It's not going away. HR doesn't have time to recruit and the software basically does the job and scans your LinkedIn to make sure you're honest.
Sorry everyone does this now and the way it works. It's still no reason not to show for a job interview. When you get 200 resumes for each job where you're a 25 chic with no IT experience then how are you going to decide who is lucky enough to be the top 3?
So, if I may paraphrase that: "Recruiters have decided that in order to handle the huge amount of applications they have to manage, they can fuck basic politeness and leave unlucky applicants in the dark." And once they do that, they basically set the example for applicants to legitimately decide that, in order to handle the huge amount of applications they have to manage, they would fuck basic politeness and leave unlucky recruiters in the dark.
Now, I understand that selecting one person, or three, out of 200 may require automation, and I didn't claim automation was bad (heck, I make a living out of creating software); but one can automate the top 3 extraction and at the same time not and act like a dick to the 197 others. It just takes, well, not being a dick when getting that HR software done. And not being a dick would set a positive example which might, you know, incite applicants to, in turn, act more politely too.
(plus, I realize that the automation excuse is actually a worse excuse for recruiters than it is for applicants, who do things manually and therefore incur a much bigger effort per offer; sending 197 automated rejection messages is cheap for a recruiter, much cheaper than manually sending 197 cancellation notes is for an applicant.)
It happens man and it's not their fault. They use HR filtering software.
... Which they [1] chose to use, knowing (or even possibly having specified) said software's behavior, which, consequently, makes it their fault indeed. "It's the computer's fault" stopped being a valid excuse at least 20 years ago (and even before then it wasn't).
[1] "They" being the recruiting companies as entities per se, of course, not the individuals working there and who have to use a piece of software which they quite likely were not involved in specifying.
As far as the look is concerned, I don't care that much -- looks and styles come and go. But I would have preferred it that news.google.fr still show the French news, not the US ones.:)
In some cases, you want to allow goto statements, for instance because they help manage failure handling without adding condition or exception constructs.
In some case, you want none of these gotos, because you are using processes or tools which are (partly or entirely) not compatible with them, and you need these tools to work more than you need gotos.
In some cases, you don't want recursivity because the contex does not favor them (think embedded SW with restricted stack size).
In some cases you want recursion because it makes code simpler and closer to the principles behind it, thus more maintainable.
In some cases, you want class-like constructs in C be don't want C++ because the legacy code, people involved, time alloted, or general context just does not allow you to rewrite the whole thing.
Note: you have just repeated the URL from the article; just repeating a source does not make it any more genuine, and may make it actually less convincing.
If this were an alternate source, I'd consider that it might lend more credibility to the assumption that the putative leak is genuinely what it is purported to be. But this is not an alternate source for it; rather, it is the EFF's analysis is of the very same putative leak indeed, to the URL. It therefore does not give said putative leak more credibility.
This is not a copyright fit for the digital age. It’s a copyright that tries to protect the big players of the past from the future.
Again, an analysis the same putative leak, to the URL, not an alternate source. As an opinion piece on the question of paying for news excerpts, it is certainly relevant; as a proof that the purported leak is genuine, it is not.
Note that I do not belittle the EFF or Reda's analyses, and I certainly don't think less of their opinions on copyright; my point was initially, and still is, "how do we know rather than assume that this is really a leak of a EU Commission document intended to be the Commission's proposal?" and I find no convincing answer to this question in opinions based on the very assumption I am questioning.
(oh, and before anyone asks, or skips the asking and states outright: I find the idea of trying to make news "sources" collect pay for excerpts of their "content" bad in several respects, including for the very ones it is supposed to benefit. But just because I disagree with a document does not make that document genuine, nor does it allow me to disregard checking whether it is. Fact-checking is -- well, should be -- anisotropic.)
Alright, so... The document does not originate from an official EU website. It has no actual date, or more to the point, it has a conspicuously "redacted" date showing only the year. No known author either, not even an obscure reference to an author's initials. OK, 180+ pages is enormous for a hoax, but just because it does not have all obvious markings of a forgery does not make it genuine. And just because it is genuine does not make it something "the EU Commission is planning". So... I'll wait for a more official source for the moment.
Note that the EOMA-68's HW and SW is Open Source, which means — among others — that:
- your EOMA-68 won't sport any hidden feature which you shouldn't know about;
- your OS will not stop being maintained at some point just because "the product is not on our catalog any more";
- you can actually fix (or have a more technically inclined friend fix) OS or firmware bugs without having to wait until a company issues an update (if it ever does—see previous point);
- you have a much better chance of being able to diagnose and possibly repair (or have a friend fix) a hardware issue on your EOMA-68 or laptop housing than you have on a standard computer;
- you can actually improve and extend the SW of your EOMA-68 as you see fit.
But better yet: the laptop housing's Embedded Controller, the microprocessor which controls the keyboard, track pad, power and a few other things, is open too!
Add to this the fact that the track pad is actually a LCD and touch screen, and the possibilities are endless. You could develop new features such as:
- configuring your track pad to provide any number of buttons and scrolls and show them;
- making that track pad configuration vary depending on the context.=;
- showing and managing volume controls on the track pad;
- main screen locking/unlocking from the track pad;
- supporting your non-US keyboard layout directly out of power-on (ok, this one will be somewhat limited by the USB HID specs);
- playing console-like games directly on the track pad.:) (possibly even with the EOMA-68 card off if the game can fit in the EC entirely)
None that its Wikipedia page knows of, and this page is the object of much updating right now, both from goodwill and less good will editors, so any reliable source about outside financing would certainly be mentioned right now.
Charlie is not hateful a single bit, they're simply very offensive, which is different; but one may be mistaken anout it when one happens to be on the receiving end of their offensiveness. Besides, they don't switch targets over (long periods of) time: they are equally offsensive to all targets, without a discernable bias except based on what the current news gave them as the week's targets (side note: the remaining staff held an editorial meeting on Friday for next wednesday's issue. In Liberation's report of the meeting was this gem: one of the Charlie staff said "so, let's make this issue. What do we put in it?" to which another one answered "Dunno... what's in the news right now?" -- typical Charlie humor, like it or not).
Your example is biaised: the media *did*, and still *do*, give Chirac and Sarkozy the same leeway as they gave Mitterrand. Think fictive employments (concerning Chirac) and more than dubious election campaign fundings (Sarkozy), both of which were and are still duly underexposed except in a minority of the press -- and that's only two examples among several.
I've lived in France for fifty year, I/am/ French, and here people 'left of Che Guevarra' are a tiny minority, in the general population as well as among journalists. So either you are mistaken in believing you live in France, or you are deluded about the France you are living in, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth to pass your opinion as fact.
Ok, parent comment was quite certainly intended as second degree, possibly bait even. Still, it raises a point.
From anyone else's viewpoint, you are [perceived as] all that you do. People perceive you through your code... and through your attitude about your code... and through your attitude about your attitude... and so on.
But that's how they perceive you, not necessarily how they evaluate you.
Now, it is quite understandable to be affected by others' opinion of your code, there's no question about this: that's your work, and people usually do something with the intent that it be well done, so criticism can of course be resented as it points at a failure, and we are taught that failure is bad (which is a mistaken approach IMO, and possibly the reason why many people mistake their own worth with the immediate, first degree, worth of what they do).
You should make the difference between a criticism of the result of one of your actions and a criticism of your own person (or even a criticism of the way you do things). Heck, if there was no difference, no one on Earth would love, or even like, anyone else, since that would require loving, or at least liking, absolutely everything (s)he does [of course, I am assuming here that most people on Earth actually do like, or even love, someone else; that could be a misperception on my part].
The difference is that you cannot undo an action of yours, but you can change the way you do things, thus affecting your future actions, and even your future reaction to things, including, yes, criticisms. In coderspeak, this could be expressed as "agile development of your own self".:)
Long point short: you are not what you code, you are a coder. Keep this difference in mind.
You do not have the right because the government says so, but rather because you are a human being.
Er... Indeed. But I don't think anyone here said this right was granted by a government. We do have separation of powers here too.:)
Though that is a principle that is explicitly stated in the US constitution, it applies everywhere.
You mean everywhere in the U.S., right? Because otherwise, it would be a case of trying to apply the US law beyond the borders of the US, which, I think, is the exact mirror of a (rightful) criticism in another comment about the EU supposedly trying to reach beyon the EU borders [actually, the question was misunderstood by the commenter, but that's another point].
However, it is a right that is made explicit in the EU and where the conditions under which the right may be infringed are perhaps more clearly stated (and better enforced) than elsewhere.
There is a danger in explicitly stating rights, in that some stupid people might think you have no other rights — not true! — but leaving them all implicit has other risks in that it becomes hard to say for sure when they've been unreasonably infringed and to get other people to help you out defending them.
Or even what these rights are exactly. However, concerning your fear about restricting rights to those expressed: this is pretty much handled in article 4 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (the highest French law in terms of precedence), which (roughly translated) states that one's rights should only be limited when their exercise deprives someone else from their own rights, and that these limitations should be expressed in the law. IOW, our rights start unlimited, and law only limits them -- what is not prohibited is allowed.
Nor do these arrogants "USA and other countries" (merrily forgetting there is something else in the world than Europe and the USA plus its satellites) who think there is no second chance ever, and no right to ensure one's personal data are correct, and no rigth to privacy either -- to mention only some of the personal-data-related rights that are given to me by my own European country (note that, as some have said, other European countries may have these rights in a less formal way, as a result of case law) and that I can successfully use to deter French spammers while I still have to suffer US ones.:/
(amusingly, if you take one step back on this "those arrogant whatevers" ping-pong game, you'll get a pretty good case of some one (one region of the world)'s freedom (to define the Right Way) stopping where it harms someone else (nother region of the world)'s freedom (to do exactly likewise). Now, let's go read article 4 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. See the irony? No? Too bad.)
So if I report to my local county registrar-recorder that I believe illegal activity is occurring at 123 Any St, Anytown, AnyState, and they don't investigate, they are liable?
I think you should read the European Directive. At no point does it ever consider whether service providers should investigate or not; therefore service providers cannot be held "liable", whatever exact meaning you give this, for "not investigating". Besides, being a European Diective, it applies to european service providers only, and to complaints from european persons only -- in TFA, the complaint was by a German entity of Universal and against a German SP.
I don't understand why the registrar has to do anything without a court order.
Because there is a *law* (in the form of a European Directive from 2000, which should have been transposed into state laws across all of Europe now, which says that if a communication service provider receives an infringement claim, they can either make pull the infringing content offline, in which case the 'plaintiff' cannot drag them to court, or they can ignore the complaint and leave the conent online, in which case, the plaintiff can try and drag them to court -- which, BTW, does not mean the plaintiff *will* prevail; that depends on the content of the complaint. There were cases (in France, that's the only country where I'm following law and tech issues) where a service provider was dragged to court but won because the complaint was badly written one way or another; courts are very strict here on how such omplaints must be made).
That might be how it works in some... countries, but in a civilized society (Germany?) it's not enough with random requests or notifications to shut down something even if it's "obvious", without a court order.
Not sure what point of TFA you're discussing here, but AFAIU, no one said that a registrar *had* to shut down a domain upon complaint; only that *if* a registrar does not shut it down, then it *might* be held responsible.
I work for a large European webhost, every time I get some shutdown request or ridicolous DMCA-blaha from someone in a country ruled by copyright holders, I just tell them stop bothering us and report the actual owner of the site to the police (in whatever country the siteowner lives in), if it's really copyright infringement.
Was the European Directive 2000/31/CE not transcribed into German Law?
Not enforcing copyright for slimy, parasitic companies? Interesting how the law works in Germany.
This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies" (a statement which I find quite one-sided), this is about the registrar being notified of a possible copyright violation and having to decide whether i) to just ignore an invalid (or, at least in France but possible in all Europe, non-obvious) complaint, or ii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded and remove access to avoid any liability, or iii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded but maintain access and accept potential liability.
All three cases have happened (again, in French courts).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not going away. HR doesn't have time to recruit and the software basically does the job and scans your LinkedIn to make sure you're honest.
Sorry everyone does this now and the way it works. It's still no reason not to show for a job interview. When you get 200 resumes for each job where you're a 25 chic with no IT experience then how are you going to decide who is lucky enough to be the top 3?
So, if I may paraphrase that: "Recruiters have decided that in order to handle the huge amount of applications they have to manage, they can fuck basic politeness and leave unlucky applicants in the dark." And once they do that, they basically set the example for applicants to legitimately decide that, in order to handle the huge amount of applications they have to manage, they would fuck basic politeness and leave unlucky recruiters in the dark.
Now, I understand that selecting one person, or three, out of 200 may require automation, and I didn't claim automation was bad (heck, I make a living out of creating software); but one can automate the top 3 extraction and at the same time not and act like a dick to the 197 others. It just takes, well, not being a dick when getting that HR software done. And not being a dick would set a positive example which might, you know, incite applicants to, in turn, act more politely too.
(plus, I realize that the automation excuse is actually a worse excuse for recruiters than it is for applicants, who do things manually and therefore incur a much bigger effort per offer; sending 197 automated rejection messages is cheap for a recruiter, much cheaper than manually sending 197 cancellation notes is for an applicant.)
It happens man and it's not their fault. They use HR filtering software.
... Which they [1] chose to use, knowing (or even possibly having specified) said software's behavior, which, consequently, makes it their fault indeed. "It's the computer's fault" stopped being a valid excuse at least 20 years ago (and even before then it wasn't).
[1] "They" being the recruiting companies as entities per se, of course, not the individuals working there and who have to use a piece of software which they quite likely were not involved in specifying.
As far as the look is concerned, I don't care that much -- looks and styles come and go. But I would have preferred it that news.google.fr still show the French news, not the US ones. :)
It depends.
In some cases, you want to allow goto statements, for instance because they help manage failure handling without adding condition or exception constructs.
In some case, you want none of these gotos, because you are using processes or tools which are (partly or entirely) not compatible with them, and you need these tools to work more than you need gotos.
In some cases, you don't want recursivity because the contex does not favor them (think embedded SW with restricted stack size).
In some cases you want recursion because it makes code simpler and closer to the principles behind it, thus more maintainable.
In some cases, you want class-like constructs in C be don't want C++ because the legacy code, people involved, time alloted, or general context just does not allow you to rewrite the whole thing.
Etc.
You mean they'll all be clones of Count Rugen?
Fact-checking is -- well, should be -- anisotropic.)
Heh... Make that isotropic.
This is a leaked draft impact assessment(PDF alert)
Note: you have just repeated the URL from the article; just repeating a source does not make it any more genuine, and may make it actually less convincing.
you can read more about it here: European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
If this were an alternate source, I'd consider that it might lend more credibility to the assumption that the putative leak is genuinely what it is purported to be. But this is not an alternate source for it; rather, it is the EFF's analysis is of the very same putative leak indeed, to the URL. It therefore does not give said putative leak more credibility.
This is what Julia Reda (MEP) says about it: Commissioner Oettinger is about to turn EU copyright reform into another ACTA:
Again, an analysis the same putative leak, to the URL, not an alternate source. As an opinion piece on the question of paying for news excerpts, it is certainly relevant; as a proof that the purported leak is genuine, it is not.
Note that I do not belittle the EFF or Reda's analyses, and I certainly don't think less of their opinions on copyright; my point was initially, and still is, "how do we know rather than assume that this is really a leak of a EU Commission document intended to be the Commission's proposal?" and I find no convincing answer to this question in opinions based on the very assumption I am questioning.
(oh, and before anyone asks, or skips the asking and states outright: I find the idea of trying to make news "sources" collect pay for excerpts of their "content" bad in several respects, including for the very ones it is supposed to benefit. But just because I disagree with a document does not make that document genuine, nor does it allow me to disregard checking whether it is. Fact-checking is -- well, should be -- anisotropic.)
Alright, so... The document does not originate from an official EU website. It has no actual date, or more to the point, it has a conspicuously "redacted" date showing only the year. No known author either, not even an obscure reference to an author's initials. OK, 180+ pages is enormous for a hoax, but just because it does not have all obvious markings of a forgery does not make it genuine. And just because it is genuine does not make it something "the EU Commission is planning". So... I'll wait for a more official source for the moment.
Note that the EOMA-68's HW and SW is Open Source, which means — among others — that:
But better yet: the laptop housing's Embedded Controller, the microprocessor which controls the keyboard, track pad, power and a few other things, is open too!
Add to this the fact that the track pad is actually a LCD and touch screen, and the possibilities are endless. You could develop new features such as:
[The Sad Puppies'] stated goal was to prove that there was a group of people out there voting for political reasons and fixing the Hugos.
And in retrospect, they succeeded in proving there was one such group indeed: the Sad Puppies.
And a publishing group that subsidizes them.
None that its Wikipedia page knows of, and this page is the object of much updating right now, both from goodwill and less good will editors, so any reliable source about outside financing would certainly be mentioned right now.
Charlie is not hateful a single bit, they're simply very offensive, which is different; but one may be mistaken anout it when one happens to be on the receiving end of their offensiveness. Besides, they don't switch targets over (long periods of) time: they are equally offsensive to all targets, without a discernable bias except based on what the current news gave them as the week's targets (side note: the remaining staff held an editorial meeting on Friday for next wednesday's issue. In Liberation's report of the meeting was this gem: one of the Charlie staff said "so, let's make this issue. What do we put in it?" to which another one answered "Dunno... what's in the news right now?" -- typical Charlie humor, like it or not).
Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising
Wrong. Charlie Hebdo is one of the rare newspapers in France (another example is le Canard Enchaîné) with zero ads, and which survive only from their readership.
Your example is biaised: the media *did*, and still *do*, give Chirac and Sarkozy the same leeway as they gave Mitterrand. Think fictive employments (concerning Chirac) and more than dubious election campaign fundings (Sarkozy), both of which were and are still duly underexposed except in a minority of the press -- and that's only two examples among several.
Those who prÃf©tend that France is in any way different than the U.S. in stupid internet memes are liars, and I say that as someone who has lived here for 30+ years & tries to ignore as much of these idiotic stories as possible. However, the French "journalists" being in their great majority left of Che Guevarra have an automatic knee-jerk reaction to everything in modern life that they do not like: Call it American &/or "ultra liberal" so that they can blame it on the USA or the UK.
I've lived in France for fifty year, I /am/ French, and here people 'left of Che Guevarra' are a tiny minority, in the general population as well as among journalists. So either you are mistaken in believing you live in France, or you are deluded about the France you are living in, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth to pass your opinion as fact.
Ok, parent comment was quite certainly intended as second degree, possibly bait even. Still, it raises a point.
From anyone else's viewpoint, you are [perceived as] all that you do. People perceive you through your code... and through your attitude about your code... and through your attitude about your attitude... and so on.
But that's how they perceive you, not necessarily how they evaluate you.
Now, it is quite understandable to be affected by others' opinion of your code, there's no question about this: that's your work, and people usually do something with the intent that it be well done, so criticism can of course be resented as it points at a failure, and we are taught that failure is bad (which is a mistaken approach IMO, and possibly the reason why many people mistake their own worth with the immediate, first degree, worth of what they do).
You should make the difference between a criticism of the result of one of your actions and a criticism of your own person (or even a criticism of the way you do things). Heck, if there was no difference, no one on Earth would love, or even like, anyone else, since that would require loving, or at least liking, absolutely everything (s)he does [of course, I am assuming here that most people on Earth actually do like, or even love, someone else; that could be a misperception on my part].
The difference is that you cannot undo an action of yours, but you can change the way you do things, thus affecting your future actions, and even your future reaction to things, including, yes, criticisms. In coderspeak, this could be expressed as "agile development of your own self". :)
Long point short: you are not what you code, you are a coder. Keep this difference in mind.
Well, if you RTFP, Linus is abusing the *compiler*'s behavior. At no point does he abuse the compiler authors.
You do not have the right because the government says so, but rather because you are a human being.
Er... Indeed. But I don't think anyone here said this right was granted by a government. We do have separation of powers here too. :)
Though that is a principle that is explicitly stated in the US constitution, it applies everywhere.
You mean everywhere in the U.S., right? Because otherwise, it would be a case of trying to apply the US law beyond the borders of the US, which, I think, is the exact mirror of a (rightful) criticism in another comment about the EU supposedly trying to reach beyon the EU borders [actually, the question was misunderstood by the commenter, but that's another point].
However, it is a right that is made explicit in the EU and where the conditions under which the right may be infringed are perhaps more clearly stated (and better enforced) than elsewhere.
There is a danger in explicitly stating rights, in that some stupid people might think you have no other rights — not true! — but leaving them all implicit has other risks in that it becomes hard to say for sure when they've been unreasonably infringed and to get other people to help you out defending them.
Or even what these rights are exactly. However, concerning your fear about restricting rights to those expressed: this is pretty much handled in article 4 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (the highest French law in terms of precedence), which (roughly translated) states that one's rights should only be limited when their exercise deprives someone else from their own rights, and that these limitations should be expressed in the law. IOW, our rights start unlimited, and law only limits them -- what is not prohibited is allowed.
these arrogant European do not own the world
Nor do these arrogants "USA and other countries" (merrily forgetting there is something else in the world than Europe and the USA plus its satellites) who think there is no second chance ever, and no right to ensure one's personal data are correct, and no rigth to privacy either -- to mention only some of the personal-data-related rights that are given to me by my own European country (note that, as some have said, other European countries may have these rights in a less formal way, as a result of case law) and that I can successfully use to deter French spammers while I still have to suffer US ones. :/
(amusingly, if you take one step back on this "those arrogant whatevers" ping-pong game, you'll get a pretty good case of some one (one region of the world)'s freedom (to define the Right Way) stopping where it harms someone else (nother region of the world)'s freedom (to do exactly likewise). Now, let's go read article 4 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. See the irony? No? Too bad.)
So if I report to my local county registrar-recorder that I believe illegal activity is occurring at 123 Any St, Anytown, AnyState, and they don't investigate, they are liable?
I think you should read the European Directive. At no point does it ever consider whether service providers should investigate or not; therefore service providers cannot be held "liable", whatever exact meaning you give this, for "not investigating". Besides, being a European Diective, it applies to european service providers only, and to complaints from european persons only -- in TFA, the complaint was by a German entity of Universal and against a German SP.
I don't understand why the registrar has to do anything without a court order.
Because there is a *law* (in the form of a European Directive from 2000, which should have been transposed into state laws across all of Europe now, which says that if a communication service provider receives an infringement claim, they can either make pull the infringing content offline, in which case the 'plaintiff' cannot drag them to court, or they can ignore the complaint and leave the conent online, in which case, the plaintiff can try and drag them to court -- which, BTW, does not mean the plaintiff *will* prevail; that depends on the content of the complaint. There were cases (in France, that's the only country where I'm following law and tech issues) where a service provider was dragged to court but won because the complaint was badly written one way or another; courts are very strict here on how such omplaints must be made).
Since when are registrars ever at all responsible for content?
IIRC, since European Directive 2000/31/CE, more than 13 years ago.
Why can't the copyright holder take the owner of the domain/site to court directly?
They can, too.
That might be how it works in some... countries, but in a civilized society (Germany?) it's not enough with random requests or notifications to shut down something even if it's "obvious", without a court order.
Not sure what point of TFA you're discussing here, but AFAIU, no one said that a registrar *had* to shut down a domain upon complaint; only that *if* a registrar does not shut it down, then it *might* be held responsible.
I work for a large European webhost, every time I get some shutdown request or ridicolous DMCA-blaha from someone in a country ruled by copyright holders, I just tell them stop bothering us and report the actual owner of the site to the police (in whatever country the siteowner lives in), if it's really copyright infringement.
Was the European Directive 2000/31/CE not transcribed into German Law?
*This* lack of action is what made them liable
Not enforcing copyright for slimy, parasitic companies? Interesting how the law works in Germany.
This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies" (a statement which I find quite one-sided), this is about the registrar being notified of a possible copyright violation and having to decide whether i) to just ignore an invalid (or, at least in France but possible in all Europe, non-obvious) complaint, or ii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded and remove access to avoid any liability, or iii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded but maintain access and accept potential liability. All three cases have happened (again, in French courts).