Ya, the Colt 1911 was a bit rough when I was a kid. That metal frame wasn't exactly nice for dealing with kick. That's why I fell in love with my Ruger. It goes together exactly the same way. It feels the same in my hand, but overall it's a bit lighter. And, there's a lot less kick.
Yeah, my dad had me shooting long before I was 13, too. I still own the first gun I ever fired, A.22LR Winchester semi-auto. Very nice little gun. I shot that sucker until my shoulder got tired the very first time.
Which got tired first, your fingers from reloading, or your shoulder from firing?:)
All I remember from plinking with the.22LR's was that that my fingers would get sore from reloading, my targets would be too eaten up from shooting at them (they were old milk bottles or soda cans), or I'd get bored after a couple hours.:)
I haven't really considered buying anything small for years. The Springfield is still here because it's an antique, and it was my dads. Otherwise, I only consider weapons that I can use in self defense, and are going to put lots of mass downrange accurately and consistently. Well, I have been wanting a FN PS-90. Not as much mass nor velocity, but it's suppose to be very accurate. That, and it looks real cool.:) I've been saving my pennies. $2.68 cents saved, only $1797.32 to go. This may take a while.
Honestly, no. All I had there was my Glock model 38 (.45 GAP), Ruger P97DC (.45 ACP) and Springfield 03A3. Other than the Springfield, the rest stayed at home when I left when I was a kid. After my dad died, my mom sold most of them off. It wasn't that she was clearing the house of weapons, she just didn't need a whole arsenal.:) Some were given away to family and friends who needed (or thought they needed) one. That's where my Kel-Tek.380 ended up. I warned them though, they probably only get one shot. After that, you may as well throw it at the attacker.:)
He was more than strong enough to use the Ruger. It actually has a rather light kick to it. His mother, who is now about a foot shorter than him, and 40 pounds (or more) lighter, has shown excellent proficiency with both the Ruger and Glock. The first time she was ever to a range, her grouping was better than many people who have practiced for years. She's looking at getting a Sig sometime soon.:)
You know, you're quite right. People play games because they are games. People play with guns because... ok, we don't play with guns. Anyone who's been to a shooting range knows that it's a very serious place. If it's not, that's an excellent time to leave quickly because someone's going to get hurt.
There was a show on not too long ago, where they took a kid out to an outdoor shooting range. The only people there were the kid, his mother, the instructor, and the video crew (off camera, of course).
He was a brave hero in the video games, blasting away at all the enemies. At the shooting range, he was terrified of the guns. They left his full reaction out of the initial cut, but put it in later in the show. He wasn't just terrified. He was crying his eyes out.
I took a 13 year old to the shooting range. He'd been playing FPS games for quite a while. He was sure he wanted to join the military when he turned 18. He wanted his parents to buy him real guns, so he could go to the range with them. I spent about 3 hours with him, tearing down my weapons, cleaning them, and reassembling them. I explained every part of them, so he knew the names and functions, and how they worked together. Then we were off to the shooting range.
The range we went to had two sections, a pistol, and a rifle range. We agreed that I would demonstrate proper firing techniques, and then instruct him while he fired. We went to the rifle area first. The only other person in the rifle range was firing a Kel-Tec PLR-16 (.223 pistol). We were using my Springfield 03A3. For those who haven't used one, it's a cannon.:) Without shoulder padding, I'm limited to about 30 shots per arm (I shoot ambidextrously). It has no padding on the stock, and a vicious recoil. I had him stand a few feet behind me, and observe what I was doing. I fired the first shot, and brought the target back to show him what I did. While the target was coming back to me, I turned around, and he had gone from standing behind me, to hiding in the corner.
Mind you, this kid wasn't timid. It was the sudden reality of "the things that go pop in the games are really dangerous" came flooding into his world. I spent a while trying to get him to take even a single shot with it. That didn't happen.
We moved over to the pistol range. I had brought my Ruger P97DC. It's a nice weapon..45 ACP, fairly light, easy recoil. I fired a single shot. This time, he didn't go running all the way to the corner, but he did back up several feet. I demonstrated proper use of it for him, put a fresh magazine in. To show it was ready, I fired 3 shots from the new magazine, and then made it safe and put it down. I then began instructing him. I got him to pick it up, and he even got his finger onto the trigger, but never pulled the trigger. He was terrified.
Now, what kind of lunatic would give a 13 year old with no shooting experience a loaded weapon? Not me. I didn't tell him, but the last "loaded" magazine I put in only had 3 rounds in it. After my last shot, I hit the slide release (the slide stays back when the magazine is empty). I just told him it was ready. I'd been telling him for years "Every weapon is a loaded weapon." I'm sure anyone who's been around firearms has heard that one. I told him again, and then demonstrated that it was empty by dry firing it. I told him, even though I knew it wouldn't fire, it was still to be treated as a loaded weapon. Since he wouldn't fire what he believed to be a loaded weapon, he wasn't ready to actually do it.
It's not an age thing though. My father had me shooting when I was about 8 years old. The
During an incident the leadership should be maintaining calm so that the people doing the work are at their peak performance.
Well, I will say there was one person at the company who was really good at that.
In reality, we don't all have the luxury of a strong leader at the company, and even less of a chance that they will be top brass. In that, folks letting emotions get the better of them and showing it are very likely in a stressful situation.
Oh gee golly mister, I'm so sorry to of offended you. Let me ponder rescinding my previous statements.
Hmmm.
Nope.
Yes, I am well known to be a sarcastic prick.
Usually when people ask the fire question, they have no clue of what it's origins are. In that, it is one of the most annoying arguments that people always tend to bring up when arguing against free speech. Can you yell fire in a movie theater? Can you yell shark at the beach? etc, etc, etc.
Back to the original question. No, I don't believe any speech should be censored. There are already provisions in place to deal with abuses of it, such as civil laws regarding libel and slander, and criminal laws regarding intentional disregard for the safety of others. Our current laws already overstep their bounds. Besides posting here, I run my own news site. We've been operating since 2003, and have been running stories including the constant erosion of our rights. Maybe you aren't aware of it, or maybe you're one of the brainwashed masses who argues for limiting free speech and our other rights for the sake of the cause of the day.
Why would I need to be imaginative to find exception in a simple rule? People have the freedom of speech.
Libel and slander are civil matters. Either one must have a demonstrable loss due to their actions. Even still, the law doesn't forbid you from making an ass out of yourself, it's only allowing for the recovery of losses due to your action. That is a long way away from censorship.
Are you against the laws forbidding yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater?
And the obvious answer, "What if there is a fire?". Since you're trying to find fault, you could be held criminally liable for not warning others that were in immediate danger. (IANAL. Consult a local attorney for clarification in your locale)
My question to you is why do they appreciate it?... Don't you think it's wrong to enjoy that content?
I guess appreciation and enjoyment may be in the eye of the beholder.
I appreciate that they make such media available. I won't say it's enjoyable. We can learn a lot about ourselves and our environment through observations of what has happened to others.
I will say the links that follow NSFW, nor the weak stomached.
You can tell a person "Don't stick your hand in there." They may have been told 1000 times, and they may still not quite comprehend why. Show them one picture.
Maybe you're obese. Maybe you keep saying that you're just big boned. A clear illustration may change your entire attitude towards it.
And a shotgun suicide doesn't leave a pretty corpse.
I intentionally left out most of the corpse photos, because of the audience who may be watching my screen. I don't consider them unviewable. I consider them an interesting view of what can happen. I'd rather learn from their mistakes, rather than for them to happen to me.
There's a little phrase at the core of the American society. "Freedom of speech". You might be familiar with it.
When any person or group has the ability to make decisions on what the whole of society can say or read, it brings an end to our liberties. Just because you don't believe Rotten.com should be up doesn't mean that there aren't others who appreciate it. I don't like seeing mythology based rantings which are frequently misrepresented as factual historical accounts or a basis for modern life (i.e., religion for those who didn't catch that). The difference is, if anyone made a move to censor their speech, I would defend their right to say it, even if I disagree with every word they say.
If a person, group, or even mob rule were to guide censorship, virtually everything would be censored.
The stuff on rotten.com really isn't bad. It seems bad, because you have likely been protected from it your whole life. It's not necessary to see such things, but there are people world wide who see first hand the reality of what is portrayed in those images. For every picture they post, there was at least one witness, the photographer.
I believe AGW is "Anti-George-W", in reference to the previous president. Alternatively, it would be "Anti-Global-Warming". Expanding it, "Anti Global Warming Denialists" makes an interesting double negative. I suppose that would be someone who denies that anti global warming activists exist, but I could be mistaken.
You can call anything you'd like from an anonymous account. I don't back down to anyone, so if I say it, it's actually how I feel.
I don't particularly care if you or anyone else doesn't agree with my interviewing styles, especially where almost none of you have ever sat in on an interview I was conducting.
Next topic, interrogation techniques. This will be a full demonstration. Do we have any volunteers from the anonymous peanut gallery who wish to play the role of "interviewee"? Liability wavers are on the table to your left. Be sure to have them signed and a photo ID available before you come up to the stage.
I did say that most of my interviews were for sysadmin stuff. Reread my post. They were just examples of interviewing, which would obviously need to be modified for the field. The general idea applies. I'm sure we've all seen moments when an update gets pushed out, and breaks in production. Or (god forbid) another problem makes your code not work.
You know, if I was interviewing you, and you did show competence when answering other questions, you'd float straight to the top of the hire list. Someone who can yank an excuse like that out of their ass (assuming you didn't plagiarize it) is always useful and entertaining to have around.:)
I may have to add parts to my "wheel of excuses".:)
That was pretty rough. The interviewer proposed an impossible situation with no way to resolve it. The question and discussion chain should allow for an easy path for a knowledgeable person towards the correct answer.
I liked his second story though. I wouldn't have made it past the gate before saying "no way".
So, the odds are pretty good you're suggesting a single engine prop plane carrying weapons and countermeasures. No matter what you do to it, all it takes is a fast close flyby of a jet to send it into the ground. It doesn't even take firing weapons, but a civilian aircraft in military controlled airspace who refuses commands to land does run the risk of being invited to land in most ungraceful ways. I've never heard of it happening over American Airspace (Flight 93 conspiracy aside), but for the most part a civilian aircraft shootdown over controlled airspace could easily disappear and explained as an accident.
I've interviewed with them 3 times on the phone (three interviews each). Some of their questions just plain don't make sense. From what other folks have said, it's just to see how you handle stressful situations.
Like this question...
G: "How does telnet work?"
Me: "Can you please clarify the question?"
G: "How does telnet work?"
Me: "Well, it is an application which opens a TCP connection to a server, normally on port 23, but can connect to anyTCP port where you are expecting ASCII data".
G: "Tell me more. How does telnet work?"
This went on for about 10 minutes, where I finally had to give in and say "I must not understand what you're looking for, so I don't have a better answer for you."
During another interview, the interviewer started asking Python questions. I told him that I don't know Python. I'd never touched Python. Python is not listed anywhere on my resume. He spent about 15 minutes on Python questions. During another interview set, where the interviewer was very pleasant and did ask me questions in my skill set, what the Python questions were all about. He said that there was a little holy war over there. Half the company wanted to use Perl. The other half wanted to use Python. It was a constant conflict. As with most holy wars, lots of people have their preference, but don't make a big deal about it. Others will make a huge deal over it just for the sake of doing it. That interviewer probably had a hard on for Python, and didn't want any non-python people on the team.
In all 3 sets of interviews, I was always interviewing for sysadmin positions, so I thought it was very odd to get in depth questions regarding programming, except for maybe some basic shell scripting. I've known sysadmins who couldn't write the first line of code, but I prefer the ones who can at least modify easy shell scripts.:)
You got the trip to their office though? Congrats. I'm hoping to get that invitation sometime soon.
So you wanna slap the table? I'll roll with it and we can laugh about it. I don't take any of that seriously. Be advised I might also stick my finger in your coffee and then taste it and say "Hmm.. A cream and sugar kind of fellow, eh? You should warm that up a bit." right in the middle of your mini flake-out.
Haha, I like your response.:) When I was in charge of my network, you're the kind of person I'd rather have. It's much better than all the other "I'd walk out, then go home and cry" answers.
Egads - it's the whole "Root Cause Analysis" crap. A mile-long report filled with BS that means nothing to anyone else and and action plan of "how to prevent this from happening again" blah blah blah. I always felt those things should be triaged first to determine if the RCA was even under our control. But whatever.... for it to only be ignored. They would have already vilified someone (responsible or not) and then just go through the motions.
Are you sure we've never worked together?:) Ya, I've seen several people fired over things that weren't even under their control. I never quite got how a company can justify firing someone in a department that wasn't even involved in a situation. They were always fired to prove to some major customer that they did something about the situation. I played that game when I was in charge at one job, but I never fired real people. How's a customer that doesn't have an intimate knowledge of my companies staff know that "John in IT" didn't even exist. (shhhh, that's a secret) I never believed in firing someone for mistakes, unless they were repeated mistakes or plain stupidity. Even if a one-off mistake caused a loss, it was just a mistake, and since we still have humans working jobs, it could happen again.
It's nice for helping the scenario along. It then doesn't involve chasing wires or using inferior tools to do the job. If they have an answer that involves a tool that I wouldn't have thought of, it would still be a correct answer. Well, unless it is a hammer or chainsaw, then it's probably wrong.:)
I guess you missed the part where I said "My interviews were more for sysadmin stuff", so they would be applicable to folks I hired. I'd have other questions for LAMP developers, but I didn't have any examples off the top of my head.
Well, you need to learn some self control, because stressful situations will come up. If you shut down, you're not of much use when they happen. If you get violent, that's definitely a hazard and a liability. Either way, when the shit hits the fan, you're not going to be a productive member of the team.
Bad router, bad switch. There are all kinds of fun reasons you can't just look for the answer on Google.
I was in that situation once in a datacenter quite a while ago. I had my laptop. I tried to put the wrong firmware on the switch. The catalyst 2924 has two different IOSs, depending on how much memory it has. All the rest of the 2924s we had were the larger ones. So the botched upgrade left me disconnected in a city where I knew no one, and had no connectivity of any sort. It was the middle of the night, and there was no one around to even let me plug into a port in their cage. The circuit was GigE fiber, so I couldn't even just plug it into my laptop. So I worked my way through it by myself with no way to get online. I got lucky, I had an older firmware on the laptop that would work. Unfortunately, I had to upload it via the serial cable. For anyone who hasn't done that, you may as well take a nap while it's uploading. I got the older IOS on, then downloaded the correct new one, and got it running before the end of the maintenance window, so all was fine. It's just a good example of "you can't just Google the answer."... and if that had been a interview question, the right answer could be as simple as "Attach the serial cable, and use the boot loader menu to copy the firmware from my laptop via xmodem" They wouldn't need to specify:
flash_init load_helper dir flash:/ [clean out any extra files that are in the way] copy xmodem: flash:[someversion].bin boot system flash:[someversion].bin write memory reboot
If someone did manage to rattle off the right commands from memory, I'd be pretty impressed though.:) "There's gotta be some way to do it, check Google" obviously isn't a good answer. I rather have people who know enough to do the work, rather than have them Google for every step of every task I give them. If I want someone to do that, I'd better only be paying them minimum wage.
Actually, I've seen this in real life. Not on machines that I set up though. Machines have been put into production, usually with a default install of whatever OS, and they hope it'll work. Mixed duplex usually works fine at low speeds, but has severe problems when there's a load put on it. Some network cards negotiate poorly, coming up at half duplex when the switch is set to full. Or worse, the switch is auto too, so they both negotiate, and come up with different settings. I saw one desktop machine that would negotiate 10baseT, even though it was capable of 100baseTX. The user complained it was slow. I didn't have permission to change port settings, so I couldn't just lock all the ports on the switch at 100baseTX, but I did set their port for it. Even so, their machine would still "negotiate" 10baseT, so I had to manually set it for 100baseTX. Problem solved.
On the network where I had full control over everything, all was fine and dandy, except once in a while a network cable would go bad. I don't know why, it would just start showing errors on both sides. In those cases, changing the network cable was the answer, but it's because we exhausted all the other potential problems.
Someone else posted the better answer, which is very applicable too. Check the state of the machine first before going on to external problems. Some people go straight from "Can't reach the machine" to "Call the bandwidth provider".
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, the Colt 1911 was a bit rough when I was a kid. That metal frame wasn't exactly nice for dealing with kick. That's why I fell in love with my Ruger. It goes together exactly the same way. It feels the same in my hand, but overall it's a bit lighter. And, there's a lot less kick.
Which got tired first, your fingers from reloading, or your shoulder from firing? :)
All I remember from plinking with the .22LR's was that that my fingers would get sore from reloading, my targets would be too eaten up from shooting at them (they were old milk bottles or soda cans), or I'd get bored after a couple hours. :)
I haven't really considered buying anything small for years. The Springfield is still here because it's an antique, and it was my dads. Otherwise, I only consider weapons that I can use in self defense, and are going to put lots of mass downrange accurately and consistently. Well, I have been wanting a FN PS-90. Not as much mass nor velocity, but it's suppose to be very accurate. That, and it looks real cool. :) I've been saving my pennies. $2.68 cents saved, only $1797.32 to go. This may take a while.
Honestly, no. All I had there was my Glock model 38 (.45 GAP), Ruger P97DC (.45 ACP) and Springfield 03A3. Other than the Springfield, the rest stayed at home when I left when I was a kid. After my dad died, my mom sold most of them off. It wasn't that she was clearing the house of weapons, she just didn't need a whole arsenal. :) Some were given away to family and friends who needed (or thought they needed) one. That's where my Kel-Tek .380 ended up. I warned them though, they probably only get one shot. After that, you may as well throw it at the attacker. :)
He was more than strong enough to use the Ruger. It actually has a rather light kick to it. His mother, who is now about a foot shorter than him, and 40 pounds (or more) lighter, has shown excellent proficiency with both the Ruger and Glock. The first time she was ever to a range, her grouping was better than many people who have practiced for years. She's looking at getting a Sig sometime soon. :)
You know, you're quite right. People play games because they are games. People play with guns because ... ok, we don't play with guns. Anyone who's been to a shooting range knows that it's a very serious place. If it's not, that's an excellent time to leave quickly because someone's going to get hurt.
There was a show on not too long ago, where they took a kid out to an outdoor shooting range. The only people there were the kid, his mother, the instructor, and the video crew (off camera, of course).
He was a brave hero in the video games, blasting away at all the enemies. At the shooting range, he was terrified of the guns. They left his full reaction out of the initial cut, but put it in later in the show. He wasn't just terrified. He was crying his eyes out.
I took a 13 year old to the shooting range. He'd been playing FPS games for quite a while. He was sure he wanted to join the military when he turned 18. He wanted his parents to buy him real guns, so he could go to the range with them. I spent about 3 hours with him, tearing down my weapons, cleaning them, and reassembling them. I explained every part of them, so he knew the names and functions, and how they worked together. Then we were off to the shooting range.
The range we went to had two sections, a pistol, and a rifle range. We agreed that I would demonstrate proper firing techniques, and then instruct him while he fired. We went to the rifle area first. The only other person in the rifle range was firing a Kel-Tec PLR-16 (.223 pistol). We were using my Springfield 03A3. For those who haven't used one, it's a cannon. :) Without shoulder padding, I'm limited to about 30 shots per arm (I shoot ambidextrously). It has no padding on the stock, and a vicious recoil. I had him stand a few feet behind me, and observe what I was doing. I fired the first shot, and brought the target back to show him what I did. While the target was coming back to me, I turned around, and he had gone from standing behind me, to hiding in the corner.
Mind you, this kid wasn't timid. It was the sudden reality of "the things that go pop in the games are really dangerous" came flooding into his world. I spent a while trying to get him to take even a single shot with it. That didn't happen.
We moved over to the pistol range. I had brought my Ruger P97DC. It's a nice weapon. .45 ACP, fairly light, easy recoil. I fired a single shot. This time, he didn't go running all the way to the corner, but he did back up several feet. I demonstrated proper use of it for him, put a fresh magazine in. To show it was ready, I fired 3 shots from the new magazine, and then made it safe and put it down. I then began instructing him. I got him to pick it up, and he even got his finger onto the trigger, but never pulled the trigger. He was terrified.
Now, what kind of lunatic would give a 13 year old with no shooting experience a loaded weapon? Not me. I didn't tell him, but the last "loaded" magazine I put in only had 3 rounds in it. After my last shot, I hit the slide release (the slide stays back when the magazine is empty). I just told him it was ready. I'd been telling him for years "Every weapon is a loaded weapon." I'm sure anyone who's been around firearms has heard that one. I told him again, and then demonstrated that it was empty by dry firing it. I told him, even though I knew it wouldn't fire, it was still to be treated as a loaded weapon. Since he wouldn't fire what he believed to be a loaded weapon, he wasn't ready to actually do it.
It's not an age thing though. My father had me shooting when I was about 8 years old. The
That incident was way back when. It was a simple upgrade, tested in the lap, what could possibly go wrong. :)
Needless to say it did become part of our SOP. After I left that company, it was part of my personal SOP, just in case.
Well, I will say there was one person at the company who was really good at that.
In reality, we don't all have the luxury of a strong leader at the company, and even less of a chance that they will be top brass. In that, folks letting emotions get the better of them and showing it are very likely in a stressful situation.
Oh gee golly mister, I'm so sorry to of offended you. Let me ponder rescinding my previous statements.
Hmmm.
Nope.
Yes, I am well known to be a sarcastic prick.
Usually when people ask the fire question, they have no clue of what it's origins are. In that, it is one of the most annoying arguments that people always tend to bring up when arguing against free speech. Can you yell fire in a movie theater? Can you yell shark at the beach? etc, etc, etc.
Back to the original question. No, I don't believe any speech should be censored. There are already provisions in place to deal with abuses of it, such as civil laws regarding libel and slander, and criminal laws regarding intentional disregard for the safety of others. Our current laws already overstep their bounds. Besides posting here, I run my own news site. We've been operating since 2003, and have been running stories including the constant erosion of our rights. Maybe you aren't aware of it, or maybe you're one of the brainwashed masses who argues for limiting free speech and our other rights for the sake of the cause of the day.
Why would I need to be imaginative to find exception in a simple rule? People have the freedom of speech.
Libel and slander are civil matters. Either one must have a demonstrable loss due to their actions. Even still, the law doesn't forbid you from making an ass out of yourself, it's only allowing for the recovery of losses due to your action. That is a long way away from censorship.
And the obvious answer, "What if there is a fire?". Since you're trying to find fault, you could be held criminally liable for not warning others that were in immediate danger. (IANAL. Consult a local attorney for clarification in your locale)
I guess appreciation and enjoyment may be in the eye of the beholder.
I appreciate that they make such media available. I won't say it's enjoyable. We can learn a lot about ourselves and our environment through observations of what has happened to others.
I will say the links that follow NSFW, nor the weak stomached.
You can tell a person "Don't stick your hand in there." They may have been told 1000 times, and they may still not quite comprehend why. Show them one picture.
Maybe you're obese. Maybe you keep saying that you're just big boned. A clear illustration may change your entire attitude towards it.
Some are a subtle reminder and editorial, such as the one on how glamorous doing meth really is.
For those who glorify war, sometimes you can see what can really happen.
Getting hit by a train can hurt a lot more than you thought
And a shotgun suicide doesn't leave a pretty corpse.
I intentionally left out most of the corpse photos, because of the audience who may be watching my screen. I don't consider them unviewable. I consider them an interesting view of what can happen. I'd rather learn from their mistakes, rather than for them to happen to me.
There's a little phrase at the core of the American society. "Freedom of speech". You might be familiar with it.
When any person or group has the ability to make decisions on what the whole of society can say or read, it brings an end to our liberties. Just because you don't believe Rotten.com should be up doesn't mean that there aren't others who appreciate it. I don't like seeing mythology based rantings which are frequently misrepresented as factual historical accounts or a basis for modern life (i.e., religion for those who didn't catch that). The difference is, if anyone made a move to censor their speech, I would defend their right to say it, even if I disagree with every word they say.
If a person, group, or even mob rule were to guide censorship, virtually everything would be censored.
The stuff on rotten.com really isn't bad. It seems bad, because you have likely been protected from it your whole life. It's not necessary to see such things, but there are people world wide who see first hand the reality of what is portrayed in those images. For every picture they post, there was at least one witness, the photographer.
That sounds like a fair deal. Well, there are a few other places I'd ask him to take away too. :)
Aw, come on. People trust in The Sun. Well, as much as they trust in The National Enquirer, Fox News, and The Weekly World News.
I believe AGW is "Anti-George-W", in reference to the previous president. Alternatively, it would be "Anti-Global-Warming". Expanding it, "Anti Global Warming Denialists" makes an interesting double negative. I suppose that would be someone who denies that anti global warming activists exist, but I could be mistaken.
You can call anything you'd like from an anonymous account. I don't back down to anyone, so if I say it, it's actually how I feel.
I don't particularly care if you or anyone else doesn't agree with my interviewing styles, especially where almost none of you have ever sat in on an interview I was conducting.
Next topic, interrogation techniques. This will be a full demonstration. Do we have any volunteers from the anonymous peanut gallery who wish to play the role of "interviewee"? Liability wavers are on the table to your left. Be sure to have them signed and a photo ID available before you come up to the stage.
I did say that most of my interviews were for sysadmin stuff. Reread my post. They were just examples of interviewing, which would obviously need to be modified for the field. The general idea applies. I'm sure we've all seen moments when an update gets pushed out, and breaks in production. Or (god forbid) another problem makes your code not work.
You know, if I was interviewing you, and you did show competence when answering other questions, you'd float straight to the top of the hire list. Someone who can yank an excuse like that out of their ass (assuming you didn't plagiarize it) is always useful and entertaining to have around. :)
I may have to add parts to my "wheel of excuses". :)
That was pretty rough. The interviewer proposed an impossible situation with no way to resolve it. The question and discussion chain should allow for an easy path for a knowledgeable person towards the correct answer.
I liked his second story though. I wouldn't have made it past the gate before saying "no way".
Ummmm...
According to AOPA in 2007, The majority of civilian aircraft are piston driven prop planes.
Single Piston - 145,036 (65%)
Multi Piston - 18,708 (8%)
Turbo Prop - 8,063 (3%)
Turbo Jet - 10,379 (4%)
Rotor - 9,159 (4%)
Experimental - 23,047 (10%)
Other 7,551 (3%)
So, the odds are pretty good you're suggesting a single engine prop plane carrying weapons and countermeasures. No matter what you do to it, all it takes is a fast close flyby of a jet to send it into the ground. It doesn't even take firing weapons, but a civilian aircraft in military controlled airspace who refuses commands to land does run the risk of being invited to land in most ungraceful ways. I've never heard of it happening over American Airspace (Flight 93 conspiracy aside), but for the most part a civilian aircraft shootdown over controlled airspace could easily disappear and explained as an accident.
I've interviewed with them 3 times on the phone (three interviews each). Some of their questions just plain don't make sense. From what other folks have said, it's just to see how you handle stressful situations.
Like this question...
G: "How does telnet work?"
Me: "Can you please clarify the question?"
G: "How does telnet work?"
Me: "Well, it is an application which opens a TCP connection to a server, normally on port 23, but can connect to anyTCP port where you are expecting ASCII data".
G: "Tell me more. How does telnet work?"
This went on for about 10 minutes, where I finally had to give in and say "I must not understand what you're looking for, so I don't have a better answer for you."
During another interview, the interviewer started asking Python questions. I told him that I don't know Python. I'd never touched Python. Python is not listed anywhere on my resume. He spent about 15 minutes on Python questions. During another interview set, where the interviewer was very pleasant and did ask me questions in my skill set, what the Python questions were all about. He said that there was a little holy war over there. Half the company wanted to use Perl. The other half wanted to use Python. It was a constant conflict. As with most holy wars, lots of people have their preference, but don't make a big deal about it. Others will make a huge deal over it just for the sake of doing it. That interviewer probably had a hard on for Python, and didn't want any non-python people on the team.
In all 3 sets of interviews, I was always interviewing for sysadmin positions, so I thought it was very odd to get in depth questions regarding programming, except for maybe some basic shell scripting. I've known sysadmins who couldn't write the first line of code, but I prefer the ones who can at least modify easy shell scripts. :)
You got the trip to their office though? Congrats. I'm hoping to get that invitation sometime soon.
Haha, I like your response. :) When I was in charge of my network, you're the kind of person I'd rather have. It's much better than all the other "I'd walk out, then go home and cry" answers.
Are you sure we've never worked together? :) Ya, I've seen several people fired over things that weren't even under their control. I never quite got how a company can justify firing someone in a department that wasn't even involved in a situation. They were always fired to prove to some major customer that they did something about the situation. I played that game when I was in charge at one job, but I never fired real people. How's a customer that doesn't have an intimate knowledge of my companies staff know that "John in IT" didn't even exist. (shhhh, that's a secret) I never believed in firing someone for mistakes, unless they were repeated mistakes or plain stupidity. Even if a one-off mistake caused a loss, it was just a mistake, and since we still have humans working jobs, it could happen again.
It's nice for helping the scenario along. It then doesn't involve chasing wires or using inferior tools to do the job. If they have an answer that involves a tool that I wouldn't have thought of, it would still be a correct answer. Well, unless it is a hammer or chainsaw, then it's probably wrong. :)
I guess you missed the part where I said "My interviews were more for sysadmin stuff", so they would be applicable to folks I hired. I'd have other questions for LAMP developers, but I didn't have any examples off the top of my head.
Well, you need to learn some self control, because stressful situations will come up. If you shut down, you're not of much use when they happen. If you get violent, that's definitely a hazard and a liability. Either way, when the shit hits the fan, you're not going to be a productive member of the team.
Bad router, bad switch. There are all kinds of fun reasons you can't just look for the answer on Google.
I was in that situation once in a datacenter quite a while ago. I had my laptop. I tried to put the wrong firmware on the switch. The catalyst 2924 has two different IOSs, depending on how much memory it has. All the rest of the 2924s we had were the larger ones. So the botched upgrade left me disconnected in a city where I knew no one, and had no connectivity of any sort. It was the middle of the night, and there was no one around to even let me plug into a port in their cage. The circuit was GigE fiber, so I couldn't even just plug it into my laptop. So I worked my way through it by myself with no way to get online. I got lucky, I had an older firmware on the laptop that would work. Unfortunately, I had to upload it via the serial cable. For anyone who hasn't done that, you may as well take a nap while it's uploading. I got the older IOS on, then downloaded the correct new one, and got it running before the end of the maintenance window, so all was fine. It's just a good example of "you can't just Google the answer." ... and if that had been a interview question, the right answer could be as simple as "Attach the serial cable, and use the boot loader menu to copy the firmware from my laptop via xmodem" They wouldn't need to specify:
flash_init
load_helper
dir flash:/
[clean out any extra files that are in the way]
copy xmodem: flash:[someversion].bin
boot system flash:[someversion].bin
write memory
reboot
If someone did manage to rattle off the right commands from memory, I'd be pretty impressed though. :) "There's gotta be some way to do it, check Google" obviously isn't a good answer. I rather have people who know enough to do the work, rather than have them Google for every step of every task I give them. If I want someone to do that, I'd better only be paying them minimum wage.
Actually, I've seen this in real life. Not on machines that I set up though. Machines have been put into production, usually with a default install of whatever OS, and they hope it'll work. Mixed duplex usually works fine at low speeds, but has severe problems when there's a load put on it. Some network cards negotiate poorly, coming up at half duplex when the switch is set to full. Or worse, the switch is auto too, so they both negotiate, and come up with different settings. I saw one desktop machine that would negotiate 10baseT, even though it was capable of 100baseTX. The user complained it was slow. I didn't have permission to change port settings, so I couldn't just lock all the ports on the switch at 100baseTX, but I did set their port for it. Even so, their machine would still "negotiate" 10baseT, so I had to manually set it for 100baseTX. Problem solved.
On the network where I had full control over everything, all was fine and dandy, except once in a while a network cable would go bad. I don't know why, it would just start showing errors on both sides. In those cases, changing the network cable was the answer, but it's because we exhausted all the other potential problems.
Someone else posted the better answer, which is very applicable too. Check the state of the machine first before going on to external problems. Some people go straight from "Can't reach the machine" to "Call the bandwidth provider".