Case 1: You are leaving because you had a better offer from another company. In this case, you have nothing in particular to gain by telling the exit interviewer anything at all. You neither benefit by telling the truth nor by lying.
Case 2: You have been fired. Again, you have nothing to gain by either telling the truth or lying.
Case 3: You have been laid off as part of a reduction in force and there is a possibility that if business improves they'll hire you back. In this case you have something to gain by flattering the company and its people. Tell them how much you regret leaving. Tell them they were great to work with and you wish things were different.
Case 4: You are leaving because you didn't like the working conditions, had moral objections to the way management runs the company, your boss was a giant prick, etc. You have nothing to gain by telling the truth or lying.
But in the absence of having anything to gain, there are still motivations that come into play. Would you like to make working conditions better for the people you're leaving behind? Chances are you don't despise all of them. Identify the wasteful and counterproductive practices, useless or abusive bosses and meaningless makework that were part of your job. Tell your interviewer how they made your job harder and are still making others lives harder. Maybe, just maybe, this information will get to the right people, especially if you were a highly productive employee. Somebody knows that. In all likelihood your boss and maybe your boss's boss know that. And now they know they are losing productive employees in part because of their working environment.
In most cases, you should lie about salary. Tell them you are taking a job that pays more, allows you more control of your work and offers more benefits. HR is always trying to find the lowest total cost of benefits and salary at which they can hire and retain the people they need. It is in all workers' best interest if their estimates are pushed to the high side. And the HR people at the company you're leaving talk, directly or indirectly, to the people at the company you're going to, and to every other company where you or someobody you care about might eventually work.
Points: 1. PARC was funded by ARPA so its work is generally considered to be ARPA technology.
2. Ethernet is not internet anyway.
3. The internet technology development and the early generations of the internet were developed for the US DOD.
we need to hold the propagandized fool's feet to the fire of the stupid things they believe
by which i mean: they should get an earful of what their toxic stupid social and economic policy beliefs actually result in, before we as well have to suffer for their idiocy
It's unclear whether you're referring to the toxic social and economic beliefs of the right or the left or what you think those toxic beliefs are.
The death rate due to disease, the cold, and starvation was still in the 20-30% every year by the time the Constitution was signed.
If that were true, the median life span would have been between 2 and 3 years.
Human existence is impossible at those attrition rates. We can't reproduce fast enough to survive as a species facing those odds.
The survival rate for sea voyages WAS better than 90% in the 1600s. If it weren't, international trade would have been impractical due to the cost of hiring sailors willing to undertake a worse than 90% chance of survival each time you left port.
It's really against the more likely sort of retaliation that people are prone to. You wouldn't sell me food or let me squat in your territory so I'm going to kill all your men, burn down your city, rape your women and kill your children. (note the inclusion of typical Old Testament details.)
1. Please explain the difference between "terror" and "shock and awe" campaigns that hit civilians (accidentally or intentionally, there's no serious question as to whether civilians get hit)
2. Please explain how a totally innocent person on the ground in, say, Yemen, ensures that they won't be hit by a drone strike. Pretend that somebody who lives next door to that person gets accused of terrorism in complete secrecy - the innocent guy doesn't even know that the guy next door is a target.
3. By your understanding of the word, is the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism? How about a suicide bomber blowing up an IDF checkpoint? How about the attack on the USS Cole?
There have been many, many attempts to come up with a consistent definition of the word "terrorism", and they've all failed because it turns out the militaries of the world have done exactly the same thing.
1. "shock and awe" referred to Iraq and was supposed to be on the part of the Iranian military. They were supposed to be hit so hard that they would lay down arms rather because they would perceive opposing the USA would be futile. It wasn't to persuade the civilian population because the official claim was that the civilians hated Saddam and his brutal regime and would not fight to defend it. (It seems that the "shock and awe" business, as far as it went, was successful.)
2. So don't use drone strikes in the city.
3. The Fort Hood shooting was not an act of terrorism. Those targeted were members of the military and targeting members of an enemy military is not within any useful definition of the term terrorism.
Bombing weddings with drones is called making mistakes. There's no serious assertion that weddings were targeted to make the general populace fear the USA.
Wait a tick, the Taliban executed people in the soccer stadiums for you know, not having a sufficiently long enough beard, or for women not being with a proper male relative. Doesn't that fit the definition of terrorism?
What's that make groups like oh Hamas or Hizbullah anyway? Just names or are they actual terrorist groups too. After all they both fit your definition of terrorism pretty well. Not only that, but they pay people very well, and their families of people who strap explosives on themselves to kill large numbers of people.
There's more involved in drone strikes than elimination of specific leaders. They're also used to attack sites that are known to be used by the enemy.
And you do it in any instance where it's cheaper, lower risk or easier than attacking them in a conventional way. You see something happening with a drone, you get a command decision and you make the strike all very quickly. All going well, you have hit an enemy force.
With conventional attacks you see the enemy activity, call it in, get a command decision, organize a strike force, fly them in with helicopters, and make your attack. By the time your strike force gets there the enemy may have moved on or fled. Your attack is ineffective in that case. If they're still there, your men are put at risk. For what? Only do that if men are needed on the ground, for instance to verify that the target was destroyed or to sort out combatants from noncombatants or from assets you want to preserve.
And with ALL forms of attack, the purpose is not just to directly destroy your enemy's people and assets. it's also to change your enemy's behavior. Force them to hide what they're doing, to be more careful, etc. That raises the difficulty of everything they do and as a consequence they wlll accomplish less.
The only way to make an terrorists lay down their arms is either with dialogue or to commit war crimes on a grand scale. Even then peace is not guaranteed.
No, those aren't the only ways. There's also the strategy of courting the civilian population. If enough of the civilian population are on your side in the struggle against terrorist it gets hard for the terrorist to operate and recruit because there are too many informers and the police and military become almost incorruptible with respect to their organizations.
This is why in most countries there are very few terrorist attacks.
in the initial round it is best to be the nice guy, after that just mirror what the other side has done to you. Of course this assumes a closed system with an unlimited number of interactions.
So in this case one party is being negative to another and has a reputation for always doing so. The appropriate thing for Notch to do is to be as ruthless as possible within legal restrictions. It is unlikely the patent troll will have a second round with you, and will never not take the negative option. Therefore it is best to take them for all they are worth, if you can.
Amazing how common sense and game theory comes to the same conclusions given the same input.
No, that's not common sense. Common sense directs people to do what seems best for them right now without consideration of what game they are playing. Common sense says settle. Game theory says settling is a suboptimal strategy in the game the patent troll is playing.
Let's say I do see one of these things in the office and I take your advice that I should call somebody to find out if that thing is supposed to be there. This raises the important question of whom I should call. If it's not supposed to be there, that means that somebody, possibly one of my co-workers planted it. PROBABLY one of my co-workers planted it. Now my trust in all my coworkers is in question.
Not that it's not already in question. Maybe I should call Homeland Security. And maybe Homeland Security planted it without the knowledge of my management...
i think the lack Capitalization and lack of Proper punctuation may be more Useful in Finding people suffering from Various Mental Disorders on the other hand it may merely Indicate a shortcoming In the posters education isn,t it obvious that when some one fails to Use punctuation and Capitalization correctly that they are a Tragedy in Waiting clearly the fbi is Onto Something or at least they Think They Are it cant be simply a case of people Being too lazy to punctuate their sentences or find the fucking shift key many messages on twitter come from mobile devices where it can be pretty damned inconvenient to apply capitals and punctuation marks as compared to a proper keyboard
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's particularly surprising. Judges are the people who have to deal with the disputes.
Everything depends on why you are leaving.
Case 1: You are leaving because you had a better offer from another company. In this case, you have nothing in particular to gain by telling the exit interviewer anything at all. You neither benefit by telling the truth nor by lying.
Case 2: You have been fired. Again, you have nothing to gain by either telling the truth or lying.
Case 3: You have been laid off as part of a reduction in force and there is a possibility that if business improves they'll hire you back. In this case you have something to gain by flattering the company and its people. Tell them how much you regret leaving. Tell them they were great to work with and you wish things were different.
Case 4: You are leaving because you didn't like the working conditions, had moral objections to the way management runs the company, your boss was a giant prick, etc. You have nothing to gain by telling the truth or lying.
But in the absence of having anything to gain, there are still motivations that come into play. Would you like to make working conditions better for the people you're leaving behind? Chances are you don't despise all of them. Identify the wasteful and counterproductive practices, useless or abusive bosses and meaningless makework that were part of your job. Tell your interviewer how they made your job harder and are still making others lives harder. Maybe, just maybe, this information will get to the right people, especially if you were a highly productive employee. Somebody knows that. In all likelihood your boss and maybe your boss's boss know that. And now they know they are losing productive employees in part because of their working environment.
In most cases, you should lie about salary. Tell them you are taking a job that pays more, allows you more control of your work and offers more benefits. HR is always trying to find the lowest total cost of benefits and salary at which they can hire and retain the people they need. It is in all workers' best interest if their estimates are pushed to the high side. And the HR people at the company you're leaving talk, directly or indirectly, to the people at the company you're going to, and to every other company where you or someobody you care about might eventually work.
Check.
Points: 1. PARC was funded by ARPA so its work is generally considered to be ARPA technology. 2. Ethernet is not internet anyway. 3. The internet technology development and the early generations of the internet were developed for the US DOD.
no, they're not welcome
we need to hold the propagandized fool's feet to the fire of the stupid things they believe
by which i mean: they should get an earful of what their toxic stupid social and economic policy beliefs actually result in, before we as well have to suffer for their idiocy
It's unclear whether you're referring to the toxic social and economic beliefs of the right or the left or what you think those toxic beliefs are.
I blame the asymmetry on the Right's tradition of anti-intellectualism.
The death rate due to disease, the cold, and starvation was still in the 20-30% every year by the time the Constitution was signed.
If that were true, the median life span would have been between 2 and 3 years. Human existence is impossible at those attrition rates. We can't reproduce fast enough to survive as a species facing those odds.
The survival rate for sea voyages WAS better than 90% in the 1600s. If it weren't, international trade would have been impractical due to the cost of hiring sailors willing to undertake a worse than 90% chance of survival each time you left port.
Yeah sure it will. Sounds more practical than replacing human hearts with jellyfish cells, but only slightly.
It's really against the more likely sort of retaliation that people are prone to. You wouldn't sell me food or let me squat in your territory so I'm going to kill all your men, burn down your city, rape your women and kill your children. (note the inclusion of typical Old Testament details.)
1. Please explain the difference between "terror" and "shock and awe" campaigns that hit civilians (accidentally or intentionally, there's no serious question as to whether civilians get hit) 2. Please explain how a totally innocent person on the ground in, say, Yemen, ensures that they won't be hit by a drone strike. Pretend that somebody who lives next door to that person gets accused of terrorism in complete secrecy - the innocent guy doesn't even know that the guy next door is a target. 3. By your understanding of the word, is the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism? How about a suicide bomber blowing up an IDF checkpoint? How about the attack on the USS Cole?
There have been many, many attempts to come up with a consistent definition of the word "terrorism", and they've all failed because it turns out the militaries of the world have done exactly the same thing.
1. "shock and awe" referred to Iraq and was supposed to be on the part of the Iranian military. They were supposed to be hit so hard that they would lay down arms rather because they would perceive opposing the USA would be futile. It wasn't to persuade the civilian population because the official claim was that the civilians hated Saddam and his brutal regime and would not fight to defend it. (It seems that the "shock and awe" business, as far as it went, was successful.)
2. So don't use drone strikes in the city.
3. The Fort Hood shooting was not an act of terrorism. Those targeted were members of the military and targeting members of an enemy military is not within any useful definition of the term terrorism.
Bombing weddings with drones is called making mistakes. There's no serious assertion that weddings were targeted to make the general populace fear the USA.
Neither is the Taliban.
Wait a tick, the Taliban executed people in the soccer stadiums for you know, not having a sufficiently long enough beard, or for women not being with a proper male relative. Doesn't that fit the definition of terrorism?
What's that make groups like oh Hamas or Hizbullah anyway? Just names or are they actual terrorist groups too. After all they both fit your definition of terrorism pretty well. Not only that, but they pay people very well, and their families of people who strap explosives on themselves to kill large numbers of people.
Compared to the Taliban, Hamas are Boy Scouts.
There's more involved in drone strikes than elimination of specific leaders. They're also used to attack sites that are known to be used by the enemy.
And you do it in any instance where it's cheaper, lower risk or easier than attacking them in a conventional way. You see something happening with a drone, you get a command decision and you make the strike all very quickly. All going well, you have hit an enemy force.
With conventional attacks you see the enemy activity, call it in, get a command decision, organize a strike force, fly them in with helicopters, and make your attack. By the time your strike force gets there the enemy may have moved on or fled. Your attack is ineffective in that case. If they're still there, your men are put at risk. For what? Only do that if men are needed on the ground, for instance to verify that the target was destroyed or to sort out combatants from noncombatants or from assets you want to preserve.
And with ALL forms of attack, the purpose is not just to directly destroy your enemy's people and assets. it's also to change your enemy's behavior. Force them to hide what they're doing, to be more careful, etc. That raises the difficulty of everything they do and as a consequence they wlll accomplish less.
The only way to make an terrorists lay down their arms is either with dialogue or to commit war crimes on a grand scale. Even then peace is not guaranteed.
No, those aren't the only ways. There's also the strategy of courting the civilian population. If enough of the civilian population are on your side in the struggle against terrorist it gets hard for the terrorist to operate and recruit because there are too many informers and the police and military become almost incorruptible with respect to their organizations.
This is why in most countries there are very few terrorist attacks.
You're presuming all those enemy and crazy people applications of drones won't happen independently of our use of drone technology. They will.
That's a possibility in every form of warfare.
in the initial round it is best to be the nice guy, after that just mirror what the other side has done to you. Of course this assumes a closed system with an unlimited number of interactions.
So in this case one party is being negative to another and has a reputation for always doing so. The appropriate thing for Notch to do is to be as ruthless as possible within legal restrictions. It is unlikely the patent troll will have a second round with you, and will never not take the negative option. Therefore it is best to take them for all they are worth, if you can.
Amazing how common sense and game theory comes to the same conclusions given the same input.
No, that's not common sense. Common sense directs people to do what seems best for them right now without consideration of what game they are playing. Common sense says settle. Game theory says settling is a suboptimal strategy in the game the patent troll is playing.
Sure they do.
Let's say I do see one of these things in the office and I take your advice that I should call somebody to find out if that thing is supposed to be there. This raises the important question of whom I should call. If it's not supposed to be there, that means that somebody, possibly one of my co-workers planted it. PROBABLY one of my co-workers planted it. Now my trust in all my coworkers is in question.
Not that it's not already in question. Maybe I should call Homeland Security. And maybe Homeland Security planted it without the knowledge of my management...
i think the lack Capitalization and lack of Proper punctuation may be more Useful in Finding people suffering from Various Mental Disorders on the other hand it may merely Indicate a shortcoming In the posters education isn,t it obvious that when some one fails to Use punctuation and Capitalization correctly that they are a Tragedy in Waiting clearly the fbi is Onto Something or at least they Think They Are it cant be simply a case of people Being too lazy to punctuate their sentences or find the fucking shift key many messages on twitter come from mobile devices where it can be pretty damned inconvenient to apply capitals and punctuation marks as compared to a proper keyboard
Don't forget the frontal lobotomy and electroshock to control behavior.
Even further horseshit. There's no correlation betwixt grammar and character.
A normal (non-narcissistic) person is aware that there are things known to others that are not known to him.
If you look at the biggest mass murders in human history, every single one of them was a government official. Think about that for a while.
That doesn't mean they weren't psychopaths, does it?