You do realize that suits make it easier for amateurs to pass as professionals. I can look like a lawyer fairly easily, and I can fake an air of authority.
I've met lots of professionals without good soft skills. I'm paid for software development. Aside from being able to get along, I figure soft skills are the job of other people in the company (like management and sales). A company that requires that its developers have good people skills and dress to impress will be hiring from a smaller pool, and probably missing out on the really good developers.
You may want to wear a suit for the first interview, but scope out what people are wearing. For later interviews, you probably want to be on the classy end of that. The problem with a suit is that it can give the first impression of someone who cares about appearance rather than competence.
Dressing for success isn't a simple list of rules. You have to adjust your clothes according to the people you're going to interact with.
Some movies are surprisingly good. I really liked the first live-action Scooby-Doo movie (although it should be watched at home, to see the deleted scenes). When my son was young, we found the Pokemon movies to be pretty good. Shame about Yu-gi-oh, though.
Back up a bit and read the Fourth carefully. It prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and provides requirements for warrants. It doesn't say that searches need warrants, as long as they're reasonable. Police can search a person for weapons when taking that person into custody, and almost everyone agrees that that's reasonable. If I'm crossing a border, the country I'm entering has a strong interest in what I'm carrying, so searching becomes reasonable. If I'm out with my suitcase inside the US, it's legally nobody's business but mine what's in the suitcase, unless there's likely to be something illegal in it.
More to the point, the Supreme Court considers border searches to be much more reasonable than other searches. What we have here is members of Congress attempting to add to what is considered unreasonable at a border search (and I already consider such searches of data unreasonable, FWIW).
Russian connections to the Trump family and campaign and cabinet secretaries do keep popping up, and a Congress with any desire to maintain US security would at least look into it.
Wiretapping a Presidential candidate during a campaign would be worthy of consideration, if it were to happen. I've seen no evidence that it ever has.
First, I (as a US citizen) have an absolute right to be admitted to the US, should I leave it. I have much more limited rights trying to enter any other country.
Second, you're talking like a partisan nutcase. Excusing actions because the other party did something maybe similar is an easy road to tyranny. You may also not be aware that Clinton's private email server was legal (the law was changed after she left office), and there is no example I could find of criminal prosecution for unintentional mishandling of classified material (although it's still illegal). I wouldn't accept Clinton's recommendations for IT workers, though.
I believe the original purpose of the Constitution was to spell out what the Federal government can and can't do, which contradicts this. Either the Feds are permitted to run Gitmo under Constitutional principles, or they aren't permitted to run it at all.
Congress has the responsibility for making laws about border control, and the President has the responsibility of carrying them out. That doesn't mean border control can legally violate the Constitution.
Which is why I made it clear to any intelligent reader that I was speculating, and saying what it looks like as opposed to what it is. This left an opening for someone to point out what was wrong with my speculation, if some halfway intelligent person decided to do so. Unfortunately, none did.
Usually, when you return something for a refund, the vendor can repackage it and sell it again, if not for the same price. If the customer does return it for a refund, it's likely to be resold to someone who won't realize the device is permanently disabled. It looks here like the asshole has decided that Amazon can pay for the device and get nothing.
If the seller is simply denying access to a server, that's legal unless specified otherwise. That's the problem with buying something that requires somebody else's servers to work.
I'm pretty good at learning on my own, but a University environment allows me to learn faster, and to make sure I learn things I'll need that I don't know I'll need.
People with degrees have lower unemployment than people without.
The female college graduates I've known can do considerably better than $13/hr. What's your wife doing? What's a BSA? What was her major? The wage gap is primarily not directly sex-based, since men and women with equal credentials at similar jobs are paid pretty much the same.
Damn straight. I try to do things I'm not good at in my off-work time.
A couple of years ago, we had a presentation from HR about the career paths they were designing for software developers. I raised my hand and asked about career paths for people who never ever wanted to go into management. She said they'd work on that. Haven't seen anything since.
Entertainment careers are notoriously iffy. If you're very good and very lucky, you can make tons of money, but until you actually try you don't know how successful you'll be. It's not clear that this was a bad investment, just very unsuccessful.
Interested Bible readers might have other objections to the implant in their foreheads or right hands, especially if it turns out you can't buy or sell without one. (I've just described the Mark of the Beast from Revelations.)
The Fed has general control over what banks can do, which results in expansion or contraction of the money supply. It has no control over what I do with my dollars. The paper ones I carry are under my control, unless armed individuals wish to persuade me otherwise, a service traditionally performed by the private entrepeneur. The ones on deposit are carefully recorded, and not normally subject to direct manipulation by government bodies, and any manipulation would be overt..
If I understand Bitcoin, a cartel with over 50% of the computrons has a great deal of control over what happens and what has happened. Allowing Chinese entities to control that much sounds to me like a bad idea.
Insulting someone because of some group they involuntarily belong to dilutes the effect and makes you seem intolerant. Insulting people based on who they personally are or what they've personally said or done works better in general. Calling her a kiss-ass who wouldn't have a spine if it wasn't for the Gantt charts up her butt is more effective.
Ah, the belief that the field you are in requires talent, and others don't. Alternatively, whatever you don't understand must be easy, since you don't know the actual difficulties.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that suits make it easier for amateurs to pass as professionals. I can look like a lawyer fairly easily, and I can fake an air of authority.
I rely on my ability to figure things out with incomplete information. It can help to practice this in other situations.
I've met lots of professionals without good soft skills. I'm paid for software development. Aside from being able to get along, I figure soft skills are the job of other people in the company (like management and sales). A company that requires that its developers have good people skills and dress to impress will be hiring from a smaller pool, and probably missing out on the really good developers.
I have, but it was over twenty years ago, and I didn't like that job anyway.
You may want to wear a suit for the first interview, but scope out what people are wearing. For later interviews, you probably want to be on the classy end of that. The problem with a suit is that it can give the first impression of someone who cares about appearance rather than competence.
Dressing for success isn't a simple list of rules. You have to adjust your clothes according to the people you're going to interact with.
Some movies are surprisingly good. I really liked the first live-action Scooby-Doo movie (although it should be watched at home, to see the deleted scenes). When my son was young, we found the Pokemon movies to be pretty good. Shame about Yu-gi-oh, though.
Back up a bit and read the Fourth carefully. It prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and provides requirements for warrants. It doesn't say that searches need warrants, as long as they're reasonable. Police can search a person for weapons when taking that person into custody, and almost everyone agrees that that's reasonable. If I'm crossing a border, the country I'm entering has a strong interest in what I'm carrying, so searching becomes reasonable. If I'm out with my suitcase inside the US, it's legally nobody's business but mine what's in the suitcase, unless there's likely to be something illegal in it.
More to the point, the Supreme Court considers border searches to be much more reasonable than other searches. What we have here is members of Congress attempting to add to what is considered unreasonable at a border search (and I already consider such searches of data unreasonable, FWIW).
Russian connections to the Trump family and campaign and cabinet secretaries do keep popping up, and a Congress with any desire to maintain US security would at least look into it.
Wiretapping a Presidential candidate during a campaign would be worthy of consideration, if it were to happen. I've seen no evidence that it ever has.
First, I (as a US citizen) have an absolute right to be admitted to the US, should I leave it. I have much more limited rights trying to enter any other country.
Second, you're talking like a partisan nutcase. Excusing actions because the other party did something maybe similar is an easy road to tyranny. You may also not be aware that Clinton's private email server was legal (the law was changed after she left office), and there is no example I could find of criminal prosecution for unintentional mishandling of classified material (although it's still illegal). I wouldn't accept Clinton's recommendations for IT workers, though.
I believe the original purpose of the Constitution was to spell out what the Federal government can and can't do, which contradicts this. Either the Feds are permitted to run Gitmo under Constitutional principles, or they aren't permitted to run it at all.
Congress has the responsibility for making laws about border control, and the President has the responsibility of carrying them out. That doesn't mean border control can legally violate the Constitution.
So it would seem that they no longer have 500 as an average. Thank you.
Which is why I made it clear to any intelligent reader that I was speculating, and saying what it looks like as opposed to what it is. This left an opening for someone to point out what was wrong with my speculation, if some halfway intelligent person decided to do so. Unfortunately, none did.
Usually, when you return something for a refund, the vendor can repackage it and sell it again, if not for the same price. If the customer does return it for a refund, it's likely to be resold to someone who won't realize the device is permanently disabled. It looks here like the asshole has decided that Amazon can pay for the device and get nothing.
If the seller is simply denying access to a server, that's legal unless specified otherwise. That's the problem with buying something that requires somebody else's servers to work.
I'm pretty good at learning on my own, but a University environment allows me to learn faster, and to make sure I learn things I'll need that I don't know I'll need.
People with degrees have lower unemployment than people without.
The female college graduates I've known can do considerably better than $13/hr. What's your wife doing? What's a BSA? What was her major? The wage gap is primarily not directly sex-based, since men and women with equal credentials at similar jobs are paid pretty much the same.
I wouldn't call average or above SATs "pretty darn easy" for average students, since only about half will get that.
Damn straight. I try to do things I'm not good at in my off-work time.
A couple of years ago, we had a presentation from HR about the career paths they were designing for software developers. I raised my hand and asked about career paths for people who never ever wanted to go into management. She said they'd work on that. Haven't seen anything since.
Tuition, fees, and dorm costs for my son were a bit over $25K/year. Try hiring any sort of competent teacher for that much.
Entertainment careers are notoriously iffy. If you're very good and very lucky, you can make tons of money, but until you actually try you don't know how successful you'll be. It's not clear that this was a bad investment, just very unsuccessful.
Interested Bible readers might have other objections to the implant in their foreheads or right hands, especially if it turns out you can't buy or sell without one. (I've just described the Mark of the Beast from Revelations.)
The Fed has general control over what banks can do, which results in expansion or contraction of the money supply. It has no control over what I do with my dollars. The paper ones I carry are under my control, unless armed individuals wish to persuade me otherwise, a service traditionally performed by the private entrepeneur. The ones on deposit are carefully recorded, and not normally subject to direct manipulation by government bodies, and any manipulation would be overt..
If I understand Bitcoin, a cartel with over 50% of the computrons has a great deal of control over what happens and what has happened. Allowing Chinese entities to control that much sounds to me like a bad idea.
Good people find it much easier to bail out. The ability to get a decent job is a good parachute.
Insulting someone because of some group they involuntarily belong to dilutes the effect and makes you seem intolerant. Insulting people based on who they personally are or what they've personally said or done works better in general. Calling her a kiss-ass who wouldn't have a spine if it wasn't for the Gantt charts up her butt is more effective.
Ah, the belief that the field you are in requires talent, and others don't. Alternatively, whatever you don't understand must be easy, since you don't know the actual difficulties.