I think only 5 people a day is a bit of an exaggeration, too. If you have e.g. 5 simple questions (but things they aren't likely to have memorized) you can ask them right at the beginning, you can probably weed out a lot of the totally unqualified ones if they can't answer one of those questions. Say that initial pass takes 15 minutes.
So let's say that disqualifies 2/3rds of the initial list, and those left get an hour-long interview (it's a long list and we can do a second round of interviews anyway). 5 hour-long interviews + 10 * 15-minute ones = 7.5 hours, so 15(ish) interviews in a day. We're already down to 67 weeks.
I know a fair number of people in HR across a few organisations, and they don't manage to interview anywhere near that many people on a regular basis.
Okay, I'll admit you may know better what you're talking about. But the OP was talking about candidates who are obviously, flagrantly unqualified. Does it take 1.6 hours to figure that out? If you have 5000 candidates to choose from I wouldn't think you'd need to be uber-rigorous either.
-er is a common suffix in English to denote "one who does X." You would rather introduce nonstandard nounifications of verbs? Or do you have any examples of other words that follow your convention?
Taking German, we learned the "standard" conjugation scheme of verbs, but the list of nonstandard ones was literally as long as the standards. I know *I* don't want that.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that if these students get a job where they are actually required to be able to do what they say they can, they'll get knocked on their ass real fast.
When you cheat, you're hurting yourself. If everybody cheats and you don't cheat...well, everybody else hurts you, I guess.
Idealism is a bitch.
I think your observation is a little close for comfort, yes. Although the more people who cheat at a university, the less the degree from said university is worth, but the damage is diluted and not immediately apparent.
You're welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong;)
And this just demonstrates how different we are. That plot you made up sound terrible to me. Anything that involves armies of Sith or Jedi sounds incredibly tactless. Jedi aren't about being soldiers; they're about philosophy. And more than like 15 minutes of lightsaber action in a movie is just fanboy masturbation. I'm not saying I don't like those fights, but they're very easy to overdo.
I've read at least one sci fi story that suggests that free will is just an "artifact" (in the "distortions on your screen" computer sense) of us experiencing 3 (or 4? Not sure how the terminology works) dimensions. If you bump it up a level such that we can see backwards and forwards in time, do we still have free will?
Faith is, at the least, 'belief without evidence.'
Yes, that's what he's saying. You telling me, "Evidence exists out there that proves this" doesn't mean much to me if I can't understand or reproduce it myself.
I thought by definition spies did illegal things. Or is that just the James Bond definition? The whole bit about "if you are caught or captured the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your existence" and they have a suicide pill, or they can try to escape as long as they don't divulge any information or whatever.
Unfortunately the "rules" to warfare seem to get ignored more and more as the decades pass. And we wonder why people hide their guns in hospitals when we bomb anywhere else with impunity. But by far the worst was that bit where they sent vaccination workers* to try to find Osama. Might as well just take a giant steaming shit on the Geneva Convention.
*I thought they were specifically Red Cross but can't seem to find a citation that explicitly says so.
Sturgeon's Law Er, I mean...no. And excuse me for verbalizing what I'm sure a lot of us are thinking. Isn't it at least more intellectually honest to say "I refuse to see this film" than "I know I'm going to hate it but I'll go see it anyway and then come back and bitch about it." I'm cutting out the middleman by complaining about it without ever seeing it!;)
I'd say I was quite restrained in expressing my disapproval this time. I suppose it's my own fault for making the first post, since every Slashdot article 60% of the replies are in that tree.
Well, I'm so glad you managed to elevate the discussion by complaining about people complaining. That's so much better than the initial complaining.
Sup dawg, I heard you hate Internet bitching so I gave you a forum that involves lots of Internet bitching, so you can go there and see people bitching, and get mad, and contribute to the bitching yourself. Oh, and condescension.
Then I guess I don't understand why, if the FBI isn't explicitly barred from doing whatever-it-is, they aren't doing it already. The NSA had no qualms about doing things they clearly *weren't* authorized to, after all.
Most gamers are over 18 so there's no reason to suspect that this is just the work of kids.
conflicts directly with
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
inasmuch as even if "most" of them are over 18, it's definitely not going to put an end to the issue unless they're all over 18. Your initial Venn diagram was overly aggressive and now you're backpedaling.
But even for the kids there are plenty of things that can be done and you're presenting a false choice in thinking that if we can't "solve" the problem than we shouldn't try. We'll never solve it but through education and public discourse we can reduce the problem for sure.
Agreed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't address the problem, just that your out-of-whack definitions are confusing the issue. And it's a cheap game to criticize people for tripping over your own confusing statements.
Well, I guess I'm a moron then. (And before you ask, I watched the entire show through to the very last episode.)
The two incarnations of BSG were from very different times, culturally. And if you say rebooted BSG *as a whole* was better than the original, even not having seen more than an episode or two of the original, I'd have a hard time believing that. If you limit it to the miniseries and the first two seasons, maybe; but after that it was just an extended slow-motion train wreck of plot threads that didn't have a logical conclusion.
And God, I was tired of Roslin. If I was more motivated, I'd go through and count the number of decisions she made where she DIDN'T just ignore everybody who was telling her what the sane thing to do was. Democracy my ass. I swear she got some sort of sadistic joy from telling everyone to fuck off as often as possible.
But BSG is the sort of shot I don't usually want to watch (everybody is all angsty and hating each other and everybody has to make Hard Decisions about who to shoot in the face in order to survive, etc. etc.) so I'm sure there are plenty of arguments as to why it was quality.
Man of Steel is way awesomer than the old superman movies
In Man of Steel, wasn't Superman's enemy his own sadness and depression? Just from that description, I vowed to never watch it.
Dark Knight
Okay, you've got me there. BB and TDK were awesome, although I found TDKR strictly 'meh.'
I'll point out that I said reboot, not remake. Did any of those you listed have sequels/series? The '80s Fly had a sequel...according to the W it did well in box office but was panned by critics (which admittedly doesn't say much since the critics tend to be idiots).
Don't know about you, but the preview for the recent True Grit looked terrible, so saying the original was a spaghetti western (and by implication crap?) doesn't buy you anything there.
I don't think you can really apply the verb "back up" to light. Light is a ray that propagates without any sense of volition. Walking and driving both imply a conscious decision and effort on the part of the thing doing the walking or driving.
According to the prequel canon, one of the two core aspects of The Force to begin with is The Living Force (the other being Unifying). So saying "The Force Awakens" is kind of like making a movie about The Beginning of the Republican Party, only said beginning is set in 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
I think only 5 people a day is a bit of an exaggeration, too. If you have e.g. 5 simple questions (but things they aren't likely to have memorized) you can ask them right at the beginning, you can probably weed out a lot of the totally unqualified ones if they can't answer one of those questions. Say that initial pass takes 15 minutes.
So let's say that disqualifies 2/3rds of the initial list, and those left get an hour-long interview (it's a long list and we can do a second round of interviews anyway). 5 hour-long interviews + 10 * 15-minute ones = 7.5 hours, so 15(ish) interviews in a day. We're already down to 67 weeks.
I know a fair number of people in HR across a few organisations, and they don't manage to interview anywhere near that many people on a regular basis.
Okay, I'll admit you may know better what you're talking about. But the OP was talking about candidates who are obviously, flagrantly unqualified. Does it take 1.6 hours to figure that out? If you have 5000 candidates to choose from I wouldn't think you'd need to be uber-rigorous either.
-er is a common suffix in English to denote "one who does X." You would rather introduce nonstandard nounifications of verbs? Or do you have any examples of other words that follow your convention?
Taking German, we learned the "standard" conjugation scheme of verbs, but the list of nonstandard ones was literally as long as the standards. I know *I* don't want that.
PORED
By "I" he probably meant "the HR people I'm in charge of."
That explanation really never crossed your mind?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that if these students get a job where they are actually required to be able to do what they say they can, they'll get knocked on their ass real fast.
When you cheat, you're hurting yourself. If everybody cheats and you don't cheat...well, everybody else hurts you, I guess.
Idealism is a bitch.
I think your observation is a little close for comfort, yes. Although the more people who cheat at a university, the less the degree from said university is worth, but the damage is diluted and not immediately apparent.
Is that a reboot? "Later season" doesn't count.
Oops. Sorry about that; my mistake.
You're welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong ;)
And this just demonstrates how different we are. That plot you made up sound terrible to me. Anything that involves armies of Sith or Jedi sounds incredibly tactless. Jedi aren't about being soldiers; they're about philosophy. And more than like 15 minutes of lightsaber action in a movie is just fanboy masturbation. I'm not saying I don't like those fights, but they're very easy to overdo.
We're not talking about whether you'd *treat* it differently, we're talking about whether it would *be* different.
I've read at least one sci fi story that suggests that free will is just an "artifact" (in the "distortions on your screen" computer sense) of us experiencing 3 (or 4? Not sure how the terminology works) dimensions. If you bump it up a level such that we can see backwards and forwards in time, do we still have free will?
Faith is, at the least, 'belief without evidence.'
Yes, that's what he's saying. You telling me, "Evidence exists out there that proves this" doesn't mean much to me if I can't understand or reproduce it myself.
I thought by definition spies did illegal things. Or is that just the James Bond definition? The whole bit about "if you are caught or captured the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your existence" and they have a suicide pill, or they can try to escape as long as they don't divulge any information or whatever.
Unfortunately the "rules" to warfare seem to get ignored more and more as the decades pass. And we wonder why people hide their guns in hospitals when we bomb anywhere else with impunity. But by far the worst was that bit where they sent vaccination workers* to try to find Osama. Might as well just take a giant steaming shit on the Geneva Convention.
*I thought they were specifically Red Cross but can't seem to find a citation that explicitly says so.
Sturgeon's Law Er, I mean...no. And excuse me for verbalizing what I'm sure a lot of us are thinking. Isn't it at least more intellectually honest to say "I refuse to see this film" than "I know I'm going to hate it but I'll go see it anyway and then come back and bitch about it." I'm cutting out the middleman by complaining about it without ever seeing it! ;)
I'd say I was quite restrained in expressing my disapproval this time. I suppose it's my own fault for making the first post, since every Slashdot article 60% of the replies are in that tree.
Maybe they'll say that was all just special effects? You know, holodeck it. If you listen closely, you can hear Riker screaming.
The remake of 'The bionic woman' had an identical side-line story.
Coincidentally Katee Sackhoff also had a relatively major role in BW. I wouldn't have minded if that show had gone on for at least a full season.
Hmm...it was actually an NBC show, not Fox. Man, I remember the days when a show would actually get a whole first season before they flushed it...
Well, I'm so glad you managed to elevate the discussion by complaining about people complaining. That's so much better than the initial complaining.
Sup dawg, I heard you hate Internet bitching so I gave you a forum that involves lots of Internet bitching, so you can go there and see people bitching, and get mad, and contribute to the bitching yourself. Oh, and condescension.
Well, that makes a lot more sense than a Trek/Wars mashup; B5 was basically Trek set in a different universe.
*dodges thrown objects*
Then I guess I don't understand why, if the FBI isn't explicitly barred from doing whatever-it-is, they aren't doing it already. The NSA had no qualms about doing things they clearly *weren't* authorized to, after all.
Most gamers are over 18 so there's no reason to suspect that this is just the work of kids.
conflicts directly with
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
inasmuch as even if "most" of them are over 18, it's definitely not going to put an end to the issue unless they're all over 18. Your initial Venn diagram was overly aggressive and now you're backpedaling.
But even for the kids there are plenty of things that can be done and you're presenting a false choice in thinking that if we can't "solve" the problem than we shouldn't try. We'll never solve it but through education and public discourse we can reduce the problem for sure.
Agreed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't address the problem, just that your out-of-whack definitions are confusing the issue. And it's a cheap game to criticize people for tripping over your own confusing statements.
Battlestar Galactica. Only a moron would argue.
Well, I guess I'm a moron then. (And before you ask, I watched the entire show through to the very last episode.)
The two incarnations of BSG were from very different times, culturally. And if you say rebooted BSG *as a whole* was better than the original, even not having seen more than an episode or two of the original, I'd have a hard time believing that. If you limit it to the miniseries and the first two seasons, maybe; but after that it was just an extended slow-motion train wreck of plot threads that didn't have a logical conclusion.
And God, I was tired of Roslin. If I was more motivated, I'd go through and count the number of decisions she made where she DIDN'T just ignore everybody who was telling her what the sane thing to do was. Democracy my ass. I swear she got some sort of sadistic joy from telling everyone to fuck off as often as possible.
But BSG is the sort of shot I don't usually want to watch (everybody is all angsty and hating each other and everybody has to make Hard Decisions about who to shoot in the face in order to survive, etc. etc.) so I'm sure there are plenty of arguments as to why it was quality.
Man of Steel is way awesomer than the old superman movies
In Man of Steel, wasn't Superman's enemy his own sadness and depression? Just from that description, I vowed to never watch it.
Dark Knight
Okay, you've got me there. BB and TDK were awesome, although I found TDKR strictly 'meh.'
I'll point out that I said reboot, not remake. Did any of those you listed have sequels/series? The '80s Fly had a sequel...according to the W it did well in box office but was panned by critics (which admittedly doesn't say much since the critics tend to be idiots).
Don't know about you, but the preview for the recent True Grit looked terrible, so saying the original was a spaghetti western (and by implication crap?) doesn't buy you anything there.
Oceans 11, the original was an awful musical.
Really? Well, it had the Rat Pack in it which I thought people regarded highly.
The Fly, the original costumes and make up took away from the story
Both the original and the '80s version are rated in the 90th percentile according to Wikipedia.
Scarface, the original was from 1932
True Grit, the original was a spaghetti western
Neither of those are really criticisms...
I don't think you can really apply the verb "back up" to light. Light is a ray that propagates without any sense of volition. Walking and driving both imply a conscious decision and effort on the part of the thing doing the walking or driving.
"No verb in this clause," if you like.
The Portman Always Rings Twice?
To get all nerdy on you for a second here...
According to the prequel canon, one of the two core aspects of The Force to begin with is The Living Force (the other being Unifying). So saying "The Force Awakens" is kind of like making a movie about The Beginning of the Republican Party, only said beginning is set in 2008.