Polanski is a pedophile and anyone who sticks up for him is not much better.
There is no evidence that he is a pedophile. Pedophilia is the attraction to and preference for prepubescent children. Also, one can be a pedophile and not engage in sexual acts.
AC was talking about concepts and models, and all the ones listed did indeed originate in European states (England, France, Holland, and Greece). The idea of individual liberties, including the ones AC mentioned, predate the States be several hundred years.
You might even be able to make the case that the newly formed United States of America, with their constitution and Bill of Rights and lack of a monarchy influenced the expansion of democracy in Europe, not the other way around.
Then you didn't emigrate. You're simply an American abroad.
Emigrate means moving from one's country to another. One does not have to become a citizen to emigrate. Of course, even if a person did become a citizen of New Zealand, they could still keep their exisiting citizenship.
Slashdot never lets me down. I can come here and read complete bullshit from people like you. I recommend a good dictionary.
I do not see what Obama has to do with the Reason Foundation. Stay on topic. There was no ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the character or motives of a person. I pointed out that the Reason Foundation is a biased organization, on the same level as the John Birch Society. Although, the Foundation likes to bill itself as non-partisan, it is indeed partisan and not a good reference source.
Then again, I did not pay attention to your signature. Now it is making sense.
The Reason Foundation promotes supply side economic princples and unrestrained free markets, which have never been shown to work. You might as well quote the John Birch Society.
Find a position in a multinational in the United States and make it known that you are open for international travel and/or work assignments. Most multinationals use English as their working language. You can get by with English in the EU, where the majority of the population speak it as their second language. This is espeacially true for folks younger than 35. In large cities, English is the most spoken non-native language. That said, it will be easy for you to learn the native language once there; emersion is a better way to learn.
I said I have an educational prejudice. This means, I prefer folks that are educated well, in an educational system that supports broad knowledge and citical thinking.
Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity on job applications (which the parent poster proudly admits to)
I never said anything of the kind. Everybody, as long as you pass the stages (resume grading, phone interview, person interview), gets a shot. Some jobs may have a residency requirement.
And given that the parent poster proudly trumpeted his MO of floating chinese/european sounding names to the top for job applications
I never said that.
EEOC lawsuits that follow
I realize Slashdot is U.S. centric but not everybody is in the U.S. When my company was based in California, we hired in Canada and the EU. Sure, sometimes Americans, but in Canada or the EU. We are now in France.
Others understood. Maybe you have a comprehension problem.
I have worked with plenty of Indian talent in Silicon Valley
Is a statement about why I have the view that Indian folks, specificly from IIT, are not as great as they are made out to be.
where you go to school, or if you go to school, is irrelevant.
Again, it goes back to my original point. Going to IIT should be be treated as an E ticket. The same is true for somebody from Stanford. There could even be somebody that does not have any college that may be good.
In general, I have found the Chinese and Europeans better trained; they get to first dibs on the interview.
Supposedly, the Indians coming to the States are the smartest. I find them to be no better than American educated and trained workers. IIT is not a breeding ground for great talent, rather superior attitudes.
That was my original comment. Now I went on to say that I move Chinese and Europeans to the top of the interview list. Why? Because in my experience, they are better educated.
He clearly has stated that he shows preference to people of a specific ethnicity over others
I have? Where? If I got a resume from Julie Hwong in Toronto, she would be put in with the Canadians not the Chinese.
What the original poster has done has clearly described that they do not judge each Indian or American applicant on their own merits.
Not true. I said, I move the Chinese and the Europeans to the top of the interview list. I am not sure how you look through resumes. I take them, read the cover letter, look at where they are from (because some of our jobs only go to residents) and grade them. If they pass the grading, they go into the phone interview stage. If you pass that stage, then you go into the in-person stage. That is where they get resorted. My time is limited. If I can find a qualified appilcant before the end of final interview, better for me.
Maybe you live in some fanatasy world where everybody gets a fair chance, but that is not how 99% of the companies do it. I know companies that will not even look at your resume if you have CSU Chico as your college, or if you have a BA instead of a BS. Is it fair to give a preference to a friend of an existing employee over a stranger? I have had subordinates that I could not fire because they were sucking an executive's cock. The business world is not a meritocracy. That is an illusion.
...their country of origin should have no bearing on his choice of qualified employees. Only their work experience and the answers they have to questions pertaining to the job should be relevant in an interview.
A person's country of origin alone should not be taken into account, but you would be crazy not to take into consideration the country where an applicant was educated. That was the core of my comment.
if you had treated me that way and you had interviewed me for a US position
I do not hire in the U.S. Even when my business was based in California, all my employees worked out of Canada or the EU. Something to do with univeral healthcare. It is now based in France. You would not know how the selection process worked, even if you got to the interview stage.
You need to get over your racism tunnel vision. There was nothing in the parent's or my comment that was racist. Do you look at every statement and see racism? Maybe you need some therapy.
maybe you ought to consider that many Indians in the US are H1-Bs and are effectively indentured employees
Normally I do not respond to AC. For this time, I will clarify my statements.
I don't give any weight to Indian educated candidates. IIT graduates do not sway me. I find Chinese and European educated folks better trained overall, and consider them first when interviewing. That said, I find Ameicans to have the worst general knowledge, such as geography and history.
For my own business, which is involved in embedded systems, I would rather take somebody with an AS or vocational certificate for an entry level position. We mentor everybody, from 0-15 years experience. I have never required a degree for any position in my company.
Supposedly, the Indians coming to the States are the smartest. I find them to be no better than American educated and trained workers. IIT is not a breeding ground for great talent, rather superior attitudes. No different than the Ivy League in the United States. I have worked with plenty of Indian talent in Silicon Valley, and managed many as well. It depends on the person; where you go to school, or if you go to school, is irrelevant.
The Chinese and Europeans are the folks I move to the top of the interview list.
Slashdot Mirror
Sarko is nowhere close to Shrub. If anything, he is left of Obama. Why the hell would you want a person worse than Sarko in 2012?
Are you describing France or the States?
Polanski is a pedophile and anyone who sticks up for him is not much better.
There is no evidence that he is a pedophile. Pedophilia is the attraction to and preference for prepubescent children. Also, one can be a pedophile and not engage in sexual acts.
Ah yes, libertarian utopia. Put the foil hat back on.
AC was talking about concepts and models, and all the ones listed did indeed originate in European states (England, France, Holland, and Greece). The idea of individual liberties, including the ones AC mentioned, predate the States be several hundred years.
You might even be able to make the case that the newly formed United States of America, with their constitution and Bill of Rights and lack of a monarchy influenced the expansion of democracy in Europe, not the other way around.
Then you do not much about the Enlightenment.
Then you didn't emigrate. You're simply an American abroad.
Emigrate means moving from one's country to another. One does not have to become a citizen to emigrate. Of course, even if a person did become a citizen of New Zealand, they could still keep their exisiting citizenship.
Slashdot never lets me down. I can come here and read complete bullshit from people like you. I recommend a good dictionary.
What NYCL does is no different than the legal analysis on TV or in print.
Think they know everything, they venture out into the real world...
Charles Nesson is an experienced litigator. Do you think law professors sit in class all day? No, they do scholarly research and litigate.
I do not see what Obama has to do with the Reason Foundation. Stay on topic. There was no ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the character or motives of a person. I pointed out that the Reason Foundation is a biased organization, on the same level as the John Birch Society. Although, the Foundation likes to bill itself as non-partisan, it is indeed partisan and not a good reference source.
Then again, I did not pay attention to your signature. Now it is making sense.
Incorrect. Charles Neeson has 30 years of litgation experience. That does not excuse his defense. Look at John Yoo as an example.
The Reason Foundation promotes supply side economic princples and unrestrained free markets, which have never been shown to work. You might as well quote the John Birch Society.
Find a position in a multinational in the United States and make it known that you are open for international travel and/or work assignments. Most multinationals use English as their working language. You can get by with English in the EU, where the majority of the population speak it as their second language. This is espeacially true for folks younger than 35. In large cities, English is the most spoken non-native language. That said, it will be easy for you to learn the native language once there; emersion is a better way to learn.
Move to a city that has municipal electricy, you will pay significantly less.
So, you admit to being racist
Are you trolling? Can you not read?
I said I have an educational prejudice. This means, I prefer folks that are educated well, in an educational system that supports broad knowledge and citical thinking.
You have no idea what the term racist means.
Racial prejudice is a lesser evil...
What I have is an educational prejudice.
Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity on job applications (which the parent poster proudly admits to)
I never said anything of the kind. Everybody, as long as you pass the stages (resume grading, phone interview, person interview), gets a shot. Some jobs may have a residency requirement.
And given that the parent poster proudly trumpeted his MO of floating chinese/european sounding names to the top for job applications
I never said that.
EEOC lawsuits that follow
I realize Slashdot is U.S. centric but not everybody is in the U.S. When my company was based in California, we hired in Canada and the EU. Sure, sometimes Americans, but in Canada or the EU. We are now in France.
Others understood. Maybe you have a comprehension problem.
I have worked with plenty of Indian talent in Silicon Valley
Is a statement about why I have the view that Indian folks, specificly from IIT, are not as great as they are made out to be.
where you go to school, or if you go to school, is irrelevant.
Again, it goes back to my original point. Going to IIT should be be treated as an E ticket. The same is true for somebody from Stanford. There could even be somebody that does not have any college that may be good.
In general, I have found the Chinese and Europeans better trained; they get to first dibs on the interview.
Let's read it carefully
Yes, let us read it instead of quote mining.
Supposedly, the Indians coming to the States are the smartest. I find them to be no better than American educated and trained workers. IIT is not a breeding ground for great talent, rather superior attitudes.
That was my original comment. Now I went on to say that I move Chinese and Europeans to the top of the interview list. Why? Because in my experience, they are better educated.
He clearly has stated that he shows preference to people of a specific ethnicity over others
I have? Where? If I got a resume from Julie Hwong in Toronto, she would be put in with the Canadians not the Chinese.
What the original poster has done has clearly described that they do not judge each Indian or American applicant on their own merits.
Not true. I said, I move the Chinese and the Europeans to the top of the interview list. I am not sure how you look through resumes. I take them, read the cover letter, look at where they are from (because some of our jobs only go to residents) and grade them. If they pass the grading, they go into the phone interview stage. If you pass that stage, then you go into the in-person stage. That is where they get resorted. My time is limited. If I can find a qualified appilcant before the end of final interview, better for me.
Maybe you live in some fanatasy world where everybody gets a fair chance, but that is not how 99% of the companies do it. I know companies that will not even look at your resume if you have CSU Chico as your college, or if you have a BA instead of a BS. Is it fair to give a preference to a friend of an existing employee over a stranger? I have had subordinates that I could not fire because they were sucking an executive's cock. The business world is not a meritocracy. That is an illusion.
...their country of origin should have no bearing on his choice of qualified employees. Only their work experience and the answers they have to questions pertaining to the job should be relevant in an interview.
A person's country of origin alone should not be taken into account, but you would be crazy not to take into consideration the country where an applicant was educated. That was the core of my comment.
if you had treated me that way and you had interviewed me for a US position
I do not hire in the U.S. Even when my business was based in California, all my employees worked out of Canada or the EU. Something to do with univeral healthcare. It is now based in France. You would not know how the selection process worked, even if you got to the interview stage.
The original poster said he makes his first judgement of candidates based on their nationality.
Nationality, education.
While it might make sense to some based on their pseudo-knowledge of school systems in each country and continent.
I know because Indians tell me. I have traveled the world. I have lived and worked in other countries. I am living in France right now.
quantifiable differences
You mean something like education?
Your statements were borderline racism.
Then you do not understand the meaning of racism.
If you are speaking out of personal experience
What did you think I was speaking out of, my ass?
I would believe you just got lucky the few times you tried.
A few times? I have been working in this field since 1982.
I just don't think any country (or race) has an exclusive monopoly on idiocy.
I see the problem, you need to work on your reading comprehension. My comment was about education (and culture), and that went right over your head.
You need to get over your racism tunnel vision. There was nothing in the parent's or my comment that was racist. Do you look at every statement and see racism? Maybe you need some therapy.
maybe you ought to consider that many Indians in the US are H1-Bs and are effectively indentured employees
And many are residents.
Do not worry, I put the Americans under the Chinese and Europeans. You folks in the States have got to get a handle on your crappy education system.
Normally I do not respond to AC. For this time, I will clarify my statements.
I don't give any weight to Indian educated candidates. IIT graduates do not sway me. I find Chinese and European educated folks better trained overall, and consider them first when interviewing. That said, I find Ameicans to have the worst general knowledge, such as geography and history.
For my own business, which is involved in embedded systems, I would rather take somebody with an AS or vocational certificate for an entry level position. We mentor everybody, from 0-15 years experience. I have never required a degree for any position in my company.
Best system admin I managed had a BA in political science, while the best QA manager had a BA in art history.
Supposedly, the Indians coming to the States are the smartest. I find them to be no better than American educated and trained workers. IIT is not a breeding ground for great talent, rather superior attitudes. No different than the Ivy League in the United States. I have worked with plenty of Indian talent in Silicon Valley, and managed many as well. It depends on the person; where you go to school, or if you go to school, is irrelevant.
The Chinese and Europeans are the folks I move to the top of the interview list.