I have Firebird 0.7. The fonts work fine for me. You know you can adjust them with mouse gestures.
In any case, I didn't go any further in the site. I didn't have the right plugins. For some reason I was expecting a blog, what I got instead was a colorful MTV-wannabe multimedia web site. I guess it's technically a blog, but it's certainly not my idea of a blog.
Too little too late, this guy is going to write a story on how his site received an unexplained but highly suspicious DOS attack on April 6th through April 15th.
I don't care what the rules are, if the former employee can't convince some of his former colleagues or some of his former managers to ignore the red tape of their HR department, then the employee in quesion is not worth hiring. I've worked for large government agencies and I've worked for large Fortune 500 companies. This lame excuse is simply not going to cut it for me.
Never believe anyone who refers to the use of shared public domain code as "theft".
Here is the quote you're referring to -->
For me the course of events looked like the community had said once a crime had been committed that "there is no evidence", then when evidence was found they changed their tune to say "what was stolen didn't belong to SCO in the first place". If they had started with the second position and behaved reasonably I might have believed them, since they didn't, I didn't.
Not only is this guy saying that the shared public domain code is theft, but he put quote marks around it and makes it sound like a linux supporter actually said "what was stolen didn't belong to SCO in the first place". Apparently, he's paraphrasing what a linux supporter said and now he's putting quotes around it as if it was said verbatim. Am I right? I'm not a native English speaker, so if someone else has a better explanation for his use of quotes -- please let me know.
If you get a bad reference you can sue. many people do. That's why these days nobody gives any references good or bad. All then can do is confirm your employment and the dates of start and end.
You don't need to worry about references.
That's not true. If you actually take the time to call the references yourself, you can always tell if the former employer is being evasive or if the former employer is being genuinely enthusiastic about his/her former employee.
Sure, you may fall unto some fantastic liar, but if you have at least five or six references to check (and you should), you shouldn't have any problem finding out the truth if you ask the right questions.
I registered at NYT once. It took me a few minutes, but it saves me the time thenceforth of looking for an equivalent free article.
Actually, I don't go even go looking for the article. The news item truly has to be something awesome for me to hunt it down. The slashdot comments are almost always more insightful than the article itself anyway. That's what makes me coming back to Slashdot, the comments.
I don't get it. Seriously, what's wrong with registering?
Nothing is wrong with registering. The article is simply not valuable enough for me to register for it.
In the time it takes me to register, wait for the confirmation email, and delete the expected spam from every news site I actually register to -- I could browse the index of a thousand similar articles that don't require registration at Google News.
Interestingly, in the same article, he predicted the CD Rom, the Internet, Wikipedia, Color Photography -- well before the first dry cameras or the first computers.
Yes, but can he beat Nostradamus? No, I didn't think so.
You could have pretended you were using ASP, SQL Server, and IIS.
Change the extension, trap all the errors, and spoof the server. Who would have known?
This reminds me of the scam artists who said they were going to bring us throwaway cardboard cell phones for little money. The only thing they did was to take an expensive nokia phone, strip it of its plastic shell and put a cardboard shell around it.
The newspapers ate it up. It's too bad noone in the mainstream media checked that the founders had already created a number of bogus companies a few years earlier.
I used to work for a Fortune 500 company and our PR department had six full time professional writers on staff. Our writers, all former journalists, were being paid 70K a year and had to produce content only on a limited subset of topics. Their counterparts, the journalists at newspapers (even the journalists at prestigious newspapers) only got paid 20K to 35K a year, and had to produce content on deadline every day/week on pretty much any topic within their specialty. The material our PR department produced got published, sometimes it was only used as the inspiration or as the outline for a story, but some other times it was published word for word under the byline of someone else.
The reason you don't believe me is because most of the press releases you've seen are crap. Most press releases are written by MBA-grads, secretaries, and generally employees that are too emotionally close to the product/services. The good press releases, the ones that you haven't seen, don't even make it to the wire, they're directly sent to the journalists who might use them, and they're so good they're usually indistiguishable from a real article.
I feel *so* guilty thinking that the networks soon won't be able to produce shows like Survivor, the Bachelor, Train 48 and that show with the toupeee guy... Donald Trump.
As well as you should, soon only the rich who can afford vanity producing will be able to produce television shows. You'll get shows like "Survivor" (hosted by Donald Trump), "The Most Eligible Bachelor" (starring Donald Trump), and "Starsky and Trump" (starring Tom Cruz as Donald Trump).
As a guy in the 18-34 bracket who doesn't have a TV, I'm finally getting acknowledged by Marketing departments! It feels good to be wanted and I'm getting tingly feelings all over.
Now, if only Marketing departments also figured out that I block pop up ads, I distrust marketing buzzwords, and I don't visit online newspapers that require registration, then that will make my day.
Then what the newspaper is doing isn't journalism, it's advertising.
No, usually a press release is used verbatim because the journalist is on a tight deadline and didn't have time to write the article. Most journalists don't mean to do this and most newspapers don't like this, but when a deadline is looming and you only have one hour to finish an article -- something gotta give.
Employers will demand that you submit your resume in Word format when they get wind of this!
Yes, but once you're employed by them, they'll forbid you to exchange word documents, and they'll set up filters so that their employees can not email word attachments.
The majority of PR people, though, are paid to present the truth about their company as well, and factually, as they possibly can.
Correction: The majority of PR people are paid to present the positive side of the truth regarding their company. PR people are not paid to present the negative side of the story unless the press has already found out about it.
Slashdot Mirror
If software patents had existed thirty or forty years ago, they would all be expired by now.
In any case, I didn't go any further in the site. I didn't have the right plugins. For some reason I was expecting a blog, what I got instead was a colorful MTV-wannabe multimedia web site. I guess it's technically a blog, but it's certainly not my idea of a blog.
Too little too late, this guy is going to write a story on how his site received an unexplained but highly suspicious DOS attack on April 6th through April 15th.
I don't care what the rules are, if the former employee can't convince some of his former colleagues or some of his former managers to ignore the red tape of their HR department, then the employee in quesion is not worth hiring. I've worked for large government agencies and I've worked for large Fortune 500 companies. This lame excuse is simply not going to cut it for me.
I thought his link was only supporting his first point. That's why I missed. My mistake.
Here is the quote you're referring to -->
For me the course of events looked like the community had said once a crime had been committed that "there is no evidence", then when evidence was found they changed their tune to say "what was stolen didn't belong to SCO in the first place". If they had started with the second position and behaved reasonably I might have believed them, since they didn't, I didn't.
Not only is this guy saying that the shared public domain code is theft, but he put quote marks around it and makes it sound like a linux supporter actually said "what was stolen didn't belong to SCO in the first place". Apparently, he's paraphrasing what a linux supporter said and now he's putting quotes around it as if it was said verbatim. Am I right? I'm not a native English speaker, so if someone else has a better explanation for his use of quotes -- please let me know.
That's not true. If you actually take the time to call the references yourself, you can always tell if the former employer is being evasive or if the former employer is being genuinely enthusiastic about his/her former employee.
Sure, you may fall unto some fantastic liar, but if you have at least five or six references to check (and you should), you shouldn't have any problem finding out the truth if you ask the right questions.
Have you actually tried? Or are you speaking out of your ass.
Not if they go the way of Google Words (i.e. targeted ads, clearly marked, and unobtrusive)
Actually, I don't go even go looking for the article. The news item truly has to be something awesome for me to hunt it down. The slashdot comments are almost always more insightful than the article itself anyway. That's what makes me coming back to Slashdot, the comments.
In this age of class action lawsuits, I don't think car manufacturers are stupid enough to let a less than foolproof system on the roads.
Nothing is wrong with registering. The article is simply not valuable enough for me to register for it.
In the time it takes me to register, wait for the confirmation email, and delete the expected spam from every news site I actually register to -- I could browse the index of a thousand similar articles that don't require registration at Google News.
Yes, but can he beat Nostradamus? No, I didn't think so.
In my experience most hookers are single moms.
"nice"? "mean"? I take it you work for a "nice" company then.
You could have pretended you were using ASP, SQL Server, and IIS. Change the extension, trap all the errors, and spoof the server. Who would have known?
The newspapers ate it up. It's too bad noone in the mainstream media checked that the founders had already created a number of bogus companies a few years earlier.
While you're at it, make you sure you buy some white cotton balls and some antiseptic in case the mugger pulls a little too hard on the cord.
The reason you don't believe me is because most of the press releases you've seen are crap. Most press releases are written by MBA-grads, secretaries, and generally employees that are too emotionally close to the product/services. The good press releases, the ones that you haven't seen, don't even make it to the wire, they're directly sent to the journalists who might use them, and they're so good they're usually indistiguishable from a real article.
As well as you should, soon only the rich who can afford vanity producing will be able to produce television shows. You'll get shows like "Survivor" (hosted by Donald Trump), "The Most Eligible Bachelor" (starring Donald Trump), and "Starsky and Trump" (starring Tom Cruz as Donald Trump).
Now, if only Marketing departments also figured out that I block pop up ads, I distrust marketing buzzwords, and I don't visit online newspapers that require registration, then that will make my day.
No, but I'd like to see the rough draft of your resume.
No, usually a press release is used verbatim because the journalist is on a tight deadline and didn't have time to write the article. Most journalists don't mean to do this and most newspapers don't like this, but when a deadline is looming and you only have one hour to finish an article -- something gotta give.
Yes, but once you're employed by them, they'll forbid you to exchange word documents, and they'll set up filters so that their employees can not email word attachments.
Correction: The majority of PR people are paid to present the positive side of the truth regarding their company. PR people are not paid to present the negative side of the story unless the press has already found out about it.