I have been using FreeBSD for about 3 years now (I started with a 0.99 Linux back in the day), so I can tell you from my perspective what I like about FreeBSD above Linux (I still use Linux at work) and what I would see as good and bad.
One of the things I really enjoy about FreeBSD is the centralized control. This means that there are never 2 libc's floating around that I have to deal with, never multiple filesystem layouts to deal with (well, I guess you do have all the major branches of FreeBSD that do differ some), you don't have to worry about binary compatibilty as much. The centralize FreeBSD model has led me to be much more productive, as I do not have to worry about library miscatches and keeping my system up to date as much. Everybody repeat after me: "CVSup is the most wonderful tool, the most wonderful tool, the most wonderful tool in the world."
I like how I just go to ports and make from there and rarely have to worry about things breaking or finding the right library.
If Debian were to just take the FreeBSD kernel and put their own, redundant packge system ontop of FreeBSD and ports GLibc, then you destroy two of my favorite parts of FreeBSD.
If, however, Debian were to integrate the package system ontop of ports and remove pkg_* utilities (or make wrappers for backwards compatability), that would be nice. If Debian were to ports their install to FreeBSD that would be nice (but not of monumental impact). If Debian were to get Gnome to run better on FreeBSD or ports some of the new Linux-gadgets (like the filesystems and drivers) to FreeBSD that would be nice, too.
I am certainly not going to push the Debian developers away, but I think that they should realize that FreeBSD already have many nice things going for it and by complicating matters with multiple libraries they will not be nearly as much appreciated as if they were to learn how to work withing the FreeBSD methodology.
The paranoia surrounding the possiblity of illegal search and seizure is unfounded. The US Supreme Court has been sympathic to the Fourth Ammendment since the 1970's especially regarding electronic surveillance.
There have been many good uses of wiretaps over the years that have allowed government agencies to target organized crime, drug smugglers, and the such.
In United States v. United States Distric Court [407 US 297 (1972)]:
"a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation."
In the same case Justice Douglas speaks more precisely about electronic surveillance:
"the need is acute for placing on the Government [407 U.S. 297, 325] the heavy burden to show that exigencies of the situation [make electronic surveillance] course imperative."
Why are people so upset at this tool? Remember this is not a policy, it is a tool (for the geeks: just as you can call BO a tool and seperate it from usage).
Psychologists have long been able to point to various behavioralisms that have been shown to appear in more agreesive people. None of the indicators alone is sufficient; they all mean much more when taken in persepective with the rest of the person, but they are not irrelevant.
Why is it that lifetime offenders can be picked out before they even reach puberty? This is not a coincidence. Why would you try to stop this from happening? This does not infringe on any of you rights as a citizen of human.
I think that the little information about yourself that you giveup will be healthy for high-school society in the long term.
Of all the figures you quote, they can only get better by being selective of the company you take options from. Its similar to playing any game, you don't make move randomly, you think about them. I have worked for 4 startups now and had 2 go public (but I left the last one that went public just before it did).
Just remember to be selective like you would normally be and don't let the lure or options seduce you to work at a place that you don't see going anywhere.
Its not enough to say that things can be used for other OSes if you want.
The intent up front should be to provided an OpenGL on multiple OSes. Why is it that all the Non RedHat people get all excited about releasing products "for RedHat Linux"? Becuase if there is no intention of helping other platforms then it is more lilely that they will fall to the side in the future.
I just do not want to see people start to develop for specific platforms. I think that it helps all of us if we develop for Free Software.
Cooperation between all the Free Software camps is an important part of our world. All the major Free projects strive to work on all FreeUnixen: Netscape, Gnome, Mesa, etc...
But now, our community is splintering with announcements like this:
Operating systems other than Linux. BSD etc. are welcome to use whatever comes out of this project, but we are explicitly not trying to solve this problem for every free OS in the world. To all of you who have said how easy it is to write portable code and to make it run on all platforms, they are basically saying that you are wrong. Do we really want people like this harming our comminity? How is this any better than the Microsoft "Will only work on MS Windows" philosophy?
One pratical example where Scheme syntax is simplistic is OO (in pratice you have to name the class, method and instance at each method call, not fun at all). First, you are confusing syntax with programming interface. Scheme has no provided OO system, but there are many that you can build on top of it. There is no syntax for objects. Seccond, I don't really know what you are talking about, unless you are trying to think about the SICP version of object as functions returning functions. But then, the interface is just asking the function to give you a function: ((object 'method) arguement) See, no syntax. Yes, these are abstract concepts, but they are the foundation of computers and how they work. That is what you really want to teach people. -jason
I don't know if you were using the same Scheme that I do, but how can you compare Scheme syntax to that of C?
How can you say that there is too much? The only syntax in the language is '(' and ')' to denote a function (or macro) call. There is no syntax besides that (some versions have some syntax for arrays, too).
This has always been one of the main Scheme benefits (and the rest of the Lisp family, too, I guess) is that it's syntax is so incredibly simple that it can't get in the way.
I would like to see you find a language in which has a cleaner, more consistent syntax than Scheme (I don't know of any).
I started using ML for project about 2 years ago (OCAML) and found the syntax unwieldy. The distinctions between the two different calling conventions (lists of argument capable of being curried versus pare wise agruments that cannot be curried) is pointless.
The object syntax has noticeably been grafted on and is convoluted.
And any language where it is optional to show what procedure is being called on what arguments is flawed in that it makes it unreadable for both humans and compilers (just look at Perl -- if I type 'f g h i' does it get parsed as (also remeber that the operators are left to right associative).
You get the same problems in ML. The language has a some nice ideas, but the overall implementation and ad hoc nature of the features added over time make the lanaguage far from ideal for either teaching or using.
go read Knuth's Literate Programming and use WEB and CWEB. Its like the reverse of code. Instead of writing code with inline documentation, you write documentation with in-line code, then CWEB TANGLE's it into something the C compiler understands or WEAVE's it into documentation.
This is still a gray area; no case has yet to reach the Supream Court (that I know of) that has provided us an answer. However, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 does provide some context (Title 18 of USC, go look up the section for yourself, you can expect me to remeber everything. Chapter II of the ECPA adds to Title 18). And recent state and lower level decisions also give some level of protection to both the Company and the Person.
The ECPA deals mostly with government behavior and monitoring, but it does not exempt the Company from its regulations. There are two areas that are closely related to the Company-Person relationship: (1) where the provider of the comminication service is allowed to monitor the communication and (2) where the monitoring is done in the normal course of business.
The first issue allows the Company to monitor services that it provides. A phone is considered a "common carrier" and is thus protected, however a successful defense had been made in the case where the phone is an extension and the company owns the PBX. The same protection is granted to mail since it is carried by the USPS. However the Company is allowed to search voice mail. Email is also monitorable since it is a service provided by the company (however this obviously does not extend to the idea if you telnet out and read your email on a non-Company machine. The Company would be allowed to monitor your telnet session, but not your email. This is what we have ssh for;). These guidelines do not apply in all cases. We will get to consent later on.
The second issue is rather broad. It provides a delineation between business and person communication and implies that business only communication may be monitored. It also provides a defense for excessive targeted monitoring. There has already been successful litigation of this type. (In California, I think) An employee sued his employer for monitoring his phone for 24 hours straight to determine if he was attempting a robbery.
Consent is a very important issue. "Implied consent" is not valid to allow communication monitoring. The courts have held a very hight standard for this. There is one clear case where the company provides an "expectation of privacy" and then violates this. An expectaion of privacy can be anything from explicitly saying that there will be no monitoring to not specifying a policy (yes, that means by default you have an expectation of privacy). The more blurred case, but still non-monitorable is when the Company say the the Employee may be monitored. This does not give consent for monitoring.
The bottom line for a company to be completely safe is to provide a clear policy stating that the person *will* be monitored. The company should not try to monitor what they do not own. The company should only monitor business related communication.
Please get your facts straight. You now use the procedures suser() and suser_xxx() to determine super-user type credentials:
/* * Test whether the specified credentials imply "super-user" * privilege; if so, and we have accounting info, set the flag * indicating use of super-powers. * Returns 0 or error. */ int suser(p)
Not bashing E, here: it is good and all, but I would put my money on SCWM being the most configurable window manager. It uses GUILE to achieve a very high degree of flexibility. Nearly everything can be changed dynamically (even on a per window bases -- how many other window managers do you know that can have different decorations themes on different windows). The constraint-base layout module is also fantastic. GUILE/SCWM scripts that call GTK+ widgets... etc..
Google does well on large collections where the links between pages are (thought to be) determined by how good the content is (as in research paper references -- the best papers are referenced the most). Google searches on intranets suck. In that world, the links are mostly artificial to unrelated and not necessarily good (look at the search at Red Hat to see for yourself). Inside of a corporate website, I cannot see any good reasons to use Google over something like Inktomi or Altavista.
Why are they using a small Red Hat installation. There is this cool thing called PicoBSD for shit like this? No need to reinvent the wheel. PicoBSD is even tuned for the small processor, small memory, diskless configuration.
>I would not sit back and watch Pakistan and >China stock up on ammo. I would stock up too.
GET A FUCKING CLUE. The only reason I am this pissed off at you is becuase in a previous post (about 2 below this one) you told someone the s/he needed to brushup on his military theory. It is painfully obvious that you do not know what you talking about either.
Why? First, the ad hom attacks: you have to be fucking moron to really believe this statement. There are three immediate problems:
(1) Accidental launch. There are two scearios: (a) falso information leads to a poor decision and (b) malfunction.
(2) more loose fissile material to be stolen and/or sold to terrorists.
(3) Use of loose. In a case where two countries cannot totally devistate another (as was the case in the MAD world of the Cold War), govts are faced with a use or loose scenario on buildup.
I have worked will poeple of all nationality my entire (but short) life. Some (most) of my closest friends have be Indian and among them I have me people that are no lazier, smarter, or harder working that any other race (Actually, the laziest person I have ever met was Indian, but he was also my close friend). I am very lazy, but I am not Indian.
People should be read all the literature about "The Bell Curve" and how there is more variation within a race than between races, thus defying generalizations of the race.
Damn, all y'all need to get out and meet more people.
I do not see how you get these? Do you blindly read and believe every issue of Christian Science Monitor?
You first (oil domination) has no apparent merit. (a) We allow Iraq to sell oil for domestic supplies. If we wanted dominance in the oil market we would not allow this. We are also increasing the amount they are allowed to sell. (b) There is such a glut in crude that OPEC cannot hold it back.. The idea of US ever being able to dominate crude it only a dream.
Your second (global police force) (a) has no impact. (b) This can be seen as a good deterrant. You ignore culpability of Iraq. The US is in a very unique position in such a polarized world that is has an obligation to use its position for peace.
Your third (intl distraction) could possibly be true. However, (a) Iraq did just recently recind its offer of help to UN inspectors and (b) no impact, the attack still served a valuable purpose.
On a net whole, the negative of some amorphous idea of it being used as a distraction versus the threat of WMD and weakening of UN policing is not even a comparison.
You last assertion is unfounded. Simply because there are WMD in a region, does not create a normative right to retaliatory ability. Read the Sagan articles criticizing the Waltz deterrence theory. Sagan's analysis on how multination WMD leads to instability and increase the ability for convention conflict. I have spent many, many hours on this shit.
Ummm... what was racist? On a per capita basis, India is on the low side of the curve for developing nations.
In 1992 USN&WR has India listed as high as Fifth in the nation by 2000 in economic strength. I really thought and hoped that would be true. But misappropriated funds in favor of militarizaion, fraud, and political instability has not brought forth the prosperous status once believed would be there.
I didn't see anything racist, maybe exagerated and not entirely factually correct, but nothing racist. Replace the words with Mexico and see how you feel about it.
January is pretty slow so far, too. But after talking to a few people, December is just a shitty month, but some even say that January is too, since it is the quarter before taxes and companies don't want to look bad on paper so they refrain from hiring alot.
I just graduated with a degree in Math at Berkeley and have worked my way through school for three years now, but this time when I started to job hunt, it has been the worst *ever*. I have been searching for over a month now and have had two phone interviews this week and that it all. I don't know what people are looking for, but I don't seem to have it... arghh... $$$ is getting slim and I NEED A J-O-B.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been using FreeBSD for about 3 years now (I started with a 0.99 Linux back in the day), so I can tell you from my perspective what I like about FreeBSD above Linux (I still use Linux at work) and what I would see as good and bad.
One of the things I really enjoy about FreeBSD is the centralized control. This means that there are never 2 libc's floating around that I have to deal with, never multiple filesystem layouts to deal with (well, I guess you do have all the major branches of FreeBSD that do differ some), you don't have to worry about binary compatibilty as much. The centralize FreeBSD model has led me to be much more productive, as I do not have to worry about library miscatches and keeping my system up to date as much. Everybody repeat after me: "CVSup is the most wonderful tool, the most wonderful tool, the most wonderful tool in the world."
I like how I just go to ports and make from there and rarely have to worry about things breaking or finding the right library.
If Debian were to just take the FreeBSD kernel and put their own, redundant packge system ontop of FreeBSD and ports GLibc, then you destroy two of my favorite parts of FreeBSD.
If, however, Debian were to integrate the package system ontop of ports and remove pkg_* utilities (or make wrappers for backwards compatability), that would be nice. If Debian were to ports their install to FreeBSD that would be nice (but not of monumental impact). If Debian were to get Gnome to run better on FreeBSD or ports some of the new Linux-gadgets (like the filesystems and drivers) to FreeBSD that would be nice, too.
I am certainly not going to push the Debian developers away, but I think that they should realize that FreeBSD already have many nice things going for it and by complicating matters with multiple libraries they will not be nearly as much appreciated as if they were to learn how to work withing the FreeBSD methodology.
Just my pennies.
-jason
The paranoia surrounding the possiblity of illegal search and seizure is unfounded. The US Supreme Court has been sympathic to the Fourth Ammendment since the 1970's especially regarding electronic surveillance.
There have been many good uses of wiretaps over the years that have allowed government agencies to target organized crime, drug smugglers, and the such.
In United States v. United States Distric Court [407 US 297 (1972)]:
"a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation."
In the same case Justice Douglas speaks more precisely about electronic surveillance:
"the need is acute for placing on the Government [407 U.S. 297, 325] the heavy burden to show that exigencies of the situation [make electronic surveillance] course imperative."
Why are people so upset at this tool? Remember this is not a policy, it is a tool (for the geeks: just as you can call BO a tool and seperate it from usage).
Psychologists have long been able to point to various behavioralisms that have been shown to appear in more agreesive people. None of the indicators alone is sufficient; they all mean much more when taken in persepective with the rest of the person, but they are not irrelevant.
Why is it that lifetime offenders can be picked out before they even reach puberty? This is not a coincidence. Why would you try to stop this from happening? This does not infringe on any of you rights as a citizen of human.
I think that the little information about yourself that you giveup will be healthy for high-school society in the long term.
Of all the figures you quote, they can only get better by being selective of the company you take options from. Its similar to playing any game, you don't make move randomly, you think about them. I have worked for 4 startups now and had 2 go public (but I left the last one that went public just before it did).
Just remember to be selective like you would normally be and don't let the lure or options seduce you to work at a place that you don't see going anywhere.
-jason
Its not enough to say that things can be used for other OSes if you want.
The intent up front should be to provided an OpenGL on multiple OSes. Why is it that all the Non RedHat people get all excited about releasing products "for RedHat Linux"? Becuase if there is no intention of helping other platforms then it is more lilely that they will fall to the side in the future.
I just do not want to see people start to develop for specific platforms. I think that it helps all of us if we develop for Free Software.
-jason
Cooperation between all the Free Software camps is an important part of our world. All the major Free projects strive to work on all FreeUnixen: Netscape, Gnome, Mesa, etc...
But now, our community is splintering with announcements like this:
Operating systems other than Linux. BSD etc. are welcome to use whatever comes out of this project, but we are explicitly not trying to solve this problem for every free OS in the world.
To all of you who have said how easy it is to write portable code and to make it run on all platforms, they are basically saying that you are wrong. Do we really want people like this harming our comminity? How is this any better than the Microsoft "Will only work on MS Windows" philosophy?
Linux is part of something much larger.
-jason
One pratical example where Scheme syntax is simplistic is OO (in pratice you have to name the class, method and instance at each method call, not fun at all). First, you are confusing syntax with programming interface. Scheme has no provided OO system, but there are many that you can build on top of it. There is no syntax for objects. Seccond, I don't really know what you are talking about, unless you are trying to think about the SICP version of object as functions returning functions. But then, the interface is just asking the function to give you a function: ((object 'method) arguement) See, no syntax. Yes, these are abstract concepts, but they are the foundation of computers and how they work. That is what you really want to teach people. -jason
I don't know if you were using the same Scheme that I do, but how can you compare Scheme syntax to that of C?
How can you say that there is too much? The only syntax in the language is '(' and ')' to denote a function (or macro) call. There is no syntax besides that (some versions have some syntax for arrays, too).
This has always been one of the main Scheme benefits (and the rest of the Lisp family, too, I guess) is that it's syntax is so incredibly simple that it can't get in the way.
I would like to see you find a language in which has a cleaner, more consistent syntax than Scheme (I don't know of any).
A Scheme bigot and proud of it!
-jason
I started using ML for project about 2 years ago
(OCAML) and found the syntax unwieldy. The distinctions between the two different calling conventions (lists of argument capable of being curried versus pare wise agruments that cannot be curried) is pointless.
The object syntax has noticeably been grafted on and is convoluted.
And any language where it is optional to show what procedure is being called on what arguments is flawed in that it makes it unreadable for both humans and compilers (just look at Perl -- if I type 'f g h i' does it get parsed as (also remeber that the operators are left to right associative).
1) 'f (g (h (i)))'
2) 'f (g, h, i)'
3) '(((f (g)) h) i)'
4) other
You get the same problems in ML. The language has a some nice ideas, but the overall implementation and ad hoc nature of the features added over time make the lanaguage far from ideal for either teaching or using.
-jason
go read Knuth's Literate Programming and
use WEB and CWEB. Its like the reverse of code.
Instead of writing code with inline documentation, you write documentation with in-line code, then CWEB TANGLE's it into something the C compiler understands or WEAVE's it into documentation.
I write alot of my code with CWEB now.
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.
Note: Science is applied or pure.
The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.
--Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
First off, IANAL. Now, here is what the law says.
;). These guidelines do not apply in all cases. We will get to consent later on.
This is still a gray area; no case has yet to reach the Supream Court (that I know of) that has provided us an answer. However, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 does provide some context (Title 18 of USC, go look up the section for yourself, you can expect me to remeber everything. Chapter II of the ECPA adds to Title 18). And recent state and lower level decisions also give some level of protection to both the Company and the Person.
The ECPA deals mostly with government behavior and monitoring, but it does not exempt the Company from its regulations. There are two areas that are closely related to the Company-Person relationship: (1) where the provider of the comminication service is allowed to monitor the communication and (2) where the monitoring is done in the normal course of business.
The first issue allows the Company to monitor services that it provides. A phone is considered a "common carrier" and is thus protected, however a successful defense had been made in the case where the phone is an extension and the company owns the PBX. The same protection is granted to mail since it is carried by the USPS. However the Company is allowed to search voice mail. Email is also monitorable since it is a service provided by the company (however this obviously does not extend to the idea if you telnet out and read your email on a non-Company machine. The Company would be allowed to monitor your telnet session, but not your email. This is what we have ssh for
The second issue is rather broad. It provides a delineation between business and person communication and implies that business only communication may be monitored. It also provides a defense for excessive targeted monitoring. There has already been successful litigation of this type. (In California, I think) An employee sued his employer for monitoring his phone for 24 hours straight to determine if he was attempting a robbery.
Consent is a very important issue. "Implied consent" is not valid to allow communication monitoring. The courts have held a very hight standard for this. There is one clear case where the company provides an "expectation of privacy" and then violates this. An expectaion of privacy can be anything from explicitly saying that there will be no monitoring to not specifying a policy (yes, that means by default you have an expectation of privacy). The more blurred case, but still non-monitorable is when the Company say the the Employee may be monitored. This does not give consent for monitoring.
The bottom line for a company to be completely safe is to provide a clear policy stating that the person *will* be monitored. The company should not try to monitor what they do not own. The company should only monitor business related communication.
-jason
Please get your facts straight.
You now use the procedures suser() and suser_xxx()
to determine super-user type credentials:
/*
* Test whether the specified credentials imply "super-user"
* privilege; if so, and we have accounting info, set the flag
* indicating use of super-powers.
* Returns 0 or error.
*/
int
suser(p)
Not bashing E, here: it is good and all, but
I would put my money on SCWM being the most
configurable window manager. It uses GUILE
to achieve a very high degree of flexibility.
Nearly everything can be changed dynamically
(even on a per window bases -- how many other window managers do you know that can have different decorations themes on different
windows). The constraint-base layout module
is also fantastic. GUILE/SCWM scripts that call
GTK+ widgets... etc..
Check it out at http://serveuse.mit.edu
Google does well on large collections where the links between pages are (thought to be) determined by how good the content is (as in research paper references -- the best papers are referenced the most). Google searches on intranets suck. In that world, the links are mostly artificial to unrelated and not necessarily good (look at the search at Red Hat to see for yourself). Inside of a corporate website, I cannot see any good reasons to use Google over something like Inktomi or Altavista.
Besides AskJeeves kicks ass over Google.
Why are they using a small Red Hat installation. There is this cool thing called PicoBSD for shit like this? No need to reinvent the wheel. PicoBSD is even tuned for the small processor, small memory, diskless configuration.
>I would not sit back and watch Pakistan and
>China stock up on ammo. I would stock up too.
GET A FUCKING CLUE. The only reason I am this pissed off at you is becuase in a previous post (about 2 below this one) you told someone the s/he needed to brushup on his military theory. It is painfully obvious that you do not know what you talking about either.
Why? First, the ad hom attacks: you have to be fucking moron to really believe this statement. There are three immediate problems:
(1) Accidental launch. There are two scearios: (a) falso information leads to a poor decision and (b) malfunction.
(2) more loose fissile material to be stolen and/or sold to terrorists.
(3) Use of loose. In a case where two countries cannot totally devistate another (as was the case in the MAD world of the Cold War), govts are faced with a use or loose scenario on buildup.
I have worked will poeple of all nationality my entire (but short) life. Some (most) of my closest friends have be Indian and among them I have me people that are no lazier, smarter, or harder working that any other race (Actually, the laziest person I have ever met was Indian, but he was also my close friend). I am very lazy, but I am not Indian.
People should be read all the literature about "The Bell Curve" and how there is more variation within a race than between races, thus defying generalizations of the race.
Damn, all y'all need to get out and meet more people.
Ohhh... Don't have the player, hate the game.
-jay
MJ, the world will miss you.
I do not see how you get these? Do you blindly read and believe every issue of Christian Science Monitor?
You first (oil domination) has no apparent merit. (a) We allow Iraq to sell oil for domestic supplies. If we wanted dominance in the oil market we would not allow this. We are also increasing the amount they are allowed to sell. (b) There is such a glut in crude that OPEC cannot hold it back.. The idea of US ever being able to dominate crude it only a dream.
Your second (global police force) (a) has no impact. (b) This can be seen as a good deterrant. You ignore culpability of Iraq. The US is in a very unique position in such a polarized world that is has an obligation to use its position for peace.
Your third (intl distraction) could possibly be true. However, (a) Iraq did just recently recind its offer of help to UN inspectors and (b) no impact, the attack still served a valuable purpose.
On a net whole, the negative of some amorphous idea of it being used as a distraction versus the threat of WMD and weakening of UN policing is not even a comparison.
You last assertion is unfounded. Simply because there are WMD in a region, does not create a normative right to retaliatory ability. Read the Sagan articles criticizing the Waltz deterrence theory. Sagan's analysis on how multination WMD leads to instability and increase the ability for convention conflict. I have spent many, many hours on this shit.
Ummm... what was racist? On a per capita basis, India is on the low side of the curve for developing nations.
In 1992 USN&WR has India listed as high as Fifth in the nation by 2000 in economic strength. I really thought and hoped that would be true. But misappropriated funds in favor of militarizaion, fraud, and political instability has not brought forth the prosperous status once believed would be there.
I didn't see anything racist, maybe exagerated and not entirely factually correct, but nothing racist. Replace the words with Mexico and see how you feel about it.
How does this even resemble anything with content?
January is pretty slow so far, too. But after talking to a few people, December is just a shitty month, but some even say that January is too, since it is the quarter before taxes and companies don't want to look bad on paper so they refrain from hiring alot.
Arghh.. job hunting sucks.
I just graduated with a degree in Math at Berkeley and have worked my way through school for three years now, but this time when I started to job hunt, it has been the worst *ever*. I have been searching for over a month now and have had two phone interviews this week and that it all. I don't know what people are looking for, but I don't seem to have it... arghh... $$$ is getting slim and I NEED A J-O-B.
Annoyed by te hype,
-jay
I've been searching for a month and a half now. I have about 2-3 years of Java and am prefer UNIX systems. Mail me at nordwick@xcf.berkeley.edu
Help, I can't find a job at all... arghh.
-jay