But the two groups could *become* a single species, as the
earth warms the brown bears will migrate into polar bear
territory and start mating away.
Grizzlies already live in territory all the way to the Arctic Ocean. For them to migrate any further into polar bear territory, they'd have to venture out onto the Arctic ice. A) Why would they want to? and B) As the earth warms, they may not even be able to reach the ice.
Unless you're hiring research neurosurgeons or astronauts, I really REALLY doubt it takes "years" of on-the-job experience to do whatever the job is
Maybe that utter cluelessness is why no one will hire you. The beginning of wisdom is understanding what you don't know, and it sounds like you're not there yet. The irony is that it usually takes experience to grasp why experience is important.
Sorry, kid, but there are a lot of jobs where just being well educated and highly motivated don't cut it. I'm not hung up about someone having done this specific job before; I'm prepared to spend a lot of time showing a new employee how we do things. But if I have to explain to him the difference between pliers and a wrench*, he isn't qualified. And if I have to babysit him because he hasn't driven around the block enough times to understand why we look both ways before making a left turn into traffic*, then I might as well continue doing the work myself.
Apply for jobs even if you think that it may not be a good fit for you.
For the love of god, please stop wasting your time... and mine... with this.
My boss and I are are trying to hire someone, and the majority of the resumes we're getting are for people who obviously don't fit what we're looking for. They don't even bother lying to us to make it look like they are. Listen: We're not that desperate. We're not going to hire someone who just might theoretically be good at what we need after several months of retraining and a few years of on-the-job experience. We're going to hire someone who actually has the qualifications we're asking for. If you deep-down believe in your heart-of-hearts that you'd be a good fit for the job, despite a resume that suggests otherwise, then please go ahead and make your case. But if you know that you're not a good fit, then rest assured that we'll figure that out too. And if you get "lucky" and we don't figure it out until after you're hired... you lose, too, because we're all going to be miserable about that mistake until you're gone. If you want interview practice, at least stop wasting the time of people who'll never hire you, and instead interview with people who might actually want you, even if it's not the job you're dreaming of... at least that way there's a chance that you'll avoid the repeated ego-pounding of constantly be turned down, and maybe you'll get lucky and pick up an interim job you're (over)qualified for.
I'd rather live modestly for a long period of time than live well and spend a lot only to lose a job and have to risk moving back to a frugal lifestyle.
This has been my approach, pretty much my whole life. Even though my family had a pretty good income when I was growing up, my parents both grew up as WWII-era working-class kids with stereotypically frugal Dutch parents. So they taught me not just to live within my means, but within within my means.
At times I've made pretty good money myself, but I've never let increasing incomes entice me to spend (much) more; instead I save more or invest more. I've only borrowed money when I absolutely had to for cash-flow reasons, with a plan in place to pay it off in X months: I did it for the first car I bought, and for my last year of college... that's it. (I should have made an exception for buying a house; even though I've had good reasons for putting that off, renting for 20 years has been my biggest financial misstep. But for any purpose other than college or a house, long-term debt is just plain stupid.)
Understand that I'm not talking about living in self-imposed poverty. In fact, because I've always had money in the bank, I've been able to buy new cars a couple of times... for cash. Not status cars, just good value cars (e.g. Honda Civic). Same with my apartment: nothing fancy, but I like it. To hell with cable; network TV offers several hours of decent entertainment per week, for free. Cooking is way cheaper than restaurants or even fast food. A five-dollar bottle of wine gets you just as drunk as the "good" stuff. To say nothing of how far FOSS and used gear stretches one's data-processing budget.
The end result of this kind of "keep it simple stupid" living is that when I've found myself out of work (twice, for a total of a year), all it took to adjust to living on unemployment benefits or savings was to put my occasional self-indulgent purchases on hold. "Sorry, but that antique three-year-old computer is going to have to last you another year or two, and you'll have to rent the LOTR Trilogy Extended Edition for a weekend rather than buy it." No biggie.
Call me crazy, but didn't people have a short enough expected life span back then that, on average, it wouldn't be a problem?
Do you realize we're talking about literally geologic timeframes here? The "people" living at the time of the last pole reversal weren't even Homo sapiens; they were every middle-school boy's favorite laugh line: Homo erectus.
Hmmm... Then again, could our thing about not going outside without clothing be a remnent of the last reversal?;)
Maybe, but probably not the way you're thinking. There was a significant migration of primitive humans northward (i.e. into Europe) around the same time (again, geologically speaking), which made clothing desirable to keep warm.
{snort} 30 isn't old*... it just means you aren't young anymore. Welcome to middle age, Rob. As Admiral McCoy pointed out, there's nothing troublesome about not having died yet.
*Hell, the Apple I is barely 30 years old. I have pajama stains older than that.
The ideologue was asserting that the government has no business getting involved in regulating gas guzzlers because consumers want them. In other words: If there's consumer demand, then the government should butt out. All it takes to disprove an assertion like that is one example that's patently unsound. That's not a straw-man argument; it's propositional logic.
I remember trying beer and thinking it tasted disgusting. I got used to it.:)
Have you tried actually quitting the fructose sludge? Doing the old side-by-side taste test is a good way to pick which one you like better, but this is about something bigger: your waistline (and perhaps the health of your pancreas). If someone wants to get rid of a major source of empty calories, they have to at least try committing to it.
And if the public demands unregulated home fission generators, the government has no business saying otherwise? Sorry, but libertarian/mercantilist dogma doesn't hold up in the face of common sense. The government damn well does have a legitimate interest in helping to get rid of stuff that's just bad for the whole planet and which doesn't have enough real benefit to compensate for that. Gas guzzlers are on that list.
The "I don't like the taste" argument against diet soft drinks is nothing more than a bullshit excuse. If it isn't sweet enough for you, that means you're drinking so much high-fructose corn syrup that your taste buds are desensitized to sweetness. Like a junkie or a drunk who doesn't get the kick/buzz from one hit/drink, you resort to two, and the problem just gets worse.
I stopped drinking non-diet soda-pop years ago, and now depend on diet cola (Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Faygo, and lime/lemon/cherry/vanilla mutations) for my caffeine intake, and I find them quite tasty. Buying whichever one's on sale and switching in the variant flavors helps keep them "fresh". In the rare event that there's no diet cola available (and no tea, my backup caffeine supply) and I have to drink a "regular" cola instead, it tastes like the cloying sticky fructose bomb that it is, and I seriously want to go brush my teeth to get the taste out of my mouth.
Go try flavored waters or whatever else people suggest if you want. Nothing wrong with them. But I suspect you'll constantly feel like a steak-lover eating vegetables he's never had before instead of something he knows he likes. Unless you want to constantly feel like you're "on a diet" (and for some people that works), you're just setting yourself up for failure there. If you like cola, go ahead and keep drinking cola... just detox yourself from the sugar-laced crap.
(I realize this comment is off-topic from all the pubescent distro advocacy, but...)
This article is actually a good introduction to Linux, though perhaps not in the way it was intended. As a competent, grammatically correct translation from another language into English, but by someone who is not a native speaker of English, it has a certain awkwardness to it, requires that the reader take a little more time to figure out what it's saying, and leaves the reader with a feeling of discomfort about just how well-polished this Linux stuff really is. If someone is put off by that, then they probably shouldn't try Linux; if they're not, it might be a good move for them.
Understand: I'm not criticising the translator; his English is far better than any second language of mine, and better than a lot of translated-into-English I've read over the years. Just an observation.
So this year's E3 could very well be a deciding factor in how you view your movie library for years to come.
No, my VHS and DVD players should work pretty much the same way they do now, for the foreseeable future. Considering the installed based of non-HD TVs and DVD players hooked up to them, I don't see Plain Old DVD disappearing from the shelves any time soon. (Just look how long ye olde VHS held on.) So I'll just continue watching my library of VHS tapes and buying/renting PODVDs until these mutually-damaged upcoming "standards" have run their course (which shouldn't take long) and something new comes along to replace them (probably net-delivered anyway).
I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options.
Unless you have a contract that states otherwise, it's completely legal. They can fire you for sticking your tongue out at someone. Or for driving the wrong kind of car to work. Or for performing in drag on weekends. "At will" employment means they can fire you for any reason that isn't explicitly prohibited by law. In most jurisdictions, this is limited to race, gender, religion, non-disqualifying handicap, age, and perhaps a handful of other characteristics.
The flip side of the coin is that you can quit "at will": because the boss stuck his tongue out at someone, drives the wrong kind of car, performs in drag on weekends,.... Whether this is true equity or not (i.e. giving equal power to both parties) is subject to debate, but that's how U.S. labor law treats it.
Granted, it might not be a good usage to encourage. I've never liked it, for the same pedantic reasons that you're asserting: it's technically imprecise. I call them "Windows computers" myself (which gets me a frustrating number of puzzled looks). But the term "PC" is already very well established among the general public for this meaning (Mac users and Windows users [who call themselves "PC users"] alike), and if you think that "technically imprecise" matters even one nano-bit in determining that, you have a rather uninformed view of how language works.
That's curious - a few years ago, I bet you would have said "PC" means "a machine running on the x86 architecture".
No, I wouldn't have. Get out a little and listen to how people talk: The man on the street sees a machine running Windows and he calls it a "PC". (There's no other common noun for "a machine running Windows".) Show him an x86 box running some OS he doesn't recognize, and he'll probably use the fully generic term "computer". In fact, I've even had people insist to me that my Linux-running Gateway Pentium-III box isn't a "PC".
Or do they believe that PC stands for something other then "Personal Computer".
They know that in vernacular English (rather than pedantic geekspeak), "PC" means "a computer running Windows". (Most non-dumb geeks are at least aware of this fact.)
Slashdot Mirror
Grizzlies already live in territory all the way to the Arctic Ocean. For them to migrate any further into polar bear territory, they'd have to venture out onto the Arctic ice. A) Why would they want to? and B) As the earth warms, they may not even be able to reach the ice.
Maybe that utter cluelessness is why no one will hire you. The beginning of wisdom is understanding what you don't know, and it sounds like you're not there yet. The irony is that it usually takes experience to grasp why experience is important.
Sorry, kid, but there are a lot of jobs where just being well educated and highly motivated don't cut it. I'm not hung up about someone having done this specific job before; I'm prepared to spend a lot of time showing a new employee how we do things. But if I have to explain to him the difference between pliers and a wrench*, he isn't qualified. And if I have to babysit him because he hasn't driven around the block enough times to understand why we look both ways before making a left turn into traffic*, then I might as well continue doing the work myself.
*metaphor; not literal example
For the love of god, please stop wasting your time... and mine... with this.
My boss and I are are trying to hire someone, and the majority of the resumes we're getting are for people who obviously don't fit what we're looking for. They don't even bother lying to us to make it look like they are. Listen: We're not that desperate. We're not going to hire someone who just might theoretically be good at what we need after several months of retraining and a few years of on-the-job experience. We're going to hire someone who actually has the qualifications we're asking for. If you deep-down believe in your heart-of-hearts that you'd be a good fit for the job, despite a resume that suggests otherwise, then please go ahead and make your case. But if you know that you're not a good fit, then rest assured that we'll figure that out too. And if you get "lucky" and we don't figure it out until after you're hired... you lose, too, because we're all going to be miserable about that mistake until you're gone. If you want interview practice, at least stop wasting the time of people who'll never hire you, and instead interview with people who might actually want you, even if it's not the job you're dreaming of... at least that way there's a chance that you'll avoid the repeated ego-pounding of constantly be turned down, and maybe you'll get lucky and pick up an interim job you're (over)qualified for.
This has been my approach, pretty much my whole life. Even though my family had a pretty good income when I was growing up, my parents both grew up as WWII-era working-class kids with stereotypically frugal Dutch parents. So they taught me not just to live within my means, but within within my means.
At times I've made pretty good money myself, but I've never let increasing incomes entice me to spend (much) more; instead I save more or invest more. I've only borrowed money when I absolutely had to for cash-flow reasons, with a plan in place to pay it off in X months: I did it for the first car I bought, and for my last year of college... that's it. (I should have made an exception for buying a house; even though I've had good reasons for putting that off, renting for 20 years has been my biggest financial misstep. But for any purpose other than college or a house, long-term debt is just plain stupid.)
Understand that I'm not talking about living in self-imposed poverty. In fact, because I've always had money in the bank, I've been able to buy new cars a couple of times... for cash. Not status cars, just good value cars (e.g. Honda Civic). Same with my apartment: nothing fancy, but I like it. To hell with cable; network TV offers several hours of decent entertainment per week, for free. Cooking is way cheaper than restaurants or even fast food. A five-dollar bottle of wine gets you just as drunk as the "good" stuff. To say nothing of how far FOSS and used gear stretches one's data-processing budget.
The end result of this kind of "keep it simple stupid" living is that when I've found myself out of work (twice, for a total of a year), all it took to adjust to living on unemployment benefits or savings was to put my occasional self-indulgent purchases on hold. "Sorry, but that antique three-year-old computer is going to have to last you another year or two, and you'll have to rent the LOTR Trilogy Extended Edition for a weekend rather than buy it." No biggie.
Live simply, and living is simple.
Do you realize we're talking about literally geologic timeframes here? The "people" living at the time of the last pole reversal weren't even Homo sapiens; they were every middle-school boy's favorite laugh line: Homo erectus.
Hmmm... Then again, could our thing about not going outside without clothing be a remnent of the last reversal? ;)
Maybe, but probably not the way you're thinking. There was a significant migration of primitive humans northward (i.e. into Europe) around the same time (again, geologically speaking), which made clothing desirable to keep warm.
My ancestors immigrated here during the Mediterranean Bronze Age, you insensitive clod!
She might, but in general men are more interested in their dick size than the women who meet them are.
But it sometimes behaves as if it were a wave.
*Hell, the Apple I is barely 30 years old. I have pajama stains older than that.
Combined with the almost-a-million ID number, somehow "You must be new here" seems redundant. ;)
The ideologue was asserting that the government has no business getting involved in regulating gas guzzlers because consumers want them. In other words: If there's consumer demand, then the government should butt out. All it takes to disprove an assertion like that is one example that's patently unsound. That's not a straw-man argument; it's propositional logic.
Too bad they couldn't also get other body measurements to compare.
the majority of SUV buyers were ... compensating
This is the same reason I bought a Geo Metro.
Compensation works in both directions. :)
Have you tried actually quitting the fructose sludge? Doing the old side-by-side taste test is a good way to pick which one you like better, but this is about something bigger: your waistline (and perhaps the health of your pancreas). If someone wants to get rid of a major source of empty calories, they have to at least try committing to it.
And if the public demands unregulated home fission generators, the government has no business saying otherwise? Sorry, but libertarian/mercantilist dogma doesn't hold up in the face of common sense. The government damn well does have a legitimate interest in helping to get rid of stuff that's just bad for the whole planet and which doesn't have enough real benefit to compensate for that. Gas guzzlers are on that list.
I stopped drinking non-diet soda-pop years ago, and now depend on diet cola (Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Faygo, and lime/lemon/cherry/vanilla mutations) for my caffeine intake, and I find them quite tasty. Buying whichever one's on sale and switching in the variant flavors helps keep them "fresh". In the rare event that there's no diet cola available (and no tea, my backup caffeine supply) and I have to drink a "regular" cola instead, it tastes like the cloying sticky fructose bomb that it is, and I seriously want to go brush my teeth to get the taste out of my mouth.
Go try flavored waters or whatever else people suggest if you want. Nothing wrong with them. But I suspect you'll constantly feel like a steak-lover eating vegetables he's never had before instead of something he knows he likes. Unless you want to constantly feel like you're "on a diet" (and for some people that works), you're just setting yourself up for failure there. If you like cola, go ahead and keep drinking cola... just detox yourself from the sugar-laced crap.
This article is actually a good introduction to Linux, though perhaps not in the way it was intended. As a competent, grammatically correct translation from another language into English, but by someone who is not a native speaker of English, it has a certain awkwardness to it, requires that the reader take a little more time to figure out what it's saying, and leaves the reader with a feeling of discomfort about just how well-polished this Linux stuff really is. If someone is put off by that, then they probably shouldn't try Linux; if they're not, it might be a good move for them.
Understand: I'm not criticising the translator; his English is far better than any second language of mine, and better than a lot of translated-into-English I've read over the years. Just an observation.
Which actually tends to get weaker the more alcohol you drink.
Granted, there's a market out there of people who'll spend nearly a grand on a TV. Not all of us are that stupid and/or rich.
No, my VHS and DVD players should work pretty much the same way they do now, for the foreseeable future. Considering the installed based of non-HD TVs and DVD players hooked up to them, I don't see Plain Old DVD disappearing from the shelves any time soon. (Just look how long ye olde VHS held on.) So I'll just continue watching my library of VHS tapes and buying/renting PODVDs until these mutually-damaged upcoming "standards" have run their course (which shouldn't take long) and something new comes along to replace them (probably net-delivered anyway).
They probably wanted to test it in an environment without a lot of people. So North Dakota won.
Unless you have a contract that states otherwise, it's completely legal. They can fire you for sticking your tongue out at someone. Or for driving the wrong kind of car to work. Or for performing in drag on weekends. "At will" employment means they can fire you for any reason that isn't explicitly prohibited by law. In most jurisdictions, this is limited to race, gender, religion, non-disqualifying handicap, age, and perhaps a handful of other characteristics.
The flip side of the coin is that you can quit "at will": because the boss stuck his tongue out at someone, drives the wrong kind of car, performs in drag on weekends, .... Whether this is true equity or not (i.e. giving equal power to both parties) is subject to debate, but that's how U.S. labor law treats it.
Granted, it might not be a good usage to encourage. I've never liked it, for the same pedantic reasons that you're asserting: it's technically imprecise. I call them "Windows computers" myself (which gets me a frustrating number of puzzled looks). But the term "PC" is already very well established among the general public for this meaning (Mac users and Windows users [who call themselves "PC users"] alike), and if you think that "technically imprecise" matters even one nano-bit in determining that, you have a rather uninformed view of how language works.
No, I wouldn't have. Get out a little and listen to how people talk: The man on the street sees a machine running Windows and he calls it a "PC". (There's no other common noun for "a machine running Windows".) Show him an x86 box running some OS he doesn't recognize, and he'll probably use the fully generic term "computer". In fact, I've even had people insist to me that my Linux-running Gateway Pentium-III box isn't a "PC".
They know that in vernacular English (rather than pedantic geekspeak), "PC" means "a computer running Windows". (Most non-dumb geeks are at least aware of this fact.)
I wasn't.
I mean, sure, I still had hair back then, but it was all neatly confined to the top of my head.