guns are committed with.
Of course, since they can be cracked (and seriously, whoever doubted for a second that they wouldn't be?), even having a smart gun isn't a guarantee that it won't still be used against you.
I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but an additional 10 to 15% for human beings is only going to be another 8 to 12 years.... and I just don't see that as particularly revolutionary, because that's not even a single standard deviation more than the average life expectancy already. If you can push it past 2 or 3 standard deviations beyond the norm.... then you've really got something.
I'm not suggesting they would... I am suggesting that in general, a birth certificate would note the person's sex at birth, and if a person is representing themselves as a different gender than the one indicated on their birth certificate, then they are obviously transgender. It's quite simple, really. This would not work, of course, in the case where the birth certificate had no sex listed for the individual, but such certificates are still extraordinarily rare to the best of my knowledge.
Your birth certificate, perhaps? While gender neutral birth certificates exist now, it is still a new enough thing that not very many people have one... particularly since they must be explicitly requested.
These two statements appear to contradict eachother. Either people who are not combat ready do not get into the military or you do not get to stay home because of a combat ready weakness. Which is it?
Even accepting your so-called logic, and further even accepting that US enemies are "not afraid of girly men", there would not be any way in practice to notice any so-called "girliness", because at least generally speaking, the soldiers of opposing sides do not routinely socialize with eachother enough to know them well enough to associate such traits to them. There is no objective standard by which anyone can say that your notion is acceptable... I can't even call it an argument, it is so abysmally flawed.
I wasn't suggesting that they were equivalent... I was simply observing that both religions appear to not place a very high priority on any of the bad stuff that may happen to one on account of their beliefs, and anticipating that in such religions, a devout believer would be inclined to not want to deny their faith simply because of what happens to be a minor material inconvenience in comparison to the scope of what they believe in.
Whether it matters in reality or not is actually completely irrelevant. If it matters to a person, then their actions will be guided by that belief.
It's a safe bet that if we waited until there was a job market for people who would get laid off on account of technology putting somebody out of work, I dare say we would be living in a very different world than we do. When cars went from being built by hand to being built by machine it put a staggering number of people out of work that had no idea what they were going to do next..... the thing is, once they were in that position, many figured out a way to move on.... a way that they would not have anticipated if they had not been put in the situation where they had to adapt or die.
I would suggest that those "believers" were not as devout as they may have claimed, or else they would not have denied their alleged beliefs. They claim to "believe", but in reality, the only do so at times when it is convenient for them, and are not, if you will forgive the expression, "religiously committed" to their beliefs. The Christian bible calls such people "lukewarm", and suggests an eternity for those people that is less than ideal if they do not change. It's my understanding that muslims are also promised a pleasant hereafter if they die for a righteous cause and in service to Allah... so again, the idea that one would deny their so-called faith on the simple grounds that they may face some worldly unpleasant consequence seems to run against the grain of some major religions that advocate the notion of an eternal hereafter.
Well, it's worth noting that not only was he afraid for himself, but his entire faith was also starting to falter as well... a person whom he thought was more powerful than the world itself was being subjugated by it. My point stands, a person that really believes in their religion, particularly one that subscribes to a notion of spending eternity somewhere isn't about to deny it simply because of some possibility for earthly consequence. It's worth noting that Peter repented of the transgression, and did not repeat it thereafter. In his later years, he risked prison and death several times by speaking out in Jesus' name, and he eventually paid for it with his life.
Of course, that doesn't make anything that he believed true... it simply means that he believed it more than he believed that the consequences of this world were not of any significant importance compared to eternity. Given the belief system that he had, it as even a perfectly rational decision.
[nt]
If you think about that for just a moment you should realize how silly your question is. A person that truly believes in their religion isn't going to go and deny it, because adhering to their religion is more important than adhering to the laws and/or rules of this world. Reasonably, If one denim, then they clearly aren't passionate enough about any belief they may happen to have to be liable to pose a threat on account of any such beliefs.
Uhmm... why the fuck are they allowing any technology at all into the country then?
*EVERY* technology obsoletes some job that used to be done by human beings. Traffic lights put cops out of work. Automated assembly put thousands of employees out of work. The invention of the rifle pretty much spelled the end of bowsmithing. outside of a niche market. The light bulb put street lamp lighters out of work. The list goes on....
The guy is clearly so focussed on what he sees as some sort of immediate problem that his remark doesn't make even the slightest sense.
Is it just that the unemployment rate quoted doesn't match up with the actual number of people that are actually looking for work?
Because I thought that was common knowledge.
Off by about a factor of four... sounds about right to me.
Like, be able to tell what a person is *really* thinking based on body language, tone, etc?
The implications are somewhere between awesome and concerning.
His wording indicates a complete misunderstanding of the different usages of the word "law". Laws of mathematics are not rules to be obeyed, as a law of the land is, they are natural laws that arise from how mathematics is defined, universally, and that can unerringly provide the result of any calculation that a given law governs.
Turnbull may as well be saying that the laws of physics don't apply in Australia either, if the only law he is willing to believe is applicable is that of the nation.
He is, of course, entirely mistaken... such laws apply whether anyone wants them to or not.
Starring Johnny Depp and Paul Bettany, iirc.
Will the right to be forgotten include the ability to erase other people's literal memories of whatever it was that you did?
To the best of my understanding, packet prioritization is only an issue when a router is congested... if the devices are talking directly to eachother becuase they are on the same subnet (which vehicles should be, if they are communicating directly to eachother), then as long as you use dedicated wireless access points that are strictly for inter-vehicle communication, you won't need to worry about prioritizing your data before anyone else's. These access points can communicate directly with known nearby access points via their own layer1/layer2 mechanisms, rather that depending on a network or transport protocol to achieve it, and rather than using the greater Internet to achieve that communication (since vehicles that are far enough apart that you would even need to send data that far are unlikely to need to communicate with eachother anyways).