Or it could just be an inefficient job market with too much friction in matching seekers with employers.
Heck, just give the OP your company's contact info, and let him apply. That might not be a good general solution, but it could help fix this one particular situation.
If they promised "Linux support", but failed to supply Linux drivers, I would consider that mis-selling. I'd say you were owed a full refund there.
I wish, but I have to disagree. It wouldn't be accurate for me to say they provided no Linux support at all. For example, I've run into a number of issues, and they never gave me any hassle just because I was running Linux. (All of my issues where hardware-related, so I never tested their willingness to sort of Linux-specific issues.)
In this case, I'd say they haven't supported Linux as excellently as I'd have liked. Really good Linux support would have meant have meant ensuring that ATI's proprietary drivers worked with each new version of X and each new version of the Linux kernel that came out during the support period.
However, if I was willing to go back and use Ubuntu 11.10, or perhaps 11.04, I believe the proprietary ATI driver would work just fine.
I think what you're proposing would be roughly analogous to dinging Dell for not supporting Windows 8 on this laptop. I.e., it would be a sign of great support, but not something they're strictly speaking obligated to do.
Sadly, ATI decided to stop support in its closed-source driver for the FirePro M7740 chip, which Dell sold me in a "workstation-class" laptop less than three years ago.
As someone who's been in the same boat, I don't think it's fair to blame the manufacturer here. Your hardware didn't change -- your software did.
Blame whoever broke binary compatibility with the existing driver.
Dell advertised the M6500 laptop (my laptop with the FirePro M7740) chip as having Linux as a "supported" operating system. I realize they made a vague claim in that statement, but when a laptop vendor and graphics chip vendor are asking you to shell out unreasonable money for a "workstation-class" chip, one of their main justifications is top-notch driver support. The M6500 isn't even out of warranty, and Dell+ATI (since they teamed up on that combo) aren't supporting current versions of the Linux kernel and/or X.
Did they breach a contract with me? No. But I'm also no longer willing to trust either of those companies again to support their products for more than a year or two.
Sadly, ATI decided to stop support in its closed-source driver for the FirePro M7740 chip, which Dell sold me in a "workstation-class" laptop less than three years ago. So I'm already using an open-source driver despite its inferior performance.
But unfortunately, even the open-source driver (or some other part of X or the kernel) leaves the display goofed up if I suspend/resume. If I'm able to somehow get to a terminal, I can run "killall gnome-session", which seems to do the trick. But long-story short, even the open source ATI driver on Ubuntu 12.10 isn't perfect.
I had a rather opposite situation. My highschool AP chemistry class (20 years ago) was taught by an inexperienced teacher, whom I think had a rather poor grasp on stochastic processes. As a result, he made chemistry sound like a bunch of wishy-washy, hand-wavy processes that had no real rules or understandable structure. From this, I falsely concluded that chemistry was either completely unintelligible or somewhat hogwash. My interest in chemistry would have been much higher in the end if I could have waited until I had access to a better teacher, or self-taught it (I learn well from good books).
A similar situation happened with highschool biology. From that class, I got the impression that biology was mostly a matter of memorizing anatomy. At the time, no one explained how that class could be a first step towards designing tailored cancer treatments using microbiology, chemistry, genetic engineering, studying protein folding, etc. If I had thought to ask at the time, or if a good teacher had connected the dots for me, I would have been much more likely to pursue a career in biology or medical research.
He states very bluntly that his 15 year old son "will not be a scientist". How does he know that?
This is how he takes care of that. No son of his is going to become a scientist!
This reminds me of a joke my dad told me: There was a man who was terrified of air-travel because he thought someone might blow up the plane. One day, the man's job required him to fly to another city. Soon after boarding, the stewardess was adjusting bags in the overhead bin, and accidentally spilled his bag, exposing a bundle of dynamite! The stewardess asked the man, "Why on earth would you bring a bomb on a plane???" To which the man calmly replied, "What do you think the odds are of there being TWO bombs on one plane?"
Chemistry is one aspect of how the world works. So are economics, and psychology, astronomy, and computer science. While some of them can be reduced to others (i.e., chemistry fully reduces to physics), each of those fields of study is tailored to solving particular problems or understanding particular phenomena in an especially tractable manner.
For example, even if psychology reduces to quantum mechanics, a theoretical physicist is unlikely to be the most helpful person when you want to help a victim of sexual abuse to break the chain of abuse.
So while you could argue that most fields of study in some sense reduce to chemistry, it doesn't necessarily follow that a good understanding of chemistry is important in obtaining excellence in those other fields of endeavor.
Okay, I'm sure I'm going to get modded somewhere between +5 and -240,343 for this, but what the heck...
Before I go on, let me say I'm really sorry for your loss. I hope you and your family are well.
So here's my question: Why do you want to do anything in particular for her memory? I don't mean this question with the assumption that you have no good answer. But I'm curious.
The issue might be explained in this excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on the Aegis combat system:
Because the Aegis combat system is the key component of several cruiser and destroyer class vessels, the ships are often incorrectly referred to as "Aegis class cruisers" or "Aegis class destroyers". In reality, the radar system and the class of ship it is installed on are unrelated to each other.
Sounds like whichever sailor (I assume) was giving the tour made that same mistake.
That's weird, because in my experience people generally divide ships first by overall type (frigate, destroyer, etc.), and then within a type, the class (Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, etc.)
Also, there have been three classes of U.S. ships (at least) to have Aegis: A-B, Ticonderoga, and I forget the 3rd. And then there are non-U.S. Navy's which have Aegis as well.
So calling a ship an "Aegis" is really unconventional, because people do that in contexts where they'd usually be mentioning a ship's class or type.
It seems weird to me to call it an "Aegis"cruiser. Aegis is a combat system. If I recall, the Aegis is specifically a integrated system of radars, weapons, and computers.
Broadly speaking, the surface ship involved (the USS San Jacinto) is a cruiser. More specifically, it's a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. ("Ticonderoga" is a "class ship". That is, there was an actual ship named USS Ticonderoga, and the San Jacinto has the same general design, so it's called a Ticonderoga-class ship.)
Slashdot Mirror
Or it could just be an inefficient job market with too much friction in matching seekers with employers.
Heck, just give the OP your company's contact info, and let him apply. That might not be a good general solution, but it could help fix this one particular situation.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that neither side as given good evidence for his position?
Depends on the programmer!
Bah. Continence has nothing to do with being a good programmer.
Disagree. My manager has told me countless times that if I'm really committed to my work, I wouldn't be taking bathroom breaks.
Citing a few counter-examples doesn't disprove claims about a general trend.
What I really miss is the feeling that my government cared about my interests.
Ahhh... the sweet innocence during my childhood.
Sigh... yup.
What I really miss is the feeling that my government cared about my interests.
It's interesting to know that this season was 30% above the mean, but what's the variance over that same time period?
Because for all I know from the summary, half of those years had storm season that were 30% more active than the average.
Pretty cranky tone, but I agree completely.
If they promised "Linux support", but failed to supply Linux drivers, I would consider that mis-selling. I'd say you were owed a full refund there.
I wish, but I have to disagree. It wouldn't be accurate for me to say they provided no Linux support at all. For example, I've run into a number of issues, and they never gave me any hassle just because I was running Linux. (All of my issues where hardware-related, so I never tested their willingness to sort of Linux-specific issues.)
In this case, I'd say they haven't supported Linux as excellently as I'd have liked. Really good Linux support would have meant have meant ensuring that ATI's proprietary drivers worked with each new version of X and each new version of the Linux kernel that came out during the support period.
However, if I was willing to go back and use Ubuntu 11.10, or perhaps 11.04, I believe the proprietary ATI driver would work just fine.
I think what you're proposing would be roughly analogous to dinging Dell for not supporting Windows 8 on this laptop. I.e., it would be a sign of great support, but not something they're strictly speaking obligated to do.
Dell didn't ship a Linux driver with the laptop.
As someone who's been in the same boat, I don't think it's fair to blame the manufacturer here. Your hardware didn't change -- your software did.
Blame whoever broke binary compatibility with the existing driver.
Dell advertised the M6500 laptop (my laptop with the FirePro M7740) chip as having Linux as a "supported" operating system. I realize they made a vague claim in that statement, but when a laptop vendor and graphics chip vendor are asking you to shell out unreasonable money for a "workstation-class" chip, one of their main justifications is top-notch driver support. The M6500 isn't even out of warranty, and Dell+ATI (since they teamed up on that combo) aren't supporting current versions of the Linux kernel and/or X.
Did they breach a contract with me? No. But I'm also no longer willing to trust either of those companies again to support their products for more than a year or two.
Sadly, ATI decided to stop support in its closed-source driver for the FirePro M7740 chip, which Dell sold me in a "workstation-class" laptop less than three years ago. So I'm already using an open-source driver despite its inferior performance.
But unfortunately, even the open-source driver (or some other part of X or the kernel) leaves the display goofed up if I suspend/resume. If I'm able to somehow get to a terminal, I can run "killall gnome-session", which seems to do the trick. But long-story short, even the open source ATI driver on Ubuntu 12.10 isn't perfect.
Real nerds run whatever the hell they feel works best for them and don't bother with trends.
I tried that, but carrying a purse... had consequences.
Not that patient. I'll settle for Wanking Walrus.
So you won't be content with Vaseline'ed Viper?
I had a rather opposite situation. My highschool AP chemistry class (20 years ago) was taught by an inexperienced teacher, whom I think had a rather poor grasp on stochastic processes. As a result, he made chemistry sound like a bunch of wishy-washy, hand-wavy processes that had no real rules or understandable structure. From this, I falsely concluded that chemistry was either completely unintelligible or somewhat hogwash. My interest in chemistry would have been much higher in the end if I could have waited until I had access to a better teacher, or self-taught it (I learn well from good books).
A similar situation happened with highschool biology. From that class, I got the impression that biology was mostly a matter of memorizing anatomy. At the time, no one explained how that class could be a first step towards designing tailored cancer treatments using microbiology, chemistry, genetic engineering, studying protein folding, etc. If I had thought to ask at the time, or if a good teacher had connected the dots for me, I would have been much more likely to pursue a career in biology or medical research.
He states very bluntly that his 15 year old son "will not be a scientist". How does he know that?
This is how he takes care of that. No son of his is going to become a scientist!
This reminds me of a joke my dad told me: There was a man who was terrified of air-travel because he thought someone might blow up the plane. One day, the man's job required him to fly to another city. Soon after boarding, the stewardess was adjusting bags in the overhead bin, and accidentally spilled his bag, exposing a bundle of dynamite! The stewardess asked the man, "Why on earth would you bring a bomb on a plane???" To which the man calmly replied, "What do you think the odds are of there being TWO bombs on one plane?"
Chemistry is one aspect of how the world works. So are economics, and psychology, astronomy, and computer science. While some of them can be reduced to others (i.e., chemistry fully reduces to physics), each of those fields of study is tailored to solving particular problems or understanding particular phenomena in an especially tractable manner.
For example, even if psychology reduces to quantum mechanics, a theoretical physicist is unlikely to be the most helpful person when you want to help a victim of sexual abuse to break the chain of abuse.
So while you could argue that most fields of study in some sense reduce to chemistry, it doesn't necessarily follow that a good understanding of chemistry is important in obtaining excellence in those other fields of endeavor.
1) Let me help.
2) Oops, was that too much help?
Hey, don't finish what you can't start.
Okay, I'm sure I'm going to get modded somewhere between +5 and -240,343 for this, but what the heck...
Before I go on, let me say I'm really sorry for your loss. I hope you and your family are well.
So here's my question: Why do you want to do anything in particular for her memory? I don't mean this question with the assumption that you have no good answer. But I'm curious.
The issue might be explained in this excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on the Aegis combat system:
Sounds like whichever sailor (I assume) was giving the tour made that same mistake.
That's weird, because in my experience people generally divide ships first by overall type (frigate, destroyer, etc.), and then within a type, the class (Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, etc.)
Also, there have been three classes of U.S. ships (at least) to have Aegis: A-B, Ticonderoga, and I forget the 3rd. And then there are non-U.S. Navy's which have Aegis as well.
So calling a ship an "Aegis" is really unconventional, because people do that in contexts where they'd usually be mentioning a ship's class or type.
I don't think you should assume all prostitution is consensual.
Am I the only person for whom the video feed is broken?
Black holes are neat.
It seems weird to me to call it an "Aegis"cruiser. Aegis is a combat system. If I recall, the Aegis is specifically a integrated system of radars, weapons, and computers.
Broadly speaking, the surface ship involved (the USS San Jacinto) is a cruiser. More specifically, it's a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. ("Ticonderoga" is a "class ship". That is, there was an actual ship named USS Ticonderoga, and the San Jacinto has the same general design, so it's called a Ticonderoga-class ship.)
Another class of U.S. ships which sometime (always?) are carry the Aegis system is the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers.