Then the standard should be adjusted accordingly. "Company standard" doesn't have to mean "everyone stays with the vanilla install"; it can mean "99% of us stay with the vanilla install" (i.e. the 99% whose needs are met just fine by said install), while IT works things out separately with the remaining 1%.
Are you intending "this" to refer to "deviating from the corporate standard" or "responsible for their own support"?
Anyway, my intent was precisely in line with your latter comment. The sales guy should stick with the corporate standard. If he deviates from it, and thereby breaks his ability to send emails to customers, then it's his own damn fault. (Well, e-mail isn't the greatest of examples, as it can generally be replaced by webmail in a pinch. Say he breaks his ability to use the company's CRM software.)
I do some after-hours work, but it's really flex time rather than overtime. As long as billable hours per month are high enough to make a decent profit, and response time is low enough to keep the customers happy, then everything's jake.
Exactly what good do fingerprints do you? Or even photos of suspected insurgents?
From TFA:
Beyond Baghdad, the U.S. role has become less about killing insurgents than arresting the worst and isolating them from the population. Obviously it would help to have an electronic database of who the bad guys are, their friends, where they live, tribal affiliation--in short the insurgency's networks.
The Marine and Army officers who patrol Iraq's dangerous places know they need an identification system similar to cops back home. The troops now write down suspects' names and addresses. Some, like Marine Maj. Owen West in Anbar, have created their own spreadsheets and PowerPoint programs, or use digital cameras to input the details of suspected insurgents. But no Iraq-wide software architecture exists.
Can you have someone take a look at the e-mail confirmation process, please? I had to try six times before I got through it.
The first time, I switched to another window for a minute or two, and missed the timeout deadline. Okay, there's a tradeoff between longer timeout (for slower users/systems) and shorter timeout (to minimize the window for attacks). The next few times seemed to time out within five or ten seconds; I think what was actually happening was along these lines:
* "Confirmation timed out." * Attempt #3 (click) * Switch to e-mail window, click "download" * See new message (actually from attempt #2), click the link in it * "Confirmation timed out." (confirmation #2 was invalidated as soon as confirmation #3 went out) * Attempt #4 (click) * Switch to e-mail window, click "download" * See new message (actually from attempt #3), click the link in it...you get the idea.
I just looked, and all I saw was section 6c which prohibits impersonating a person or entity. Entering info that's merely incomplete (e.g. first and last initials) or obviously fictional (e.g. "Joe Blow") does not qualify. If I overlooked something, then please cite the relevant section number or text or something.
But not squatting on names that rightfully belong to specific other entities, at least. From the FAQ:
As a courtesy to trademark owners, Google provides a simple publicly available complaint procedure and, once notified of a legitimate complaint against a specific domain, Google will no longer serve ads to that domain.
If you're okay with any window width less than (say) 800 resulting in a left/right scroll bar, then you can define the column widths in terms of absolute numbers of pixels. This also keeps the columns at those widths when the window width is greater than 800, which may be considered either good or bad, depending.
...but you probably meant "make the three columns as tall as they need to be, then position something e.g. 10 pixels below the tallest one". Anyone got a good solution to that one?
The whole point of pump-and-dump is that the spammers are way ahead of you:
Spammers buy 10,000 shares, dirt cheap.
Spammers send spam.
100 suckers each buy 100 shares, not so cheap. Price goes up.
Spammers sell 10,000 shares. Profit! Price goes back down.
100 suckers are hosed.
For your scheme to work, you'd have to analyze and predict which penny stocks the spammers are going to target. Let us know how that works out for you, okay?
I've heard this answered before with "I wouldn't want to work for a Word-only company anyway", but just because HR is asshat doesn't mean the rest of the company necessarily is.
First, unlike most RP submissions, this one doesn't have a link to his blog. Second, this article uses "nano" and "quantum" in the appropriate sense of "treating the materials as relatively large homogenous blocks is not a good-enough estimate for the non-trivial purpose at hand".
There's a place for your rant, but this submission is not it.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the standard should be adjusted accordingly. "Company standard" doesn't have to mean "everyone stays with the vanilla install"; it can mean "99% of us stay with the vanilla install" (i.e. the 99% whose needs are met just fine by said install), while IT works things out separately with the remaining 1%.
Are you intending "this" to refer to "deviating from the corporate standard" or "responsible for their own support"?
Anyway, my intent was precisely in line with your latter comment. The sales guy should stick with the corporate standard. If he deviates from it, and thereby breaks his ability to send emails to customers, then it's his own damn fault. (Well, e-mail isn't the greatest of examples, as it can generally be replaced by webmail in a pinch. Say he breaks his ability to use the company's CRM software.)
So don't allow it. Or at least make it damn clear that anyone deviating from the corporate standard is responsible for their own support.
I do some after-hours work, but it's really flex time rather than overtime. As long as billable hours per month are high enough to make a decent profit, and response time is low enough to keep the customers happy, then everything's jake.
Software for running a business.
MS page
Wikipedia entry
From TFA:
How about a disgruntled postal worker with a fever?
Can you have someone take a look at the e-mail confirmation process, please? I had to try six times before I got through it.
...you get the idea.
The first time, I switched to another window for a minute or two, and missed the timeout deadline. Okay, there's a tradeoff between longer timeout (for slower users/systems) and shorter timeout (to minimize the window for attacks). The next few times seemed to time out within five or ten seconds; I think what was actually happening was along these lines:
* "Confirmation timed out."
* Attempt #3 (click)
* Switch to e-mail window, click "download"
* See new message (actually from attempt #2), click the link in it
* "Confirmation timed out." (confirmation #2 was invalidated as soon as confirmation #3 went out)
* Attempt #4 (click)
* Switch to e-mail window, click "download"
* See new message (actually from attempt #3), click the link in it
This may be a generic MediaWiki quirk, I dunno.
Prick.
They did.
I just looked, and all I saw was section 6c which prohibits impersonating a person or entity. Entering info that's merely incomplete (e.g. first and last initials) or obviously fictional (e.g. "Joe Blow") does not qualify. If I overlooked something, then please cite the relevant section number or text or something.
But not squatting on names that rightfully belong to specific other entities, at least. From the FAQ:
If you're okay with any window width less than (say) 800 resulting in a left/right scroll bar, then you can define the column widths in terms of absolute numbers of pixels. This also keeps the columns at those widths when the window width is greater than 800, which may be considered either good or bad, depending.
There are some major cross-platform apps, e.g. Firefox.
I quite like Rainmeter myself, though I'm sure Mac has something equally pretty.
Some more experimentation leads to the following:
max-height : 400px; overflow : auto;The widths are defined as percentages. If your window is small enough to break that, then it's small enough that nothing will look good.
See "max-height" above.
Under what circumstances does the following not work well?
#COLUMN1 {
position : absolute;
top : 10px;
left : 10px;
width : 20%;
}
#COLUMN2 {
position : absolute;
top : 10px;
left : 25%;
right : 25%;
}
#COLUMN3 {
position : absolute;
top : 10px;
right : 10px;
width : 20%;
}
- Spammers buy 10,000 shares, dirt cheap.
- Spammers send spam.
- 100 suckers each buy 100 shares, not so cheap. Price goes up.
- Spammers sell 10,000 shares. Profit! Price goes back down.
- 100 suckers are hosed.
For your scheme to work, you'd have to analyze and predict which penny stocks the spammers are going to target. Let us know how that works out for you, okay?So send both?
I've heard this answered before with "I wouldn't want to work for a Word-only company anyway", but just because HR is asshat doesn't mean the rest of the company necessarily is.
First, unlike most RP submissions, this one doesn't have a link to his blog. Second, this article uses "nano" and "quantum" in the appropriate sense of "treating the materials as relatively large homogenous blocks is not a good-enough estimate for the non-trivial purpose at hand".
There's a place for your rant, but this submission is not it.
I don't recognize (f), sorry.
And here is some pure comedy gold.
"...there's apparently an enormous amount of material... clogging Ted Stevens' tubes. Perhaps a little fiber... optic cable might be the answer."