To equally charge 1.2 cents per mile driven for every vehicle regardless of weight, gas mileage or (when no gas is used - ie home-made bio-diesel, or even electric), or whether the vehicle was driven at all (towed, pulled on a trailer), is ridiculously stupid.
Factor in weight, gas-mileage (or no petroleum-based-fuel used at all), and whether or not the vehicle was actually driven, and maybe it might have a chance of being a proper replacement. Otherwise, all it is, is a tax on the middle and lower classes, leaving the rich or well-to-do with more money in their wallets or off-shore bank accounts.
I'm not claiming that MS's server market share was anywhere near the desktop market share, however, due to the Linux (and other *NIXes) it's shrinking again...
I don't know that I've ever changed my mind about it being laughable to use Windows anything as a server OS... too many system resources devoted to running an unnecessary GUI and all the bru-ha-ha that came with it. Give me a pure server OS, with command line and no gui any day. I cut my teeth on CTIX in the mid 80s. It was Burrough's AT&T variant that ran on Motorola 68K series over CTOS. The system would boot CTOS first, then you turned a key to get it to start CTIX over CTOS... It was ugly, it was slow, but it ran circles around the PC market of the time, even with 4 or 5 users logged in simultaneously, all running different databases (Progress 4GL RDBMS) and reports / development...
Correct, however, since when do we allow the topic of the article to restrict commentary.
The poster that I responded to questioned the validity of OS X *and* Linux chipping away at Microsoft's market share.
While Linux based OS desktop marketshare may be minimal in the United States, there are many countries where it's gaining a lot of momentum, especially in the government arenas.
But in the server arena is where Linux based operating systems are really carving into Microsoft's market share.
Each one of those scares only targeted one demographic / race / whatever, which was bad enough, and is a permanent blemish on the face of America.
Bush's illegal-under-the-constitution acts targeted Every American Citizen (well, I assume he has a personal "don't touch these people" list), and could warrant impeachment or possibly treason charges.
As anyone who's ever viewed porn at higher resolutions / definition can attest, it doesn't make it better, it brings out every flaw in greater detail - making you wish you'd never upgraded....
If you've got the attitude and aptitude to do the job, as well as a desire to learn from your mistakes (or others'), then yes, you have a chance.
I've met too many technical people with degrees that weren't worth the paper it was printed on, not to say that there haven't been very bright and talented people with degrees as well. I guess I'd say that I mean that it's the person, not the degree or lack thereof that makes a good technical person, whether you choose to become a systems admin / engineer (definitions of these terms differ from region to region), network admin / engineer or some other facet of IT.
I started as a UNIX admin in high school, and never looked back. 24 years later, I'm pretty much where I want to be, designing new systems and solutions for a fortune 500, with no desire to *move up* into management.
If you physically take an action that physically does some damage, then yes, that's a definite action - reaction.
If you say something, you have no control over how that person may respond to what is being said. (you may have an idea, but you really cannot tell).
That's the trouble with mental abuse, it leaves no visible (physical / tangible) marks that point to what / who caused them.
In this case there's clearly evidence showing that the woman taunted the girl, in an attempt to drive down her self worth. I'm guessing it was not her intent that the girl kill herself...
It's a real mess, and I don't envy the jury that has to decide this case...
The way you describe it, all suicides essentially become murders then, (no I'm not defending this piece of filth's actions) as anyone who does this has some reason, caused by some thing, action, person, wording, whatever that drove them to it.
Person goes to casino, loses all their money, comes home, kills themselves... The casino is guilty of murder for taking their money.
Person goes to church, confesses to something terrible, the priest tells them they are worthless pieces of filth because they did x, person goes home, kills themselves, the priest is a murderer.
Yes, what the person did was abhorrent. But they did NOT kill the other person. They mentally / verbally (or is that textually) abused them.
Drill sergeants bring people down, make them feel worthless, lower than the worm that eats dog shit all day, every day, and yes, some soldier wannabes end up suiciding, yet the drill instructors aren't charged with murder, even though they drove the recruit to it.
Do I think this person should get off scott free? No. Do I think they should be charged with murder? No. Accessory to murder (where the person who killed themselves is the murderer and murderee both) - possibly. Child abuse, reckless endangerment, verbal and mental abuse... absolutely...
Where do you draw the line, where do we stop? I don't have a good answer. Personally, (based on emotional response) I want this woman dead, preferably through the most painful and longest lasting method possible. Is that the right way to think? probably not...
I know I'll get hammered a bit, but the auto industry is not asking for a *bailout* as the financial industry is, they are asking for a loan, albeit a very long-term one.
When will companies like Morgan-Stanley and other big name financial companies pay back their chunks of the 700 billion.
Gee - Apple charges more than any other vendor for something that's worth less than the K-Tel version of the product, and then proceeds to lock out anyone from doing what they want with *their* property...
Totally another reason not to buy any Apple product, as a boycott, until they open up their entire product line to 3rd party competition / clones.
If the job description clearly states that it requires a 35 year (or older) male, then you're saying that that's okay, yet it's obviously not (which is what the job of president requires) at least on the age part, and voters seem to imply the sex part - at least so far.
No, I'm not in college, I started working as a UNIX admin at the age of 16, 24 years ago... (you can do the math), and yes, so far, have been hired (or offered the position) for every job / position that I've applied for.
Yet again, I'll state that as long as you clearly document what your reasoning is for turning someone down, the questions you ask in and of themselves are in no way illegal.
If you tell them that they were missing X experience, or that they don't have the right credentials (security clearances), or that they have an XX chromosome while the job requires someone with an XY chromosome due to some obscure ancient technology that only works for males (yes, that was a joke), then there's the reason, and the person can balk, or scream, or kick and yell and do whatever.
I'm not trying to state that making a decision based on age, sex, religion is right. However, I am stating that asking questions about such things is not in and of itself the basis for any wrongdoing, or lawsuits, or criminal action regardless of whether or not the person being interviewed might think they are.
Perception is a double-edged sword. If you don't do anything that might be perceived by *someone* to be wrong, then you'll never do anything, which *IS* wrong.
Semantics would imply a difference of opinion as to whether or not two terms mean the same thing or one term means (or is implied to mean) two different things. In this case, we are stating two different terms with two different definitions, hence semantics is not appropriate.
I'm saying one thing, you're saying another, never the two shall meet.
That wasn't an "I'm too good for this" attitude, that was a "This is @#$@#$@ stupid, and I can't believe someone didn't already automate this" attitude.
[quote]Not a fan of having the mercury ones in the house[/quote]
Check into LED based lighting....
One of the things I've been thinking about for some time was going to a pure DC based power grid for all lighting and small electronics. Get one (or 2 for redundancy - with hot-switching) very efficient AC->DC transformer, with output taps at 40,12,9,6,4.5,3 and 1.5 volts. Run appropriate wiring from each tap to the right locations.
I think cheap and efficient LED lighting for the house is still a few years off, but researchers are making great strides in this direction.
You can ask questions about any topic as long as it isn't a driver in the decision making process...
It's unfortunate that you seem to think you have to worry about the perceptions of the person being interviewed to the point that you limit questions from topics that can be of serious import.
As long as your notes on the decision making process are clear as to what the reason (or reasons) were for not hiring someone, then those questions are moot.
You seem to imply that asking the questions makes them a factor in the decision making process.
If it was such an illegal thing to ask, then application forms would not be allowed to ask things like "Birthdate" - oh my that impies asking the age, or heaven forbid..."Sex" - that implies sex discrimination.
It's information pure and simple, and can lead you down different discussion paths based on actual life experiences depending on the age of the applicant. "Where were you when you watched the first American land on the moon?" vs "Where were you when you watched the space shuttle explode?" vs "Where were you when you picked your nose while watching teletubbies?" (*yes, that was a joke - get over it*)...
Oh and by the way, one of the top jobs in the nation is age restricted, how does that comply with your age discrimination law? (Yes, I'm talking about the president)...
One would have to be able to show that one had "equal" experience, knowledge and ability before one could presume "prejudicial" practices.
"Similar" would be like paying for a Porsche and getting a Subaru instead, the cars might "look" similiar, have similar style engines and may even be painted the same color. But a Subaru is NOT a Porsche, never will be.
I'm sorry you feel that way, as nothing could be further from the truth, as I myself started working professionally in the field at the ripe young age of 16, while still in high-school.
There was no *age* context given. There was, however, an experience context. It's unfortunate that the only way to get 'n' years of experience is to be 'n' years older than you were when you started. Currently, there's no way to time-compress experience, if there were, it would be wonderful for all.
Did I say using age against someone? No. I said asking someone a question to do with age isn't an issue and isn't illegal. If you happen to use age as a reason, then yes, there's an issue, but that DOES NOT mean that you cannot ask age related questions. nuff said...
Oh, and by the way, that law was written to protect older employees against being dismissed due to age to keep from having to pay retirement benefits, not to protect young people from being excluded from a hiring process... May want to read a little more about that.... =)
I did not categorize anyone into a group, perhaps you've misunderstood what I wrote.
What I have seen is a tendency of young people to think they know it all, and older (usually more mature/stable) people to understand they still have a lot to learn.
Not every young person is a know-it-all, and not every old person still yearns to learn, there's always exceptions, but to read something that blatantly false into my statement says something about yourself...
Slashdot Mirror
To equally charge 1.2 cents per mile driven for every vehicle regardless of weight, gas mileage or (when no gas is used - ie home-made bio-diesel, or even electric), or whether the vehicle was driven at all (towed, pulled on a trailer), is ridiculously stupid.
Factor in weight, gas-mileage (or no petroleum-based-fuel used at all), and whether or not the vehicle was actually driven, and maybe it might have a chance of being a proper replacement. Otherwise, all it is, is a tax on the middle and lower classes, leaving the rich or well-to-do with more money in their wallets or off-shore bank accounts.
ie...
Take the transcript, use it to create a teleplay - claiming fiction, while using 100% accurate transcription as the dialogue...
just a thought...
Now we have it in writing, take them down...
Yes, yes, I know, they coded it in legalsleeze...
Yet it sounds just like "If'n yous don' wan' nuttin' tos happen' to yous, yous bezt pays up, capiche?"
I'm not claiming that MS's server market share was anywhere near the desktop market share, however, due to the Linux (and other *NIXes) it's shrinking again...
I don't know that I've ever changed my mind about it being laughable to use Windows anything as a server OS... too many system resources devoted to running an unnecessary GUI and all the bru-ha-ha that came with it. Give me a pure server OS, with command line and no gui any day. I cut my teeth on CTIX in the mid 80s. It was Burrough's AT&T variant that ran on Motorola 68K series over CTOS. The system would boot CTOS first, then you turned a key to get it to start CTIX over CTOS... It was ugly, it was slow, but it ran circles around the PC market of the time, even with 4 or 5 users logged in simultaneously, all running different databases (Progress 4GL RDBMS) and reports / development...
Correct, however, since when do we allow the topic of the article to restrict commentary.
The poster that I responded to questioned the validity of OS X *and* Linux chipping away at Microsoft's market share.
While Linux based OS desktop marketshare may be minimal in the United States, there are many countries where it's gaining a lot of momentum, especially in the government arenas.
But in the server arena is where Linux based operating systems are really carving into Microsoft's market share.
OS X is chipping away at the desktop market.
Linux is chipping away at the enterprise server market.
So yes, OS X and Linux are chipping away at Microsoft's market share of 2 or more markets...
Each one of those scares only targeted one demographic / race / whatever, which was bad enough, and is a permanent blemish on the face of America.
Bush's illegal-under-the-constitution acts targeted Every American Citizen (well, I assume he has a personal "don't touch these people" list), and could warrant impeachment or possibly treason charges.
Dude...
As anyone who's ever viewed porn at higher resolutions / definition can attest, it doesn't make it better, it brings out every flaw in greater detail - making you wish you'd never upgraded....
If you've got the attitude and aptitude to do the job, as well as a desire to learn from your mistakes (or others'), then yes, you have a chance.
I've met too many technical people with degrees that weren't worth the paper it was printed on, not to say that there haven't been very bright and talented people with degrees as well. I guess I'd say that I mean that it's the person, not the degree or lack thereof that makes a good technical person, whether you choose to become a systems admin / engineer (definitions of these terms differ from region to region), network admin / engineer or some other facet of IT.
I started as a UNIX admin in high school, and never looked back. 24 years later, I'm pretty much where I want to be, designing new systems and solutions for a fortune 500, with no desire to *move up* into management.
No.
Now to wait the requisite seconds before hitting submit..
If you physically take an action that physically does some damage, then yes, that's a definite action - reaction.
If you say something, you have no control over how that person may respond to what is being said. (you may have an idea, but you really cannot tell).
That's the trouble with mental abuse, it leaves no visible (physical / tangible) marks that point to what / who caused them.
In this case there's clearly evidence showing that the woman taunted the girl, in an attempt to drive down her self worth. I'm guessing it was not her intent that the girl kill herself...
It's a real mess, and I don't envy the jury that has to decide this case...
The way you describe it, all suicides essentially become murders then, (no I'm not defending this piece of filth's actions) as anyone who does this has some reason, caused by some thing, action, person, wording, whatever that drove them to it.
Person goes to casino, loses all their money, comes home, kills themselves... The casino is guilty of murder for taking their money.
Person goes to church, confesses to something terrible, the priest tells them they are worthless pieces of filth because they did x, person goes home, kills themselves, the priest is a murderer.
Yes, what the person did was abhorrent. But they did NOT kill the other person. They mentally / verbally (or is that textually) abused them.
Drill sergeants bring people down, make them feel worthless, lower than the worm that eats dog shit all day, every day, and yes, some soldier wannabes end up suiciding, yet the drill instructors aren't charged with murder, even though they drove the recruit to it.
Do I think this person should get off scott free? No. Do I think they should be charged with murder? No. Accessory to murder (where the person who killed themselves is the murderer and murderee both) - possibly. Child abuse, reckless endangerment, verbal and mental abuse... absolutely...
Where do you draw the line, where do we stop? I don't have a good answer. Personally, (based on emotional response) I want this woman dead, preferably through the most painful and longest lasting method possible. Is that the right way to think? probably not...
Just some thoughts...
When the masses get ahold of this and try getting it to scan the internet for pr0wn, and it responds "Not tonight, I have a headache..."...
I know I'll get hammered a bit, but the auto industry is not asking for a *bailout* as the financial industry is, they are asking for a loan, albeit a very long-term one.
When will companies like Morgan-Stanley and other big name financial companies pay back their chunks of the 700 billion.
Damnit... That's what I was going to post... =)
Gee - Apple charges more than any other vendor for something that's worth less than the K-Tel version of the product, and then proceeds to lock out anyone from doing what they want with *their* property...
Totally another reason not to buy any Apple product, as a boycott, until they open up their entire product line to 3rd party competition / clones.
If the job description clearly states that it requires a 35 year (or older) male, then you're saying that that's okay, yet it's obviously not (which is what the job of president requires) at least on the age part, and voters seem to imply the sex part - at least so far.
No, I'm not in college, I started working as a UNIX admin at the age of 16, 24 years ago... (you can do the math), and yes, so far, have been hired (or offered the position) for every job / position that I've applied for.
Yet again, I'll state that as long as you clearly document what your reasoning is for turning someone down, the questions you ask in and of themselves are in no way illegal.
If you tell them that they were missing X experience, or that they don't have the right credentials (security clearances), or that they have an XX chromosome while the job requires someone with an XY chromosome due to some obscure ancient technology that only works for males (yes, that was a joke), then there's the reason, and the person can balk, or scream, or kick and yell and do whatever.
I'm not trying to state that making a decision based on age, sex, religion is right. However, I am stating that asking questions about such things is not in and of itself the basis for any wrongdoing, or lawsuits, or criminal action regardless of whether or not the person being interviewed might think they are.
Perception is a double-edged sword. If you don't do anything that might be perceived by *someone* to be wrong, then you'll never do anything, which *IS* wrong.
Semantics would imply a difference of opinion as to whether or not two terms mean the same thing or one term means (or is implied to mean) two different things. In this case, we are stating two different terms with two different definitions, hence semantics is not appropriate.
I'm saying one thing, you're saying another, never the two shall meet.
That wasn't an "I'm too good for this" attitude, that was a "This is @#$@#$@ stupid, and I can't believe someone didn't already automate this" attitude.
Good for you!!
[quote]Not a fan of having the mercury ones in the house[/quote]
Check into LED based lighting....
One of the things I've been thinking about for some time was going to a pure DC based power grid for all lighting and small electronics. Get one (or 2 for redundancy - with hot-switching) very efficient AC->DC transformer, with output taps at 40,12,9,6,4.5,3 and 1.5 volts. Run appropriate wiring from each tap to the right locations.
I think cheap and efficient LED lighting for the house is still a few years off, but researchers are making great strides in this direction.
You can ask questions about any topic as long as it isn't a driver in the decision making process...
It's unfortunate that you seem to think you have to worry about the perceptions of the person being interviewed to the point that you limit questions from topics that can be of serious import.
As long as your notes on the decision making process are clear as to what the reason (or reasons) were for not hiring someone, then those questions are moot.
You seem to imply that asking the questions makes them a factor in the decision making process.
If it was such an illegal thing to ask, then application forms would not be allowed to ask things like "Birthdate" - oh my that impies asking the age, or heaven forbid..."Sex" - that implies sex discrimination.
It's information pure and simple, and can lead you down different discussion paths based on actual life experiences depending on the age of the applicant. "Where were you when you watched the first American land on the moon?" vs "Where were you when you watched the space shuttle explode?" vs "Where were you when you picked your nose while watching teletubbies?" (*yes, that was a joke - get over it*)...
Oh and by the way, one of the top jobs in the nation is age restricted, how does that comply with your age discrimination law? (Yes, I'm talking about the president)...
"Similar" does not imply "equal"...
One would have to be able to show that one had "equal" experience, knowledge and ability before one could presume "prejudicial" practices.
"Similar" would be like paying for a Porsche and getting a Subaru instead, the cars might "look" similiar, have similar style engines and may even be painted the same color. But a Subaru is NOT a Porsche, never will be.
I'm sorry you feel that way, as nothing could be further from the truth, as I myself started working professionally in the field at the ripe young age of 16, while still in high-school.
There was no *age* context given. There was, however, an experience context. It's unfortunate that the only way to get 'n' years of experience is to be 'n' years older than you were when you started.
Currently, there's no way to time-compress experience, if there were, it would be wonderful for all.
No translation required... You read that in yourself, nothing was implied or otherwise stated to that effect.
It's not a problem with the poster, just the reader.
Did I say using age against someone? No. I said asking someone a question to do with age isn't an issue and isn't illegal.
If you happen to use age as a reason, then yes, there's an issue, but that DOES NOT mean that you cannot ask age related questions. nuff said...
Oh, and by the way, that law was written to protect older employees against being dismissed due to age to keep from having to pay retirement benefits, not to protect young people from being excluded from a hiring process... May want to read a little more about that.... =)
I did not categorize anyone into a group, perhaps you've misunderstood what I wrote.
What I have seen is a tendency of young people to think they know it all, and older (usually more mature/stable) people to understand they still have a lot to learn.
Not every young person is a know-it-all, and not every old person still yearns to learn, there's always exceptions, but to read something that blatantly false into my statement says something about yourself...