Republicans like to talk about ayn rand until they're blue in the face.
Ok then. Let's talk about "Atlas Shrugged" for a moment.
Who was it in those hotel lobbies conspiring to take over industry and with whom did they conspire? What tool did they use to take over industries? To what end did they take over industries? What were the protaganists view of government regulation? The antagonist? Which characters would Dubya and his crony banker buddies line up with?
So you are actually trying to convince us that it was the Libertarians supporting the bank bailouts? It was the Libertarians supporting Barney Frank to push untenable mortgages in his SJW crusade? It was the Libertarians pushing the Frank-Dodd bill?
Somehow, I don't think that you really understand how things work.
Mueller is doing nothing but running interference for the deep state. Until you can give a credible answer to what the predicate for his investigation was, you will not have a leg to stand on. And before you say it, obstructing an investigation can NEVER be a predicate for an investigation.
It's a bit funny to me that people still think the Democrats want to take poeple's guns. How long have we been hearing this? And yet, it hasn't happened, even when they controlled both houses and the Presidency.
It's funny when their leader says things like this:
The Dems have the same problem with gun control that the Reps have with immigration. A majority of each party wants to take action on their respective issue, but, not having a unanimous consensus, they can't take action without help from the other. Controlling the houses of Congress and the Presidency is not enough. You have to have enough control to shove the bill through. Dems were able to do that with their takeover of the healthcare system, but they didn't have enough of a consensus in their own party to do that with guns.
The FDA gives a "Seal of Approval". The FDA publishes studies on efficacy. The FDA gives out information.
It is not the proper role of the government of a free society to make decisions for people. It is the proper role for them to provide information (because, you can't truly have an open market with a heavy information imbalance.) Provide the information and let the people decide. People are not really as stupid as you think.
Just go outside and yell "the n word". Just try to say you don't want to participate in someones wedding ceremony or do anything that says you condone their lifestyle. Just try to say that people with a penis are boys, and people with a vagina are girls.
WTF?! In the real world, when are you going to need to write a program to escape a burning building? If the place is such a dumpster fire that they are trying to push out critical, last minute fixes with the customer standing in the waiting room, then good God, get me away from there!!
The problem with the approach is that there is a non-trivial percentage of people who can talk the talk, but can't actually do the job. They're good at understanding the successes of their peers in enough depth to be able to successfully claim them as their own, and even fool a competent interviewer in spite of not being able to do the work themselves.
No. The problem with this approach is that it requires an interviewer that has been in the trenches long enough to have worked with enough of the moochers. Once you've worked with a few, they're easy enough to spot. Unfortunately, competence in interviewers closely tracks competence in the general population.
If I find a developer that doesn't Google the answer, I say they aren't worth hiring.
Nobody is as smart as all of us. Ten minutes after being hired, you will be moved off onto another project where last weeks specific knowledge will be nearly useless in anything but the abstract/general approach. And this in a profession where the details are everything. Even after having programmed a solution that will pass the integration tests, I will still go back and google for solutions to parts of the code that I think might be more compact. If someone thinks they are smart enough to know everything about everything, they are too smart to work with me by half.
There is no such thing as a coding emergency outside of crappy movies. When is a developer EVER expected to deliver code while "under pressure".
BTW, before I check code in, I will generally check StackOverflow to see if someone has a better way of doing it. I haven't had anything more than feature requests to come out of code reviews in years.
What they don't know is that I'm interviewing them, too.
Does the manager know what he is asking when he reads a question and then has a conversation about it, or is she looking for me to parrot whatever is written down? (Heh! I don't know their gender)
Are they trying me to get me to do the job as part of an interview? I have literally had the question, "Set up a framework to automate the testing of http://www.xyz.com/".
Are they looking to show me how much they know and how insignificant I am? Usually, this takes the form of, "Can you answer this obscure comp sci question that you'll never actually ever use?" or "Do you know this goofy trick that uses an obscure language feature in a non-standard way to solve an even more obscure problem?"
If I get a hint of any of that, I walk out and tell the interviewer that their hiring process is stupid. I've been around enough to know that working there will suck anyway. The interview should be a discussion about what is on my resume, to confirm that I did what I claimed. I wrote the damn resume so that they could decide if my experience matched up with what they need. If my experience doesn't fit the job, why did they call me in to test my "test taking" capabilities? Because, they're numb-nuts that don't know what they're doing, and I don't want to work with numb-nuts.
The best interview question is the one you ask at the very beginning. "Which part of my resume makes you think that I am a good candidate for this job?"
I'm going to have to back the AC up on this one. My wife is from Eastern Europe. Grew up under some of the Soviet shit. She is aghast that we'd let it happen to ourselves here.
No. If the "residents" feared the Dollar Stores taking over, the Dollar Stores would not have customers. What we most likely have is local merchants who can't compete making a lot of noise and looking for a little crony capitalism to help them out.
Well, the reason I don't buy fresh produce at most grocery stores, is because I have to rush it home and eat it before it rots. Seriously, Food Lion, if you have moulding tomatoes on your SHELVES you're doing it wrong.
I worked at the GE Appliance Park in Louisville, KY. They have an entire team that does nothing but tear down competitors appliances to see how they are put together. They are also nonchalant about their competitors doing the same. It is just what everybody does.
At least they didn't pull the trick on them that ABC (?) did to Flash. I couldn't stand how they had every...single...male bawling their eyes out for about a third of every episode. I mean, I could have understood it in one or two shows. Some issues are truly emotional. But, he spent more time crying than he did running.
A few farmers here and there may do that, but they don't stay in business long. Try pricing a 50gal drum of herbicide, and then come tell us how you can afford to spray twice as much as your neighbor and stay in business.
Consider that if a power plant makes a solar panel, that panel will work for 20 years. Now, how many panels will be produced over the next 20 years?
Also, consider the fact that the panels have just recently reached the break even point where payoff, without government subsidies, can be expected in a reasonable time. This means that it would be reasonable for someone flush with cash to invest in the panels to save on future costs.
Now consider that the panels are still near the top of the natural market cycle of cost decline. Barring some radical discovery that causes the bottom to drop out, panel costs are predicted to show a steady decline in costs from natural market tendencies. If we're already below the break even point, more and more people will find it makes sense to invest now to stop paying the power company vampire. Then it will make sense to buy an electric car on the next purchase for commuting purposes (to use up that extra "free" energy).
I'm not a liberal. AOC is a nutcase and here GND is idiocy. But, I'm more of a tightwad than a fool. As the prices continue to drop, people will rush to solar as quick as they switched to smartphones.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans like to talk about ayn rand until they're blue in the face.
Ok then. Let's talk about "Atlas Shrugged" for a moment.
Who was it in those hotel lobbies conspiring to take over industry and with whom did they conspire? What tool did they use to take over industries? To what end did they take over industries? What were the protaganists view of government regulation? The antagonist? Which characters would Dubya and his crony banker buddies line up with?
So you are actually trying to convince us that it was the Libertarians supporting the bank bailouts? It was the Libertarians supporting Barney Frank to push untenable mortgages in his SJW crusade? It was the Libertarians pushing the Frank-Dodd bill?
Somehow, I don't think that you really understand how things work.
Really? Always? Have you not read even ONE news story covering the Green New Deal?
Bullshit.
Mueller is doing nothing but running interference for the deep state. Until you can give a credible answer to what the predicate for his investigation was, you will not have a leg to stand on. And before you say it, obstructing an investigation can NEVER be a predicate for an investigation.
It's a bit funny to me that people still think the Democrats want to take poeple's guns. How long have we been hearing this? And yet, it hasn't happened, even when they controlled both houses and the Presidency.
It's funny when their leader says things like this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/1...
The Dems have the same problem with gun control that the Reps have with immigration. A majority of each party wants to take action on their respective issue, but, not having a unanimous consensus, they can't take action without help from the other. Controlling the houses of Congress and the Presidency is not enough. You have to have enough control to shove the bill through. Dems were able to do that with their takeover of the healthcare system, but they didn't have enough of a consensus in their own party to do that with guns.
The FDA gives a "Seal of Approval". The FDA publishes studies on efficacy. The FDA gives out information.
It is not the proper role of the government of a free society to make decisions for people. It is the proper role for them to provide information (because, you can't truly have an open market with a heavy information imbalance.) Provide the information and let the people decide. People are not really as stupid as you think.
We do.
Just go outside and yell "the n word".
Just try to say you don't want to participate in someones wedding ceremony or do anything that says you condone their lifestyle.
Just try to say that people with a penis are boys, and people with a vagina are girls.
The theocracy is real.
They didn't cancel until the day after the pre-sales numbers came out. I think they DID wait for the market proof.
Since you are so into reality and all, please consider that there were CHRISTIANS that put a stop to all those things that bothered you.
And where in the Christian holy text does it say that a believer should lie to a non-believer?
So how many centuries did you have to reach back to try to prove a point? He said "Christians", not "Christians that died 500 years ago."
WTF?! In the real world, when are you going to need to write a program to escape a burning building? If the place is such a dumpster fire that they are trying to push out critical, last minute fixes with the customer standing in the waiting room, then good God, get me away from there!!
The problem with the approach is that there is a non-trivial percentage of people who can talk the talk, but can't actually do the job. They're good at understanding the successes of their peers in enough depth to be able to successfully claim them as their own, and even fool a competent interviewer in spite of not being able to do the work themselves.
No. The problem with this approach is that it requires an interviewer that has been in the trenches long enough to have worked with enough of the moochers. Once you've worked with a few, they're easy enough to spot. Unfortunately, competence in interviewers closely tracks competence in the general population.
If I find a developer that doesn't Google the answer, I say they aren't worth hiring.
Nobody is as smart as all of us. Ten minutes after being hired, you will be moved off onto another project where last weeks specific knowledge will be nearly useless in anything but the abstract/general approach. And this in a profession where the details are everything. Even after having programmed a solution that will pass the integration tests, I will still go back and google for solutions to parts of the code that I think might be more compact. If someone thinks they are smart enough to know everything about everything, they are too smart to work with me by half.
Handle pressure?
There is no such thing as a coding emergency outside of crappy movies. When is a developer EVER expected to deliver code while "under pressure".
BTW, before I check code in, I will generally check StackOverflow to see if someone has a better way of doing it. I haven't had anything more than feature requests to come out of code reviews in years.
What they don't know is that I'm interviewing them, too.
Does the manager know what he is asking when he reads a question and then has a conversation about it, or is she looking for me to parrot whatever is written down? (Heh! I don't know their gender)
Are they trying me to get me to do the job as part of an interview? I have literally had the question, "Set up a framework to automate the testing of http://www.xyz.com/".
Are they looking to show me how much they know and how insignificant I am? Usually, this takes the form of, "Can you answer this obscure comp sci question that you'll never actually ever use?" or "Do you know this goofy trick that uses an obscure language feature in a non-standard way to solve an even more obscure problem?"
If I get a hint of any of that, I walk out and tell the interviewer that their hiring process is stupid. I've been around enough to know that working there will suck anyway. The interview should be a discussion about what is on my resume, to confirm that I did what I claimed. I wrote the damn resume so that they could decide if my experience matched up with what they need. If my experience doesn't fit the job, why did they call me in to test my "test taking" capabilities? Because, they're numb-nuts that don't know what they're doing, and I don't want to work with numb-nuts.
The best interview question is the one you ask at the very beginning. "Which part of my resume makes you think that I am a good candidate for this job?"
I'm going to have to back the AC up on this one. My wife is from Eastern Europe. Grew up under some of the Soviet shit. She is aghast that we'd let it happen to ourselves here.
No. If the "residents" feared the Dollar Stores taking over, the Dollar Stores would not have customers. What we most likely have is local merchants who can't compete making a lot of noise and looking for a little crony capitalism to help them out.
Well, the reason I don't buy fresh produce at most grocery stores, is because I have to rush it home and eat it before it rots. Seriously, Food Lion, if you have moulding tomatoes on your SHELVES you're doing it wrong.
Yes. It is called a "carry over loss". Speak to your tax consultant.
I worked at the GE Appliance Park in Louisville, KY. They have an entire team that does nothing but tear down competitors appliances to see how they are put together. They are also nonchalant about their competitors doing the same. It is just what everybody does.
You just described "Charlie's Angels".
What is old is new again.
At least they didn't pull the trick on them that ABC (?) did to Flash. I couldn't stand how they had every...single...male bawling their eyes out for about a third of every episode. I mean, I could have understood it in one or two shows. Some issues are truly emotional. But, he spent more time crying than he did running.
Remove the cliches, and most articles will disappear.
A few farmers here and there may do that, but they don't stay in business long. Try pricing a 50gal drum of herbicide, and then come tell us how you can afford to spray twice as much as your neighbor and stay in business.
Consider that if a power plant makes a solar panel, that panel will work for 20 years. Now, how many panels will be produced over the next 20 years?
Also, consider the fact that the panels have just recently reached the break even point where payoff, without government subsidies, can be expected in a reasonable time. This means that it would be reasonable for someone flush with cash to invest in the panels to save on future costs.
Now consider that the panels are still near the top of the natural market cycle of cost decline. Barring some radical discovery that causes the bottom to drop out, panel costs are predicted to show a steady decline in costs from natural market tendencies. If we're already below the break even point, more and more people will find it makes sense to invest now to stop paying the power company vampire. Then it will make sense to buy an electric car on the next purchase for commuting purposes (to use up that extra "free" energy).
I'm not a liberal. AOC is a nutcase and here GND is idiocy. But, I'm more of a tightwad than a fool. As the prices continue to drop, people will rush to solar as quick as they switched to smartphones.