That people who assume the opinions of ~1,000 Americans, who fall within a particular demographic dependent on the intended outcome of the pollster, somehow magically represents the entire population of around 360,000,000, are fucking imbeciles.
I hear that pocket knifes are illegal in New York City though, that has gotta suck.
Isn't that the same myopic dystopia in which the government thinks they have the right to stop and physically search anyone and everyone they please?
All things considered, I would be more surprised if NYC didn't ban anything and everything a citizen could use to protect themselves from the authoritarian regime; despotic leadership tends to be that way.
He IS being accurate. He is pointing out that hiding the content of legislation isn't a GOP problem, it's a Democrat problem, as evidenced by the video he linked.
No, it's an idiot problem, exacerbated by the insistence of other idiots on perpetuating bullshit partisan rhetoric, despite the obvious fact both parties are just two sides of the same coin.
I recommend you stop getting your political information from goddamn Youtube videos, and check out the voting records of the politicians for yourself.
This is news? The current GOP pols are far to the right of that liberal Demagogue Nixon. The health care reform package that the current GOP is so outraged about would likely have been signed no further questions asked by Nixon as it's more conservative than what he was proposing at the time.
Oh, so it's a tax now? Funny, I could have swore the individual mandate was a forced purchase from private insurers, which would not be covered under Article 1, Section 8.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
Dead on accurate, sir.
In the interest of preserving Constitutional authority, I hope the SCOTUS decides in that manner regarding the individual mandate; however, given recent decisions by said court that blatantly flout the Constitutional rights of the People... I'm not holding my breath.
*Smoking bans are kind of a hot topic in my area right now, and I've already heard all the weak arguments and ad hominem attacks of the anti-smoking crowd, so you might as well keep that malarky to yourself.
The same right that MS, Apple, and the various Android vendors have to lock the hardware that they rent^H^H^H^H sell/give away/barter or what have you. Oh, that's right, I forgot, they're multi-national mega-corps thereby they have intrinsic rights that me as a mere citizen don't have.
So, because they are evil fucks who don't care about their customer's, you think it's justified for you to do the same?
Yea, that's logical... if you're a sociopath.
Have you considered fucking off and dying perchance?
1. Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition
2. (more specifically) Music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized.
Too much work. Too few people. Couple weak skill areas. Hiring the right person for this position would greatly reduce the whole team's stress level, would make the project run more smoothly and since we're paid by the hour would make us more money.
Uh, ok, but that still doesn't explain how not having anyone to do that job is somehow less detrimental to the workflow than having someone who is qualified, just not as much as you would like...
Personally, I think you're being too selective. Just split the duties and hire 2 people instead - finding a good network guy and a good programmer w/ security clearance is going to be far easier (and likely more cost effective) than trying to find a good networking guy who is also a programmer and has security clearance.
My other suggestion would be to drop the 'programming' requirement. I can tell you, most good to excellent network technicians, especially ones with a security focus, tend to know approximately dick when it comes to actual software programming. Scripting, well, sure, but if you need someone well versed in, say C++ or Java, you're not going to find them in the networking classrooms.
Of course, that's purely anecdotal, based on my experiences as a network technician/administrator who happens to have a strong security focus... but hey, what would I know?
You do not have an understanding of basic scientific processes or terminology.
Sure I do, you just can't see it because you're too busy assigning meaning to my words that isn't there.
Failure to see the forest for the trees, and such.
You have a belief that what is not directly observable is unknowable.
Really? Where, precisely, did I say that - verbatim and in context? Let me guess, you saw a sentence I wrote to that effect, and decided to ignore the relevant sentences around it which qualify the statement. S'ok, non-native English speakers tend to do that, so I'll let it slide.
I have personally taken the time... saw the seismometer readings, traced out in ink... largest earthquake in North America... etc.
Aaww, how quaint, you completely missed my premise by focusing on the example given! That would be cute, if not so sad.
Hey, if it makes you feel any better, chief, I don't *actually* think the planet is hollow, although I can see how others would, considering that the majority of scientific research into the subject of the planetary core prior to 1998 indicated that the core was hollow, or at least, semi-solid.
What, you didn't know that?
No, I'm just not such a sucker as to believe that speculation as to the physical makeup of the planetary core, or anything else for that matter, qualifies as valid scientific fact. Remember the LHC "faster-than-light neutrinos" incident? Same idea.
I'm fairly certain you'll totally miss that point and go off on another nonsensical rant about earthquakes or some such drivel.
We also have a massive magnetic field which appears to originate from the center of the earth -- how many elements are naturally magnetic?
Depends on what you mean by "naturally magnetic." Do you take that term to mean that an element is affected by magnetic fields, or that it generates them?
If the latter, I can name one for sure that does not naturally (i.e., on it's own without outside influence) emanate magnetic fields: iron. I also know that, under the right conditions, such as extreme temperatures and pressures, a lot of elements exhibit magnetic properties.
Again, that's not to say that the core couldn't be made of iron, but rather that it could be made of other stuff, so for a person to say, definitively, that "the core is made of iron," without evidence to prove that statement beyond reasonable doubt, is disingenuous at best... which, again, is my entire point.
I'm pretty much going to ignore the rest of your post (which I probably should have done starting with your first post), as I don't feel anything you've said addresses my original premise, but instead focuses on a bunch of shit I never actually said.
My recommendation to you is A) don't believe everything someone claiming to be a "scientist" tells you without verifying it for yourself, B) take some English classes that focus on reading comprehension (to help you avoid misinterpreting people's words in the future), and of course, C) Lighten up, dude. No, seriously, you sound like you're going to give yourself a coronary over this. It's not worth it, man.
Ageism is a two way street; apparently, if a person is under 40 or over 60, they are instantly unqualified for most non-entry level positions.
Really, the bullshit a person who isn't privileged from the start has to go through, just to eek out a meager living, is almost enough to make a guy say 'fuck it' and go live in a damn cave...
3. There has been, up until 2008, and attitude in the U.S. that any college degree is good enough. My state only graduated 40,000 people from community colleges/trade schools this year. Everyone with higher aspirations just went to a 4 year school. To do less is to view oneself as a failure(and employers do too).
There has been too much emphasis on college degrees, I think. This idea that everybody should start with getting a degree out of school seems to lead to many folks with a load of debt who may not be in the field that suits them at the end of the degree. Further, a degree in CS seems to have little correlation with the ability to effectively program. I'm sure there exist some programs that might relate to other fields of IT, but I don't personally know of any that properly convey the skills required for other IT disciplines.
I agree. Some of the most talented, competent, intelligent people I have ever had the privilege of working alongside never set foot in a college classroom.
Not to say the pedigree has no merit, but perhaps not as much as proscribed by employers.
I can get them from TS to SCI in time and I would consider someone with secret who had all the other right skills but I can't get someone from zero to TS in time to deliver the product.
So... hiring someone and getting them cleared is not a viable option due to your production timetable, but not having anyone in the position whatsoever somehow doesn't affect your time to deliver the product? In that case, why hire anyone at all?
I've encountered more than a few people who are not very qualified/competent in IT.
Having worked in acadamia myself, it has been my experience that talent and competence diminishes severely the further up the management ladder you go.
Case in point: the "Director" of my department got his Bachelor's degree from University of Phoenix. I'm not sure the V.P. even had a degree...
So what you say is you take what the non-technical people say back to the technical people. Couldn't the technical people just talk to the technical people directly?
Slashdot Mirror
That people who assume the opinions of ~1,000 Americans, who fall within a particular demographic dependent on the intended outcome of the pollster, somehow magically represents the entire population of around 360,000,000, are fucking imbeciles.
Period. End of discussion.
Au contraire, mon frere ;)
Had I corrected that one, I wouldn't have been able to make such a clever, clever joke at OP's expense!
I hear that pocket knifes are illegal in New York City though, that has gotta suck.
Isn't that the same myopic dystopia in which the government thinks they have the right to stop and physically search anyone and everyone they please?
All things considered, I would be more surprised if NYC didn't ban anything and everything a citizen could use to protect themselves from the authoritarian regime; despotic leadership tends to be that way.
He IS being accurate. He is pointing out that hiding the content of legislation isn't a GOP problem, it's a Democrat problem, as evidenced by the video he linked.
No, it's an idiot problem, exacerbated by the insistence of other idiots on perpetuating bullshit partisan rhetoric, despite the obvious fact both parties are just two sides of the same coin.
I recommend you stop getting your political information from goddamn Youtube videos, and check out the voting records of the politicians for yourself.
This is news? The current GOP pols are far to the right of that liberal Demagogue Nixon. The health care reform package that the current GOP is so outraged about would likely have been signed no further questions asked by Nixon as it's more conservative than what he was proposing at the time.
You sure about that?
Oh, so it's a tax now? Funny, I could have swore the individual mandate was a forced purchase from private insurers, which would not be covered under Article 1, Section 8.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
Dead on accurate, sir.
In the interest of preserving Constitutional authority, I hope the SCOTUS decides in that manner regarding the individual mandate; however, given recent decisions by said court that blatantly flout the Constitutional rights of the People... I'm not holding my breath.
The story was submitted yesterday.
And approved today. Would you like to loose your user privileges?
I'd rather tighten them.
Smokers poison the air that everyone around them is trying to breathe, and it's perfectly reasonable to insist they go do that somewhere else.
Says you. What if the smoker owns the property? Are you saying it's reasonable to make someone leave their own property to enjoy a legal product?*
Second hand Slurp-ee generally isn't a problem.
Think so?
Think again.
*Smoking bans are kind of a hot topic in my area right now, and I've already heard all the weak arguments and ad hominem attacks of the anti-smoking crowd, so you might as well keep that malarky to yourself.
The same right that MS, Apple, and the various Android vendors have to lock the hardware that they rent^H^H^H^H sell/give away/barter or what have you. Oh, that's right, I forgot, they're multi-national mega-corps thereby they have intrinsic rights that me as a mere citizen don't have.
So, because they are evil fucks who don't care about their customer's, you think it's justified for you to do the same?
Yea, that's logical... if you're a sociopath.
Have you considered fucking off and dying perchance?
Oh, you are a sociopath...
Figures.
What is the definition of "Classical" music?
There are actually 2 -
classical music
noun
1. Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition
2. (more specifically) Music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized.
Welcome to the world of second class citizenship, Chunk.
Would you like a printer with that?
PC Load letter???
What the fuck does that mean???
Too much work. Too few people. Couple weak skill areas. Hiring the right person for this position would greatly reduce the whole team's stress level, would make the project run more smoothly and since we're paid by the hour would make us more money.
Uh, ok, but that still doesn't explain how not having anyone to do that job is somehow less detrimental to the workflow than having someone who is qualified, just not as much as you would like...
Personally, I think you're being too selective. Just split the duties and hire 2 people instead - finding a good network guy and a good programmer w/ security clearance is going to be far easier (and likely more cost effective) than trying to find a good networking guy who is also a programmer and has security clearance.
My other suggestion would be to drop the 'programming' requirement. I can tell you, most good to excellent network technicians, especially ones with a security focus, tend to know approximately dick when it comes to actual software programming. Scripting, well, sure, but if you need someone well versed in, say C++ or Java, you're not going to find them in the networking classrooms.
Of course, that's purely anecdotal, based on my experiences as a network technician/administrator who happens to have a strong security focus... but hey, what would I know?
In rural areas maybe, I am midwest and would need to see that amount doubled to consider it.
rural and small-towns-that-think-they're-cities, yes.
:P
Actual cities, not so much.
Guess which category my residence falls in
I was going to say, "Damn! You need 46k/yr for a $600/mo house and $350/mo car? Who does your budget, Congress???"
Then I saw that you mentioned "kid costs."
Incredulity retracted, and I feel for your suffering.
You do not have an understanding of basic scientific processes or terminology.
Sure I do, you just can't see it because you're too busy assigning meaning to my words that isn't there.
Failure to see the forest for the trees, and such.
You have a belief that what is not directly observable is unknowable.
Really? Where, precisely, did I say that - verbatim and in context? Let me guess, you saw a sentence I wrote to that effect, and decided to ignore the relevant sentences around it which qualify the statement. S'ok, non-native English speakers tend to do that, so I'll let it slide.
I have personally taken the time... saw the seismometer readings, traced out in ink... largest earthquake in North America... etc.
Aaww, how quaint, you completely missed my premise by focusing on the example given! That would be cute, if not so sad.
Hey, if it makes you feel any better, chief, I don't *actually* think the planet is hollow, although I can see how others would, considering that the majority of scientific research into the subject of the planetary core prior to 1998 indicated that the core was hollow, or at least, semi-solid.
What, you didn't know that?
No, I'm just not such a sucker as to believe that speculation as to the physical makeup of the planetary core, or anything else for that matter, qualifies as valid scientific fact. Remember the LHC "faster-than-light neutrinos" incident? Same idea.
I'm fairly certain you'll totally miss that point and go off on another nonsensical rant about earthquakes or some such drivel.
We also have a massive magnetic field which appears to originate from the center of the earth -- how many elements are naturally magnetic?
Depends on what you mean by "naturally magnetic." Do you take that term to mean that an element is affected by magnetic fields, or that it generates them?
If the latter, I can name one for sure that does not naturally (i.e., on it's own without outside influence) emanate magnetic fields: iron. I also know that, under the right conditions, such as extreme temperatures and pressures, a lot of elements exhibit magnetic properties.
Again, that's not to say that the core couldn't be made of iron, but rather that it could be made of other stuff, so for a person to say, definitively, that "the core is made of iron," without evidence to prove that statement beyond reasonable doubt, is disingenuous at best... which, again, is my entire point. I'm pretty much going to ignore the rest of your post (which I probably should have done starting with your first post), as I don't feel anything you've said addresses my original premise, but instead focuses on a bunch of shit I never actually said.
My recommendation to you is A) don't believe everything someone claiming to be a "scientist" tells you without verifying it for yourself, B) take some English classes that focus on reading comprehension (to help you avoid misinterpreting people's words in the future), and of course, C) Lighten up, dude. No, seriously, you sound like you're going to give yourself a coronary over this. It's not worth it, man.
The hilarious irony is that upper management would regularly use that exact phrasing as an excuse to not promote anyone else.
At least, it's hilarious now that I don't work there anymore.
Ageism is a two way street; apparently, if a person is under 40 or over 60, they are instantly unqualified for most non-entry level positions.
Really, the bullshit a person who isn't privileged from the start has to go through, just to eek out a meager living, is almost enough to make a guy say 'fuck it' and go live in a damn cave...
There has been too much emphasis on college degrees, I think. This idea that everybody should start with getting a degree out of school seems to lead to many folks with a load of debt who may not be in the field that suits them at the end of the degree. Further, a degree in CS seems to have little correlation with the ability to effectively program. I'm sure there exist some programs that might relate to other fields of IT, but I don't personally know of any that properly convey the skills required for other IT disciplines.
I agree. Some of the most talented, competent, intelligent people I have ever had the privilege of working alongside never set foot in a college classroom.
Not to say the pedigree has no merit, but perhaps not as much as proscribed by employers.
I can get them from TS to SCI in time and I would consider someone with secret who had all the other right skills but I can't get someone from zero to TS in time to deliver the product.
So... hiring someone and getting them cleared is not a viable option due to your production timetable, but not having anyone in the position whatsoever somehow doesn't affect your time to deliver the product? In that case, why hire anyone at all?
>>>That seems to be the case that I see. Positions that want YEARS of experience, long lists of certifications, and pay around $34,000.
Is this job in Washington? I want to apply. Thanks.
If it's in the Midwest, I too would like to apply.
Sadly, around these parts $34K a year is often considered quite generous for a non-management position.
It's pathetic to see corporations scream at the free market and purchase legislators at the same time.
FTFY.
It would be pathetic, were it coincidental. The fact that it is not makes the act downright fucking evil .
I've encountered more than a few people who are not very qualified/competent in IT.
Having worked in acadamia myself, it has been my experience that talent and competence diminishes severely the further up the management ladder you go.
Case in point: the "Director" of my department got his Bachelor's degree from University of Phoenix. I'm not sure the V.P. even had a degree...
So what you say is you take what the non-technical people say back to the technical people. Couldn't the technical people just talk to the technical people directly?
I'm a PEOPLE PERSON, DAMMIT!