Some companies just have unrealisitci expectations.
I was interviewed for a contract job at least 6 months ago. I didn't succeed. Okay I did appalingly at the interview. Still, the skillset is fairly common. This ia a GUI/media role based on Qt. A pretty easy to use toolkit and fairly well known. UI development is a pretty common skillset, and the crossover with media development is fairly large, unless they want a compression specialist to develop new codecs (unlikely)
They're still advertising the position! The daily rate has been inching up over time so they're offering 50-100% above the going rate for UI/Qt stuff, but I can't work out what it is they want. I don't think they know.
It's always a tricky design decision though. Certainly, the best of us can make mistakes, and the operator is the most unpredictable component.
But then the designers are stil in the debugging stage. It is possible that there's an unforseen circumstance where activating the feather system at the wrong time is exactly what the pilot needs to do, and he doesn't want the system telling him not to do that.
A lot of the time I'm looking for reviews of a TV show and all I get is links to pirate versions. I already pirated it! I don't need them! Switching to an alternative.
Sadly they're doing it wrong. I really don't want to find the official web page for the show. That contains no useful information. I want to know what people think.
Okay. So you can say we should stop driving for pleasure. How about the other things I listed though? Is there a point at which the statistical number of deaths becomes acceptable for a few hours of fun?
By going for a pleasurable drive, I will statistically kill something like a 10 millionth of a person. Should we therefore stop driving for pleasure? industrial accidents and shipping cause deaths. All for things that we can, in many cases, do without. Even constructing roller coasters, there's a risk of falling or being injured by faulty equipment. Do we want to put a stop to all of these?
It's tragic when people die but if we can't accept the risk of death at any price, we can't live.
It's not like they stuck some desperate minimum wage earner in there. The guy doing the job knew the risks. If he didn't want to do it, you can be sure there would be plenty of people who would.
At the moment, Berlin, but also this was the case in the UK and Amsterdam, and Belgium; although I will admit the Brighton Odeon did crank up the volume a little high few years back. I'm sure they have perfectly decent cinemas in the US as well though.
True. Although one of the main aims of this is to redistribute wealth to the poor. And this is what Republicans mean when they talk about "Wealth Redistribution".
Also, many have been claiming that this is what it is for some time. I don't know if proponents of Obamacare ever denied this though. I'm not all that familiar with US politics. Do Democrats consider wealth redistribution, in this sense, a bad thing?
Don't feed me the old "well who else could it have been?" line.
Why not? There is a possibility it was Earhart. There's also the possibility it was some other white woman visiting an island a hundred miles away from any other land, with no indication of any means of arrival, and no record of this person. I'd have thought that it would have been quite a remarkable, well known woman to do this in the 1930's, and her disapperance would certainly have been equally remarkable.
Occams razor says Amelia Earhart is by far the most likely option.
Pocket watches weren't hard to get out of ones pocket either. Yet they were replaced by wristwatches. Why? Because it's that little bit more convenient. Same thing here.
The story just doesn't add up. There's no plausible explanation. Someone decided to use his computer, and *only* his computer to do all their hacking, with his full knowledge. This person has absolutely no interest in protecting Warg, but Warg is willing to risk prison in order to protect this person. Why? It doesn't make sense!
The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.
So what would you propose to do about it? Blame isn't going to get anywhere. Regardless of whether it's me being tinfoil hattish, or them being unprincipled, I'm not going to persuade them.
Why wold they care? It's the recent records that potentially cause embarrassment. The earlier records were the result of an earlier congress. You can handle with a simple "Thanks for bringing this to my attention" and a promise to look into it. That's a win for the politician.
I think this problem will be solved. Free software is usually written for the programmer. As more programmers get 3D printers, better free software will be produced.
Cheep softare is written for the hobbyist, but that isn't a very large market. As more people buy 3D printers, they'll need software.
While it really is time for GP to get over it, I have to say, 14 characters would be a lot better than 8. You can actually use the name of the application. "Word Perfect" rather than "WORDPERF.EXE" or whatever Wordperfect called their application. 14 characters has way better coverage of possible names than 8.
I make no claims about whether the ship is possible or not. Other people are claiming it is impossible, and using that as their argument. Therefore the onus of proof is on them.
I couldn't build it. I have no idea where to start. Nor would I to win an argument on the internet. I mean, seriously, who would do that?
Right, in this sense, aren't inherent. They're essentially limitations and obligations on the government and other tools of society.
In Britain we have the option to go for private health care. Private insurance costs a lot less than American health insurance. A huge 3% of the population take that offer.
Tessarakonteres was 128m long. And that had the requirement to be functional as a vessel rather, than just stay afloat. There are other possible reasons that the Wyoming had problems. The fact that the builders hadn't worked out the issues doesn't mean it's an engineering impossibility.
Would it be possible to build 4 vessels of 1/4 of the size of the ark? Would it be possible to link them together such that the flex is in the linkages. If so then it's at least theoretically possible to build a wooden vessel the size of the ark. Perhaps this is inconsistent with Genesis. But your claim is that it is completely impossible to build any wooden vessel of that size when obviously it is. You are now making a more specific claim, and using one failure to attempt to prove it.
I completely agree that it would have been impossible for Noah to have built the Ark at that time, but I don't accept that such a large wooden ship would be impossible. Can you prove that the Chinese treasure ships never existed?
It's way past time the US got rid of their government and replaced it with one that works for the betterment of society. Obamacare is a halfway solution that only exists because the government cares too much about business.
This is really a power that should be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. But whoever does it, trying to apply it as a patch for the existing fully private system, when that system is completely dysfunctional is terrible. A sensible process would be to wind down the private insurers and replace them with a proper public health system.
You do, after all, just own your body and nothing else... everything else is provided by general consensus.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's a consensus rather than an inherent right to own property in general, and land in particular. I'm happy to go along with that consensus since that more or less tallies with my view on ownership and property rights, as well as a societal responsibility to contribute to society.
Some people with a more Libertarian mindset don't accept this concept of society, yet still seem to want society to recognise the subset of those rights that happen to be beneficial to them.
But you didn't answer my question.Who was the original owner of the land, and how did they make it?
if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.
Only if I need it. If I want it then I'm out of luck
If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.
So you don't think the government should have power of life and death over you, but you are quite happy to have power of life and death over me. I'm not talking about government violence. I'm talking about personal violence. And I don't believe your claim of the abstract notion of "property" is greater than my claim on the abstract notion of "right to not die of thirst".
You can sell a kidney and buy a house,
From whom? Who did he acquire the land from? Who did the previous owner acquire the land from? The person before that? Who made the land?
there is no 'lease granted by government'
I didn't say it was. I said it was leased from society as a whole, but a leasehold is a specific legal concept, so it's more of a analogy. Society as a whole can ask for it back.
It has nothing to do with "government". The government is a bunch of people who are either working for the common good or should be removed, and replaced by people who are. Something I really think is long overdue in the US.
- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.
An intriguing idea. How does all that work? My initial thought would suggest that that means that justice is limited to the wealthy. After I steal your water, who do you go to for help?
Do your kidneys belong to you or not? If they do, then whatever time you spend working on things is time that your kidneys had to support as well
I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you. I may own just compensation afterwards, but the compensation would be the minimum cost of replacement of a bottle of water.
Land is property like any other, it can be bought in exchange for your productive output
How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?
- you are not part of the state, whatever 'state' you are born in, you are not its part, you are not its property either. If a state takes your productivity against your own will (not by voluntary exchange), then it does own you.
Take the people from a state. What do you have?
I don't condone democracy, by the way, the rule of mob is not to my liking, the mob always ends up ruling the individual, stealing from the individual.
Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but this is a job that I actually interviewed for, and have had a phone call about since.
I see what you're saying, but this job does at least pass the sniff test.
Some companies just have unrealisitci expectations.
I was interviewed for a contract job at least 6 months ago. I didn't succeed. Okay I did appalingly at the interview. Still, the skillset is fairly common. This ia a GUI/media role based on Qt. A pretty easy to use toolkit and fairly well known. UI development is a pretty common skillset, and the crossover with media development is fairly large, unless they want a compression specialist to develop new codecs (unlikely)
They're still advertising the position! The daily rate has been inching up over time so they're offering 50-100% above the going rate for UI/Qt stuff, but I can't work out what it is they want. I don't think they know.
Isn't there an old adage that a good landing is one you walk away from, or something? So that's a good landing.
It's always a tricky design decision though. Certainly, the best of us can make mistakes, and the operator is the most unpredictable component.
But then the designers are stil in the debugging stage. It is possible that there's an unforseen circumstance where activating the feather system at the wrong time is exactly what the pilot needs to do, and he doesn't want the system telling him not to do that.
A lot of the time I'm looking for reviews of a TV show and all I get is links to pirate versions. I already pirated it! I don't need them! Switching to an alternative.
Sadly they're doing it wrong. I really don't want to find the official web page for the show. That contains no useful information. I want to know what people think.
Okay. So you can say we should stop driving for pleasure. How about the other things I listed though? Is there a point at which the statistical number of deaths becomes acceptable for a few hours of fun?
By going for a pleasurable drive, I will statistically kill something like a 10 millionth of a person. Should we therefore stop driving for pleasure? industrial accidents and shipping cause deaths. All for things that we can, in many cases, do without. Even constructing roller coasters, there's a risk of falling or being injured by faulty equipment. Do we want to put a stop to all of these?
It's tragic when people die but if we can't accept the risk of death at any price, we can't live.
It's not like they stuck some desperate minimum wage earner in there. The guy doing the job knew the risks. If he didn't want to do it, you can be sure there would be plenty of people who would.
At the moment, Berlin, but also this was the case in the UK and Amsterdam, and Belgium; although I will admit the Brighton Odeon did crank up the volume a little high few years back. I'm sure they have perfectly decent cinemas in the US as well though.
I tend to prefer cinemas with air con and sensible levels on their sound system.
True. Although one of the main aims of this is to redistribute wealth to the poor. And this is what Republicans mean when they talk about "Wealth Redistribution".
Also, many have been claiming that this is what it is for some time. I don't know if proponents of Obamacare ever denied this though. I'm not all that familiar with US politics. Do Democrats consider wealth redistribution, in this sense, a bad thing?
Why not? There is a possibility it was Earhart. There's also the possibility it was some other white woman visiting an island a hundred miles away from any other land, with no indication of any means of arrival, and no record of this person. I'd have thought that it would have been quite a remarkable, well known woman to do this in the 1930's, and her disapperance would certainly have been equally remarkable.
Occams razor says Amelia Earhart is by far the most likely option.
Pocket watches weren't hard to get out of ones pocket either. Yet they were replaced by wristwatches. Why? Because it's that little bit more convenient. Same thing here.
"Reasonable" is the key word here though.
The story just doesn't add up. There's no plausible explanation. Someone decided to use his computer, and *only* his computer to do all their hacking, with his full knowledge. This person has absolutely no interest in protecting Warg, but Warg is willing to risk prison in order to protect this person. Why? It doesn't make sense!
So what would you propose to do about it? Blame isn't going to get anywhere. Regardless of whether it's me being tinfoil hattish, or them being unprincipled, I'm not going to persuade them.
Why wold they care? It's the recent records that potentially cause embarrassment. The earlier records were the result of an earlier congress. You can handle with a simple "Thanks for bringing this to my attention" and a promise to look into it. That's a win for the politician.
I think this problem will be solved. Free software is usually written for the programmer. As more programmers get 3D printers, better free software will be produced.
Cheep softare is written for the hobbyist, but that isn't a very large market. As more people buy 3D printers, they'll need software.
While it really is time for GP to get over it, I have to say, 14 characters would be a lot better than 8. You can actually use the name of the application. "Word Perfect" rather than "WORDPERF.EXE" or whatever Wordperfect called their application. 14 characters has way better coverage of possible names than 8.
If you respond, I will respond.
I make no claims about whether the ship is possible or not. Other people are claiming it is impossible, and using that as their argument. Therefore the onus of proof is on them.
I couldn't build it. I have no idea where to start. Nor would I to win an argument on the internet. I mean, seriously, who would do that?
Right, in this sense, aren't inherent. They're essentially limitations and obligations on the government and other tools of society.
In Britain we have the option to go for private health care. Private insurance costs a lot less than American health insurance. A huge 3% of the population take that offer.
Tessarakonteres was 128m long. And that had the requirement to be functional as a vessel rather, than just stay afloat. There are other possible reasons that the Wyoming had problems. The fact that the builders hadn't worked out the issues doesn't mean it's an engineering impossibility.
Would it be possible to build 4 vessels of 1/4 of the size of the ark? Would it be possible to link them together such that the flex is in the linkages. If so then it's at least theoretically possible to build a wooden vessel the size of the ark. Perhaps this is inconsistent with Genesis. But your claim is that it is completely impossible to build any wooden vessel of that size when obviously it is. You are now making a more specific claim, and using one failure to attempt to prove it.
I completely agree that it would have been impossible for Noah to have built the Ark at that time, but I don't accept that such a large wooden ship would be impossible. Can you prove that the Chinese treasure ships never existed?
It's way past time the US got rid of their government and replaced it with one that works for the betterment of society. Obamacare is a halfway solution that only exists because the government cares too much about business.
This is really a power that should be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. But whoever does it, trying to apply it as a patch for the existing fully private system, when that system is completely dysfunctional is terrible. A sensible process would be to wind down the private insurers and replace them with a proper public health system.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's a consensus rather than an inherent right to own property in general, and land in particular. I'm happy to go along with that consensus since that more or less tallies with my view on ownership and property rights, as well as a societal responsibility to contribute to society.
Some people with a more Libertarian mindset don't accept this concept of society, yet still seem to want society to recognise the subset of those rights that happen to be beneficial to them.
But you didn't answer my question.Who was the original owner of the land, and how did they make it?
Only if I need it. If I want it then I'm out of luck
So you don't think the government should have power of life and death over you, but you are quite happy to have power of life and death over me. I'm not talking about government violence. I'm talking about personal violence. And I don't believe your claim of the abstract notion of "property" is greater than my claim on the abstract notion of "right to not die of thirst".
From whom? Who did he acquire the land from? Who did the previous owner acquire the land from? The person before that? Who made the land?
I didn't say it was. I said it was leased from society as a whole, but a leasehold is a specific legal concept, so it's more of a analogy. Society as a whole can ask for it back.
It has nothing to do with "government". The government is a bunch of people who are either working for the common good or should be removed, and replaced by people who are. Something I really think is long overdue in the US.
An intriguing idea. How does all that work? My initial thought would suggest that that means that justice is limited to the wealthy. After I steal your water, who do you go to for help?
I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you. I may own just compensation afterwards, but the compensation would be the minimum cost of replacement of a bottle of water.
How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?
Take the people from a state. What do you have?
Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.