>Why he wants this job. Why we should hire him. Then I move on to casual conversation. Simply getting to know him.
Have you done any sort of interviewing? Any basic interviewing book will tell you what to say on these topics. You will be hearing the same 3-5 basic answers and still know nothing about the candidate.
>Eventually I try to get him engaged in a subject he's passionate about. Maybe politics.
You don't live in a country where they have tight non-discriminary hiring laws do you?
With your style, you either hire people who fall for silly interviewing jedi-mind tricks like yours or you will hire people that are really really good at reading and lying to people.
>meaning I've got an employee who will be careful to stay out of trouble.
No, he's seen what he needs to do to avoid getting caught again. And he know exactly what to do legally if he does (but, again, knows what works and what doesn't).
>Human beings are so varied, I really can't see how this could be useful.
As with any new technology, to determine how useful it will be to the general public you need to ask "How can this be used to help the adult entertainment industry?".
I'm not kidding either. Colour TV. Home VCR. Image compression algrithoms. High speed Internet.
Think about the "alternate-angles" feature of DVDs. Ohhhh Yeah!
>Not that it's not good, but lets be honest about what's going on here.
EVENTUALLY he intends to give it all away.
I don't think it would be prudent to give it away in one shot. Too much chance that there would be no accountablility, no "see how it works out and then continue if it seems to work well". People who win lotteries have enough problems with charities/people asking for money as it is.
What would be honest here is that Warren Buffett is doing the exact same thing and people don't jump all over him. Neither do they do it to any other rich people who many not even give 2%. Hate blinds. That's being honest.
>A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list.
If you have problems with putting things on a public wish list, how do you even do anything in public without fear?
How do you have a credit-card? Drivers license driving a car with a license plate? Do anything in any place with security camera? Sign books from a library? Leave finger-prints at a resturant? Use cash with its security-strip and unique serial number? Have a bank account?
>The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.
But I really am not worried. I do what I do and am willing to accept the consequences. Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me why I read this book; I would just explain why if I could remember. Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me about a person I knew, I would just talk about him.
Lets put it another way, suppose you are on a FBI list right now. Would you have changed what you did in the past? Would you start doing things differently? Just because you are on a list?
>Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?
I am not going to change anything I do just because maybe one day it will come back and hurt me. I choose not to live in fear of something that may not happen. I choose to live free.
>However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware.
I say I would like a particular book for a gift. Exactly how does that impact you and your privacy?
>"hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."
I really don't see how this applies. Do you find my wish list offensive? How does a group of people publishing their wish list cause you a problem? (If Amazon removes the wish-lists feature, how does this improve your privacy?)
>Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant."
If you don't want the FBI to know what you want or bought, don't put it on a public wish-list.
Am I missing something here?
Suppose you posted something about yourself on USENET. Do you have a reasonable expectation that this information would be impossible, through currently legal means, for the FBI to find out about it?
>However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism?
But I put it on a public list. I made it public on purpose. This is not a private information, I made it public for all to use. Good or bad. If I didn't want the public (strangers, FBI, my local newspaper) to know, I shouldn't have made it public.
I made it public, so I don't get what people are complaining about.
>Well, it has! To say otherwise would be to lie; hardly appropriate for a teacher.
No, it hasn't been "proven". Its very hard to say there are any scientific proofs. There are lots of theorms.
The best you can say is that the current theorm is that birds evovled from reptiles is our best guess from what we can see from discovered fossils. (and I'm sure that you can add more conditions there.) But is its not proof.
So the true/false question implies that it is the absolute truth, just like religion. And not only a high-school test, but scientifc papers assume that its the truth also. Just like religion takes assumptions and treats it like axioms.
>Science and rationalism are not faiths, no matter how much many would like to label them as such. They are simply points of view, and changeable.
Look at the different world religons and sects and sub-sects. They are simple view points which are changeable.
How do you view the New Testiment? Depends on if you are Jewish or Muslim. How do you view this fossil? Depends if your view point is from evolution or panspermia (orgin of life from other planets).
>The test of having an open mind is - are you prepared to accept that a sufficient amount of evidence will cause you to stop being a creationist?
And this is from someone who says that the current theory of evolution is proven and to say otherwise is a lie.
Its based on two things (I'm open to hear of any more) 1. Occam's razor. 2. Falsification.
This is what every scientist should use as their guilding light, their rules, their basic principals that they should follow regardless of any other factor.
And so what is the difference between these two (or any more that you may come up with) and religous rules, say like the Ten Commandments? (The Ten Commandments are the guilding light, the rules, the basic principals that should be followed regardless of any other factor.)
Because one just feels right? Because one is older? Because one doesn't like the background where it orginates? Because you were told one was the "truth" and the other isn't? Because one is more socially exceptable than the other?
>and is always held subject to peer review.
Religons is also. There are multiple major religons and sects existing. Religous history is filled with people reviewing/questioning things.
>Why can't intelligent design and evolution co-exist? Why does it always have to be either one or the other?
Its not about ID or evolution. Its about hate towards others ideas that are not your own.
Both sides hates the other because they reject the "truth". Both sides hates the other because their ideas are "the crutch of the weak and stupid". And both sides think that their ideas make them stronger than the other side.
Logic? Reason? Understanding? Open-mindedness? Just look at these comments and do you really see that here?
>science doesn't say "Hey man, you're 100% screwed!".
Well good thing we can ignore global warming, thermonuclear war and eating too much fast-food.
>science isn't to blame for the atom bomb, that would have been invented by some means or other eventually
Atomic bombs don't "fall out of a tree" somewhere. Nothing about it says that it would have "eventaully" been created. I'm sure there is a super-bow-and-arrow invention that just was never discovered.
>mostly because they value rationalism and capitalism above religion or quasi-religious politics.
Seriously, you need review Bush and the role religion played in getting him elected.
Thanks for providing insight to this business process.
The only thing I can think of is that; 1. Your employees/associates/co-workers need a HUGE amount of trust in you and your abilities for you not to screw them over. 2. As others said, the contractors are taking a risk of being paid less due to factors out of their control.(vs. get paid a predicatable and steady $/hr) 3. There may be quality control issues in the final product. Your only metric seems to be be speed/meeting deadlines. Quality of product seems to be something that would a far distant priority.
Slashdot Mirror
>first off I ditch formality...
Which would put me on my highest guard.
>Why he wants this job. Why we should hire him. Then I move on to casual conversation. Simply getting to know him.
Have you done any sort of interviewing? Any basic interviewing book will tell you what to say on these topics. You will be hearing the same 3-5 basic answers and still know nothing about the candidate.
>Eventually I try to get him engaged in a subject he's passionate about. Maybe politics.
You don't live in a country where they have tight non-discriminary hiring laws do you?
With your style, you either hire people who fall for silly interviewing jedi-mind tricks like yours or you will hire people that are really really good at reading and lying to people.
>If I'm dumb enough not to spot someone deliberately malicious at job interview
How do you spot this in a hour long formal interview which the other person knows you are looking for flaws?
>He's unlikely to make the same mistake twice,
His mistake was that he got caught.
>meaning I've got an employee who will be careful to stay out of trouble.
No, he's seen what he needs to do to avoid getting caught again. And he know exactly what to do legally if he does (but, again, knows what works and what doesn't).
>Human beings are so varied, I really can't see how this could be useful.
As with any new technology, to determine how useful it will be to the general public you need to ask "How can this be used to help the adult entertainment industry?".
I'm not kidding either. Colour TV. Home VCR. Image compression algrithoms. High speed Internet.
Think about the "alternate-angles" feature of DVDs. Ohhhh Yeah!
>Not that it's not good, but lets be honest about what's going on here.
EVENTUALLY he intends to give it all away.
I don't think it would be prudent to give it away in one shot. Too much chance that there would be no accountablility, no "see how it works out and then continue if it seems to work well". People who win lotteries have enough problems with charities/people asking for money as it is.
What would be honest here is that Warren Buffett is doing the exact same thing and people don't jump all over him. Neither do they do it to any other rich people who many not even give 2%. Hate blinds. That's being honest.
>Is giving ~2% of your fortune to charity each year really that amazing?
He plans to eventually give it all away, leaving something for his childern.
Thats a bit more than ~2%.
>A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list.
If you have problems with putting things on a public wish list, how do you even do anything in public without fear?
How do you have a credit-card? Drivers license driving a car with a license plate? Do anything in any place with security camera? Sign books from a library? Leave finger-prints at a resturant? Use cash with its security-strip and unique serial number? Have a bank account?
>The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.
But I really am not worried. I do what I do and am willing to accept the consequences. Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me why I read this book; I would just explain why if I could remember. Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me about a person I knew, I would just talk about him.
Lets put it another way, suppose you are on a FBI list right now. Would you have changed what you did in the past? Would you start doing things differently? Just because you are on a list?
>Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?
I am not going to change anything I do just because maybe one day it will come back and hurt me. I choose not to live in fear of something that may not happen. I choose to live free.
>However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware.
I say I would like a particular book for a gift. Exactly how does that impact you and your privacy?
>"hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."
I really don't see how this applies.
Do you find my wish list offensive?
How does a group of people publishing their wish list cause you a problem? (If Amazon removes the wish-lists feature, how does this improve your privacy?)
>Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant."
If you don't want the FBI to know what you want or bought, don't put it on a public wish-list.
Am I missing something here?
Suppose you posted something about yourself on USENET. Do you have a reasonable expectation that this information would be impossible, through currently legal means, for the FBI to find out about it?
>However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism?
But I put it on a public list. I made it public on purpose. This is not a private information, I made it public for all to use. Good or bad. If I didn't want the public (strangers, FBI, my local newspaper) to know, I shouldn't have made it public.
I made it public, so I don't get what people are complaining about.
I still don't get it.
The FBI can find out where I live without Amazon or Google.
If they want to know what I want as a present, well, I want everyone to know.
If I wanted "Making WMD for Dummies" I would just buy it, not ask for it as a gift.
A player explores an off-grid prison that misbehaving avatars are sent too for infractions.
Off to the Corn-field for you slashdot editor!
>Well, it has! To say otherwise would be to lie; hardly appropriate for a teacher.
No, it hasn't been "proven". Its very hard to say there are any scientific proofs. There are lots of theorms.
The best you can say is that the current theorm is that birds evovled from reptiles is our best guess from what we can see from discovered fossils. (and I'm sure that you can add more conditions there.) But is its not proof.
So the true/false question implies that it is the absolute truth, just like religion. And not only a high-school test, but scientifc papers assume that its the truth also. Just like religion takes assumptions and treats it like axioms.
>Science and rationalism are not faiths, no matter how much many would like to label them as such. They are simply points of view, and changeable.
Look at the different world religons and sects and sub-sects. They are simple view points which are changeable.
How do you view the New Testiment? Depends on if you are Jewish or Muslim. How do you view this fossil?
Depends if your view point is from evolution or panspermia (orgin of life from other planets).
>The test of having an open mind is - are you prepared to accept that a sufficient amount of evidence will cause you to stop being a creationist?
And this is from someone who says that the current theory of evolution is proven and to say otherwise is a lie.
>The internet is a good international newspaper, and much more
Its the "much more" that I wouldn't want kids to access. There are lots of stuff I wouldn't want adults to access either.
Just give them the international newspaper, not a step by step how to send spam emails.
>Science is based on empirical reasoning
Its based on two things (I'm open to hear of any more)
1. Occam's razor.
2. Falsification.
This is what every scientist should use as their guilding light, their rules, their basic principals that they should follow regardless of any other factor.
And so what is the difference between these two (or any more that you may come up with) and religous rules, say like the Ten Commandments? (The Ten Commandments are the guilding light, the rules, the basic principals that should be followed regardless of any other factor.)
Because one just feels right? Because one is older? Because one doesn't like the background where it orginates? Because you were told one was the "truth" and the other isn't? Because one is more socially exceptable than the other?
>and is always held subject to peer review.
Religons is also. There are multiple major religons and sects existing. Religous history is filled with people reviewing/questioning things.
Thanks for proving my point.
The Internet is a mixed bag, good and bad.
I rather have kids (in Kansas or Africa) read a good international newspaper than to have them uncontrolled access to the Internet.
>The people who say we're screwed because of these things are not practising science. They are lobbyists
Who is lobbying for/against nuclear war and why would they need to falsify scientific studies?
>You and I would both like less religion involved in US politics, but trust me it's been worse in other places
You do know that Bush supports ID? I this would be considered religous enough.
>Why can't intelligent design and evolution co-exist? Why does it always have to be either one or the other?
Its not about ID or evolution. Its about hate towards others ideas that are not your own.
Both sides hates the other because they reject the "truth".
Both sides hates the other because their ideas are "the crutch of the weak and stupid".
And both sides think that their ideas make them stronger than the other side.
Logic? Reason? Understanding? Open-mindedness? Just look at these comments and do you really see that here?
>science doesn't say "Hey man, you're 100% screwed!".
Well good thing we can ignore global warming, thermonuclear war and eating too much fast-food.
>science isn't to blame for the atom bomb, that would have been invented by some means or other eventually
Atomic bombs don't "fall out of a tree" somewhere. Nothing about it says that it would have "eventaully" been created. I'm sure there is a super-bow-and-arrow invention that just was never discovered.
>mostly because they value rationalism and capitalism above religion or quasi-religious politics.
Seriously, you need review Bush and the role religion played in getting him elected.
Thanks for providing insight to this business process.
The only thing I can think of is that;
1. Your employees/associates/co-workers need a HUGE amount of trust in you and your abilities for you not to screw them over.
2. As others said, the contractors are taking a risk of being paid less due to factors out of their control.(vs. get paid a predicatable and steady $/hr)
3. There may be quality control issues in the final product. Your only metric seems to be be speed/meeting deadlines. Quality of product seems to be something that would a far distant priority.
> Did I miss something else in the article?
Yes, the fact that its a slow news week.
Whoop-de-do.
If this is news to you in 2005, you need to read the front-page of a newspaper once in a while.
>I am a developer of multiplayer servers. For my part, I couldn't do my job without root access.
If you are a developer, you don't need root access. All the examples you've given are the system admin job (system administration?)
>Don't make blanket policies unless you're prepared to make exceptions.
Its not really a blanket policy if there are exceptions.
Yes it does.
Its usually the other group's reponsiblity to have the box and app running. That means changes are well communicated and planned, not ad-hoc.
Also, its to make sure the single app is the only thing running on the box.
Also, its to make sure that there is a known level of security on the box.