Well, I guess it's possible that couple of fat smelly hippies (mad love to all y'all) wearing sweaty Free Dmitry Sklyarov shirts and scarfing donuts outside of Apple stores hit their sales so badly that Steve Jobs himself stepped in and changed Apple's policy.
It's also possible that when I get home, I'll find that a naked, horny Alyson Hannigan has been duct taped to my bed. By the Easter Bunny.
Dude, having the Easter Bunny duct taped to your bed is perverted enough.
Actually, the entire world has come to agreement that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. There are still communist regimes out there, but not a single functioning pure capitalist nation. And the most populous, most powerful nation on earth practices more communism than capitalism.
I'm sorry, you're right, I assumed you were the gp without looking. I was insulting him in response to his insult, so your jumping on me for the insult seemed misplaced.
Because the owners aren't the just deservers of the benefits of the labor. Duh.
Why not? After all, the owners PAID the laborers in exchange for that labor. Further, the owners put up their own money to create the enterprise prior to it becoming "self-sufficient", and are on the hook for the bills if the times change the the enterprise loses money. Only if the laborers are risking THEIR capital should they reap extra rewards based on the use of that capital.
Are you stupid?
Oh, okay. That's the kind of arguments you are going to use to support your position. Convinces me.
Just like you convinced me.
I included reasonable payment for the capital outlay in my model.
I understand you included what YOU figured was appropriate in some model that you've come up with. Sadly, nobody died and left you in charge of deciding what was sufficient for other people.
Unless your model covers slavery exclusively, then it includes the fact that the laborers have decided that the fee they are being paid is sufficient for the labor they are providing. Further, unless your model is also communist (where the workers own the means of production) then the workers are not risking their money creating the system so deserve no return on that money when there is success -- just as they pay nothing when the system fails. Why do you believe you should have the right to decide otherwise?
In short, if Mickey-D's offers me $8/hour to flip burgers and I say "ok", who are YOU to come along and say "and Mickey-D must also pay you a cut of the profits for the store", especially since I don't have to put money into the system when there are losses?
Envision the end product of the capitalist delusion. One person owns everything, and pays others only enough to keep them alive. They all take the job because its do the job, or die of starvation, which is the same reason people work at McDonalds for $8/hr. But who am I to say no, that's not right. I'm the guy who knows the basics of right from wrong.
I'm actually not clear that I believe corps have to make money. I think we could have a perfectly functional economy with everything run non-profit, with an exception for capital investment repayment at an appropriate rate of interest. Any additional profits should go to the employees (you know, the ones who actually do the work), or into price reduction. It would be a far more fair system, and would discourage the rampant exploitation we have now.
$5? When I can get it used for $1 or borrow from the library for free? $5 per book will definitely pay my way to the used book store. I'd say $2 or even $1, like music is about right. You get way, way less bits of data with a book than with a song.
The problem is likely that you DID get the director's cut, for values of director==Constantine. The bible was much longer before he got his hands on it. I always quote from the longer, source material.
Goose feathers make better quills than those from birds of prey.
And yes, I do program in fortran.
But God looks favorably on those who use feathers from birds of prey, assuming you killed the bird of prey on a sacrificial altar before harvesting the feather. Remember Revelations 16:32 ' and for the righteous who appease him with the blood of the hunter of the sky and code with the feather shall find that He has guided their hand and made no insects'.
I've always assumed insects there is a mistranslation for bugs.
If your ide didn't point out that error with a red underline or some such you are working in the wrong environment, or naming your variables very very poorly.
Yeahhhh... but Eric Harris is such a nice sounding name. You can't really believe an analysis that concludes he was the problem. Obviously it must have been the Klebold. That's only a few letters off from being a Hitler.
The amount of work that goes into the test is equal to the amount of work you'd have to do for our screening interview, so it's really just a choice for the applicant whether they'd like to have the stress of a drive + the one on one interview, or the home test.
We only get about 20% failing to complete the take home.
Sadly, we couldn't really make that work. All of our work requires infrastructure components that you couldn't realistically (and likely wouldn't want to) learn in the time-frame of a challenge. Our challenges are all in surface area (covering features our clients need) and in managing complexity from that high surface area.
Returns wrong boolean value (even though we provide code that will test this). We expect (and the javadoc says) that isWord should return true for a word that is found in the dictionary.
Reads file incorrectly, though the file is provided, and is just a series of \n terminated strings...
Writes their own data structure that doesn't work, rather than using a java collection.
I'm more interested in hiring the guy with the 5-digit id. I don't remember quicksort of the top of my head either. Not everyone's memory works that way, and it's not the best metric of how good a developer they are. It's frequently not even a good metric.
Well, we do filter some people who don't bother to respond, but the percentage is only about 20%. And if that's people who don't care which job they get, just that they get a job, that's ok with us. We'd rather get people who are interested enough in our job to complete the task. So that's a good filter, not a bad one.
We also offer anyone whose resume looks sufficiently strong the option to come in for a screening interview of comparable length. So if you'd prefer to drive, interview, drive rather than program at home, that's ok with us. We've only had a few take us up on that.
All in all, the take home quiz has served as an excellent filter for the people we don't want to hire, and has been a great time saver on our side compared to the previous process of requiring everyone to come in person for the screening interview. For us, filter filter filter is what it's all about... we have to reject roughly 19/20 applicants AFTER the resume evaluation.
Well, the motivation currently is supposed to be landing the job. But that certainly couldn't hurt... I doubt our management will feel like it's the right investment though.
We actually use a take home exam that is meant to be easy yet fun, and affords opportunities to impress us. Sadly (or fortunately, perhaps) it seems only about one in twenty or so bother to do a decent job with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally delusional wingnuts.
Well, I guess it's possible that couple of fat smelly hippies (mad love to all y'all) wearing sweaty Free Dmitry Sklyarov shirts and scarfing donuts outside of Apple stores hit their sales so badly that Steve Jobs himself stepped in and changed Apple's policy.
It's also possible that when I get home, I'll find that a naked, horny Alyson Hannigan has been duct taped to my bed. By the Easter Bunny.
Dude, having the Easter Bunny duct taped to your bed is perverted enough.
Actually, the entire world has come to agreement that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. There are still communist regimes out there, but not a single functioning pure capitalist nation. And the most populous, most powerful nation on earth practices more communism than capitalism.
I'm sorry, you're right, I assumed you were the gp without looking. I was insulting him in response to his insult, so your jumping on me for the insult seemed misplaced.
The rest of the argument is what it is.
Because the owners aren't the just deservers of the benefits of the labor. Duh.
Why not? After all, the owners PAID the laborers in exchange for that labor. Further, the owners put up their own money to create the enterprise prior to it becoming "self-sufficient", and are on the hook for the bills if the times change the the enterprise loses money. Only if the laborers are risking THEIR capital should they reap extra rewards based on the use of that capital.
Are you stupid?
Oh, okay. That's the kind of arguments you are going to use to support your position. Convinces me.
Just like you convinced me.
I included reasonable payment for the capital outlay in my model.
I understand you included what YOU figured was appropriate in some model that you've come up with. Sadly, nobody died and left you in charge of deciding what was sufficient for other people.
Unless your model covers slavery exclusively, then it includes the fact that the laborers have decided that the fee they are being paid is sufficient for the labor they are providing. Further, unless your model is also communist (where the workers own the means of production) then the workers are not risking their money creating the system so deserve no return on that money when there is success -- just as they pay nothing when the system fails. Why do you believe you should have the right to decide otherwise?
In short, if Mickey-D's offers me $8/hour to flip burgers and I say "ok", who are YOU to come along and say "and Mickey-D must also pay you a cut of the profits for the store", especially since I don't have to put money into the system when there are losses?
Envision the end product of the capitalist delusion. One person owns everything, and pays others only enough to keep them alive. They all take the job because its do the job, or die of starvation, which is the same reason people work at McDonalds for $8/hr. But who am I to say no, that's not right. I'm the guy who knows the basics of right from wrong.
Because the owners aren't the just deservers of the benefits of the labor. Duh.
Are you stupid?
I included reasonable payment for the capital outlay in my model.
My library is walking distance, the only cost is opportunity.
That's why i included incentive for the capital outlay. I just put a bound on the upside.
I'm actually not clear that I believe corps have to make money. I think we could have a perfectly functional economy with everything run non-profit, with an exception for capital investment repayment at an appropriate rate of interest. Any additional profits should go to the employees (you know, the ones who actually do the work), or into price reduction. It would be a far more fair system, and would discourage the rampant exploitation we have now.
$5? When I can get it used for $1 or borrow from the library for free? $5 per book will definitely pay my way to the used book store. I'd say $2 or even $1, like music is about right. You get way, way less bits of data with a book than with a song.
The problem is likely that you DID get the director's cut, for values of director==Constantine. The bible was much longer before he got his hands on it. I always quote from the longer, source material.
What's the best kind of attack to have, heart attack, or stroke?
Goose feathers make better quills than those from birds of prey.
And yes, I do program in fortran.
But God looks favorably on those who use feathers from birds of prey, assuming you killed the bird of prey on a sacrificial altar before harvesting the feather. Remember Revelations 16:32
' and for the righteous who appease him with the blood of the hunter of the sky and code with the feather shall find that He has guided their hand and made no insects'.
I've always assumed insects there is a mistranslation for bugs.
If your ide didn't point out that error with a red underline or some such you are working in the wrong environment, or naming your variables very very poorly.
Blasphemer! Stone him and raze his village!
Yeahhhh ... but Eric Harris is such a nice sounding name. You can't really believe an analysis that concludes he was the problem. Obviously it must have been the Klebold. That's only a few letters off from being a Hitler.
The amount of work that goes into the test is equal to the amount of work you'd have to do for our screening interview, so it's really just a choice for the applicant whether they'd like to have the stress of a drive + the one on one interview, or the home test.
We only get about 20% failing to complete the take home.
Sadly, we couldn't really make that work. All of our work requires infrastructure components that you couldn't realistically (and likely wouldn't want to) learn in the time-frame of a challenge. Our challenges are all in surface area (covering features our clients need) and in managing complexity from that high surface area.
Higher. Assuming their implementation is better than HashSet and works. However, this has never happened.
Let's see, the most common failures are:
Returns wrong boolean value (even though we provide code that will test this). We expect (and the javadoc says) that isWord should return true for a word that is found in the dictionary.
Reads file incorrectly, though the file is provided, and is just a series of \n terminated strings ...
Writes their own data structure that doesn't work, rather than using a java collection.
Even with a B.S. on the resume and 10 years in the field on the resume, we get about 25-40% candidates who couldn't implement a linked list.
The question is whether you should be programming if it is too trivial to remember rather than too confusing to remember.
I'm more interested in hiring the guy with the 5-digit id. I don't remember quicksort of the top of my head either. Not everyone's memory works that way, and it's not the best metric of how good a developer they are. It's frequently not even a good metric.
Well, we do filter some people who don't bother to respond, but the percentage is only about 20%. And if that's people who don't care which job they get, just that they get a job, that's ok with us. We'd rather get people who are interested enough in our job to complete the task. So that's a good filter, not a bad one.
We also offer anyone whose resume looks sufficiently strong the option to come in for a screening interview of comparable length. So if you'd prefer to drive, interview, drive rather than program at home, that's ok with us. We've only had a few take us up on that.
All in all, the take home quiz has served as an excellent filter for the people we don't want to hire, and has been a great time saver on our side compared to the previous process of requiring everyone to come in person for the screening interview. For us, filter filter filter is what it's all about ... we have to reject roughly 19/20 applicants AFTER the resume evaluation.
Well, the motivation currently is supposed to be landing the job. But that certainly couldn't hurt ... I doubt our management will feel like it's the right investment though.
We actually use a take home exam that is meant to be easy yet fun, and affords opportunities to impress us. Sadly (or fortunately, perhaps) it seems only about one in twenty or so bother to do a decent job with it.