Uh, where's the line there? If I glimpse into your house while delivering pizza and speak about that to everyone, am I violating your right to privacy or exercising free speech?
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
Only this time, of course, I am replying to a poster who had a friend who had as his signature that quote that I was about to put into my signature.
This is intellectually dishonest. So you pick a stupid way to do a test, and are showing that this is no way to do it. But you can do the same thing with any other method of evaluation. How about an interview: "Ha! Mr. Hot-shot Programmer, I see you said 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'! You don't know what you're talking about, get out of my office.'
Why Lennon is there? Because he, as well as the Beatles, contributed a wee bit to the history of music worldwide. Not that it's a big deal, mind you...
A written technical test is not necessarily a test to measure your writing skills. What writing skills do you need to write a short answer like "rm -rf/" or "MAC address"?
How ironic... I have yet to hear about someone become offended (other than the candidate) when being subjected to humiliating practices like drug tests (hand over your urine, and, please, piss while we watch). That is fine, of course. But a written test of skill... oh the horror...
And let's be blunt, a 650 meg URL consisting of four characters in endless patterns is not an easy thing to rememeber.
Nah, you'll just need to keep a piece of that person, to glean DNA info from:)
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
In case you didn't get it, I do not agree with this rhetoric, I am just pointing out what it really means.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
No, liberals will not shut up, because this will mean that the rich too are paying 2% less, and their 2% are greater than the poorer people's 2%, so you get the same "most of the tax breaks go to the rich!" rhetoric again.
The shame is that they will be perceived as not secure enough for someone to trust them with sensitive info. Sensible enough; and even if it weren't, the public will hype themselves into believing it is.
Would you want them to keep it quiet if your bank got broken into?
Imagine returning a stale candy bar to a lonely highway gas station
After saying that businesses are run by live human beings, this is quite a picture. I envision a lonely gas station, with all the disposition of Marvin (Hitchiker's Guide), even worse, since it can't move:)
That's why I said "convenience". It's much easier to order a book from Amazon and forget it, only minding their emails, then go to Borders, blablabla... Of course, your mileage may vary. You may even like browsing stores - I do too, but only when I feel like doing so, and when I feel like getting what I want and getting outta there, nothing yet beat an online purchase for me.
A merchant only does you a favor when it benefits him - it could be that honoring returns benefits a company's reputation in the long run, which helps its sales. It is not the niceties, it's the allegiance to bottom line. Which I have no problem with, as long as we're clear on that.
Well, that's stretching it. Part of the pleasure, even if you disapprove of it, is smoking at the table, not having to go out. Why should one be denied this opportunity?
Some people can't afford to go to restaurants; should this distinction also be erased?
I am all for separate ventilation; but blanket prohibition is just as wrong as forcing non-smokers to inhale smoke everywhere they go.
A restaurant can have no music and enforce no cell phones -no loud talking rules, and thus accomodate people whom noise pisses off - by the way, loud noise is not exactly great for your health, in terms of hearing, either. But nobody makes a law forbidding jukeboxes. Perhaps that's on the way, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, where's the line there? If I glimpse
into your house while delivering pizza
and speak about that to everyone, am I
violating your right to privacy or exercising
free speech?
This is a great signature:
I have a friend who has this in his signature:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
Only this time, of course, I am replying
to a poster who had a friend who had as
his signature that quote that I was about
to put into my signature.
Why shouldn't people voice their opinion -
you just voiced yours (about getting a job,
blablabla). Put up or shut up.
probably broad minded].
:)
You mean, lesbian?
(Stop. It's a pun
No, 24601. :)
This is intellectually dishonest. So you
pick a stupid way to do a test, and
are showing that this is no way to do it.
But you can do the same thing with any other
method of evaluation. How about an interview:
"Ha! Mr. Hot-shot Programmer, I see you
said 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'! You don't
know what you're talking about, get out
of my office.'
Why Lennon is there? Because he, as
well as the Beatles, contributed a wee
bit to the history of music worldwide.
Not that it's a big deal, mind you...
A written technical test is not necessarily /" or "MAC address"?
a test to measure your writing skills. What
writing skills do you need to write a short
answer like "rm -rf
How ironic... I have yet to hear about
someone become offended (other than the
candidate) when being subjected to humiliating
practices like drug tests (hand over your
urine, and, please, piss while we watch).
That is fine, of course. But a written test
of skill... oh the horror...
"I like choice. Choice gives you options."
Very insightful, Mr.Einstein. You forgot
to mention that when you don't have choices,
there are hardly any options.
Another suit is then brought to identify
*that* Linus as GNU/Linus.
Did he at least give himself the satisfaction
of adding, after his notarized signature,
"and fuck you and the dolls you rode in on"?
Nah, you'll just need to keep a piece of that
person, to glean DNA info from
In case you didn't get it, I do not agree
with this rhetoric, I am just pointing out
what it really means.
No, liberals will not shut up, because
this will mean that the rich too are paying
2% less, and their 2% are greater than
the poorer people's 2%, so you get the same
"most of the tax breaks go to the rich!"
rhetoric again.
Omigod, slippery slope! Quick, someone
:)
call ACLU! Who knows how long until they
start using kites with cameras
to snoop on everybody!
(In ye olde days, an obFUD would be included
here. So it is, by implication
The shame is that they will be perceived
as not secure enough for someone to trust them
with sensitive info. Sensible enough; and even
if it weren't, the public will hype themselves
into believing it is.
Would you want them to keep it quiet if your
bank got broken into?
After saying that businesses are run by
live human beings, this is quite a picture.
I envision a lonely gas station, with all
the disposition of Marvin (Hitchiker's Guide),
even worse, since it can't move
If all hiring managers were like you, the
industry would be a much better (not
to mention fun) place. Alas...
That's why I said "convenience". It's much
easier to order a book from Amazon and
forget it, only minding their emails, then
go to Borders, blablabla... Of course,
your mileage may vary. You may even like browsing
stores - I do too, but only when I feel like
doing so, and when I feel like getting what I
want and getting outta there, nothing yet beat
an online purchase for me.
A merchant only does you a favor when it benefits
him - it could be that honoring returns benefits
a company's reputation in the long run, which
helps its sales. It is not the niceties, it's the
allegiance to bottom line. Which I have no problem with, as long as we're clear on that.
Let's except info-only goods; otherwise,
the physical stuff is still delivered to you
via country's roads, space & stuff, and so
you have no argument.
Yes you will, because the convenience beats
buying it in real life, and the taxes are
still the same.
Well, that's stretching it. Part of the
pleasure, even if you disapprove of it,
is smoking at the table, not having to go
out. Why should one be denied this opportunity?
Some people can't afford to go to restaurants;
should this distinction also be erased?
I am all for separate ventilation; but blanket
prohibition is just as wrong as forcing non-smokers to inhale smoke everywhere they go.
A restaurant can have no music and enforce
no cell phones -no loud talking rules, and
thus accomodate people whom noise pisses off - by
the way, loud noise is not exactly great for your
health, in terms of hearing, either. But nobody
makes a law forbidding jukeboxes. Perhaps that's
on the way, eh?
But in this case, why should the smokers feel
any different?