Ah yes, HR, the favorite punching boy of disillusioned employees everywhere.
The sad part is, I agree with you, and I am pursuing a related field (Industrial/Organizational Psychology) which is very similar but has one tool that many HR folks lack: We like to do research and find out what makes the best employee. Off the top of my head I believe that cognitive ability (sometimes called IQ) is most important in programming, not a particular skill (although that is helpful too). Trouble is, many HR folks will only look at what skills people are using, and not what is underneath those tasks, which is why they want someone with 15+ years of experience with.NET.
You do know that Gentoo has varying levels of stability built into the portage system right?
For the uninformed, you simply state whether or not you want the stable or the buggy version, and you get it. They do a fair amount of testing for each version of any program to make sure it's stable. For instance, gnome 2.6 still hasn't hit the stable setting. Even the 2.6 kernel isn't the default kernel for some sources (the gaming sources come to mind).
at this point I'd do just about anything if they'll pay my bills and a little extra this summer. If they gave me a mere 10,000, I'd do a study on just about anything that took 3 months of work.
It's amazing how much feeding your family makes one willing to do things they wouldn't otherwise do...:)
Yes, but if you search for AXA, and *other* companies have that term in their meta tags (or elsewhere on the page), then google could well have a legitimate reason to serve those up. Obviously there are problems with this idea, but if another company uses their competitor's name as a key term, then that is hardly google's responsibility, no is it?
Look at it this way: say I am running an anti-Limbaugh effort, because I don't like the guy. Now let's suppose that I use the terms rush and limbaugh (check my spelling) in the head tags, and throughout my sight.
Now Google would most likely pick that up and display that as a result when I am searching for Rush Limbaugh. Furthermore, it would be reasonable enough to assume that Rush wouldn't like this, especially if my site was listed before his.
Would the proper thing to do, then, be to sue Google? I don't think so. Rather, Rush would probably sue me over the use of his name.
I think we *may* have a similar situation here. I'm not certain, mind you, since I'm not completely up on how google does their search rankings, and whatnot, but I can see a case being made along these lines.
Let's be careful about jumping to conclusions (yes, even though this is/.).
That's fine. I personally feel that its no fun being miserable. I therefore suggest that you not use it.
But for those of us who enjoy its flexibility, the ports system, and even like the idea of compiling from source (or using packages), then its a great distro.
Personally I use XFCE4 with gdm and XF86 on a 2.6.3 kernel. I have a great custom set of cursors, the fonts look great, and I'm happy.
Your experience may be different--that's fine.
I just don't see railing against a particular distro unless they are doing things that are "anti-linux", like refusing to release source or some such.
Gentoo is a great system. I don't like the installer (I would rather see an *option* for a graphical installer, but that view seems to be heavily opposed by the developers), but that is my only real complaint.
I sat through DARE. As someone who has NEVER used illegal drugs, (though plenty of my friends did), I thought it was a waste of time. My friends did too, though for a different reason.
The truth is simple: if you aren't into drugs, chances are you think "who cares, I don't do em anyways" and if you are you think, "that moron doesn't know jack!"
Personally, I think it's fallacious to think that these programs have that much influence when presented to large groups.
If you want to change someones attitude about something, small (2-4) groups work best. It is also best to have a peer do the talking, not some cop.
The same applies to the MPAA. If they want to change kids attitudes, they have to get kids who care, and are considered cool by the target group.
This is hard, because those mostly likely to get movies are not likely to think anyone who is against it is cool without some serious groundwork.
I know that's why I won't. I never said that I expected to become president, or would even want to be voted into that position. But that's what I would do there.
Granted, but he could have vetoed on general principle. I would have respected that.
IF I were ever made president, I would veto EVERY peice of legislation that I didn't feel was constitutional, such as the DMCA. If congress wanted override that, then fine, but I would have let my voice be known.
Clinton didn't veto it, and didn't express displeasure. If he had, the dems in the congress would have paid close attention.
Of course, the old wifey prolly didn't want that, since it would have hurt her relations with the cronies, and killed her chances of running for congress/pres.
I am in the middle of a redesign, which you can't see yet. I am not going to grouse about your complaints concerning my current site--I don't even like it. And if you will notice, it doesn't use pngs either.
No my new site is better, and I have checked it out in Opera, where it looks the same as it does in both MOz/firefox. IE has trouble with the new layout.
Yes, I know all that, but some people don't. That's the point. There are a lot of people who don't realize that jpg doesn't do transparency. I know that I was annoyed when I figured it out.
Yes, jpg is smaller, which makes it great for web-photo images.
I disagree that I (or most others) am trying to position png as super-format. You act as if microsoft not fixing alpha-channel support in png isn't a problem. It is a problem, and its a huge one. Without alpha-cannel support png's are virtually worthless over gifs, except in those cases where the png is actually smaller than a gif (which does occur).
Furthermore, png is much better for transferring the original of photos or any other images than is something like a gif or jpg (being non-lossy and supporting more colors).
I want transparency on my site, and it really torques me off that I can only acheive that through crazy javascript hacks and css weirdness (or in the case of ie7,.htc files). But if M$ would fix alpha support, then I could actually make a case for being wiling to use IE (well, aside from security concerns).
The final reason to use png is lack of patent encumberance, which is the real reason we are likely to see a companion site to burnallgifs.com for jpg.
Yeah, well we all Know why we don't use png. I am working on a new layout for my website that calls for the heavy use of pngs (due to transparency), but when I showed it to a web-savvy friend he asked why not use GIF.
My point is that many people are still unaware of why PNG is better, despite having more than adequate time to become educated.
The real trouble is that microsoft still hasn't fixed png support, and the hacks, such as IE7 (by dean edwards) and sleight (www.skyzyx.com) aren't perfect.
For now, my site looks awesome in Moz/Opera compliant browsers, but only so-so in IE, and its a fully w3c compliant site.
JPG's are also useful in their own right, but lack certain features that make png's better. Interestingly enough, PNG's do well enough with photos for my admittedly low standards.
except that we needed the granite in fairly big chunks, and kinda squarish too (it was going to a fairly sizeable building in downtown salt lake).
Random bombs would have been a pain in the backside. We *could* have dealt with it (after, there was no shortage of rocks!), but unless they happened to cut the rock just right for us, it would have slowed us down.
The really annoying time was when they threatened to blow up *other* property that was owned by the same organization. Security was stepped up after that.
sure I do. But it wasn't quite definite enough. I even note this possibility. It's just that I thought the troll-hunters (mods) might have broken their sarcasm meters, and wanted to give them something to think about.
My brother was in a similar position, working for the CA state maximum security prisons. They wanted to give him a promotion and put him on salary, but he had already looked around at other salaried workers and decided that it wasn't worth it--everyone on salary worked 50-60hrs with no additional pay.
The trouble with limiting overtime pay is that you must ALSO restrict overtime work and make it illegal for the company to require overtime. Then if you are asked to work it when they aren't supposed to, you very firmly say no, and document it (and tell them that you are). Then if they fire you, its time to go to court.
If people would actually do this, companies would be much more wary about asking ridiculous amounts of overtime.
I have to further note that it is unreasonable to expect people to work more than 40hrs/week. Very few are productive that many hours in one week. I agree that 30-35 should be the standard, even in positions that are essentially vigilance duty (guards, orderlies in a mental hospital, process control workers (steel plants), etc).
Fatigue and exhaustion are a nasty little set of problems, but most managers run roughshod over them, claiming that workers are lazy.
The only job that I ever had where I worked 60+ hrs was granite mining. I lost a lot of weight that summer. We got up at about 6am and were on the job at by 6:30 or 7. We went home at 7:30 or 8. We worked saturdays too. We stayed productive and we had fun (blowing things up helps keep it exciting).
Due to the location (Little Cottonwood Canyon in Utah), we even got occasional bomb-threats and protestors (we were ruining some really good climbing spots, but hey the property was privately held and the owner wanted lots of granite of a very particular variety).
On the other hand I've had part-time jobs where no one was productive more than about 50% of the time, and we only worked about 20hrs/week.
It partly depends on the job, but there are a lot of jobs where 25 hrs of hard work would be enough to keep up with the work.
*Very new here. *Very brave--this usually is posted as AC *Very stupid (note that this is not exclusive of other options. *A troll (also not exclusive). *porting balls of steel the size of a semi truck. *trying to be funny. I really hope this is what it is, because you are going to get flamed.
BTW, care to provide links and or sources? (in case you aren't trying to be funny.
The really odd thing is this:: of ALL the trouble I've EVER had with linux, sound was NOT it. ALSA took *maybe* 10 minutes to set up under GENTOO (of all distros). If gentoo can get it right, so can most everyone else.
I can't print. Personally, if I had to choose, I would rather be able to print with my CX5200 than have sound. FWIW, I've really tried to print--it just won't do it.
I never claimed parents needed a newer car than the kids. I said only that kids don't need a brand new car.
I am of the mindset that you buy a car and then drive it until the wheels fall off. I *might* be convinced to give my old car to my kid if there was a good reason.
As far as safety differences go, you do make an interesting point. I don't necessarily agree though. One trouble with buying young Jimbo a new car is that he is likely to start showing it off. If its a sports car, he's likely to speed. If its a SUV, he'll go offroad. The trouble with a safer car is that most people will drive more dangerously to compensate for the added safety features. This isn't a technical problem, but a psychological one, and well established at that (and may be the reason that hands-free cell phones are no safer than regular ones as far as drivers are concerned).
I would say that IF you feel compelled to buy Jimbo a new car, get him a four-door Volvo (great safety), or a non-sporty hybrid (not a civic!). SUV's are right out, as are mustangs, celicas, civics, and all the other sporty types. The idea is to get a utilitarian car (after all, this is the only thing that makes sense if your argument is for safety reasons).
As a matter of record (AAMOR?), the only reason I got a car from my parents was because my dad spent summer of 94 in the hospital (96 days to be exact), and I needed to be able to get around. If we hadn't lived 10 miles from the closest town, it might have been different, but as it was, I needed to eat (mom only came home about 4 times that summer--the hospital was 80+ miles away).
I have to agree that attraction isn't purely physical, but if you aren't physically attracted (at some level), then you're in deep trouble.
I had guessed you liked 'em small--no big deal really. FWIW, there are lots of girls that definitely don't meet the "geek" challenge that know integration by parts--I can think of about 15 or 20 off the top of my head. Of the ones that _might_ fit the geek criterion, I don't think that there are very many (if any) that could pass the size test.
For the record, I myself prefer smaller sized women--but I'm happy with my wife, who is only 2 inches shorter than I am (5'11"). At her height, there are very few women under 130, even very slender ones.
She is smart, and more important, we have a lot of common interests (games, humor, movies, music, religion, etc).
Note that my quick calcs never took into account all those other things--only weight, age, and IQ. IF you need a true geek, then you are in even more trouble.
Good luck in your search--you'll need it. At the same time, I think you'll be happy when you get there.
(As an aside, maybe this is the real reason/. guys don't do well with women--they are too picky about which women they want to date? On second thought, maybe not...)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was:
uuddlrlrbaba {select}{start}
or am I thinking of something else?
Ah yes, HR, the favorite punching boy of disillusioned employees everywhere.
.NET.
The sad part is, I agree with you, and I am pursuing a related field (Industrial/Organizational Psychology) which is very similar but has one tool that many HR folks lack: We like to do research and find out what makes the best employee. Off the top of my head I believe that cognitive ability (sometimes called IQ) is most important in programming, not a particular skill (although that is helpful too). Trouble is, many HR folks will only look at what skills people are using, and not what is underneath those tasks, which is why they want someone with 15+ years of experience with
You do know that Gentoo has varying levels of stability built into the portage system right?
For the uninformed, you simply state whether or not you want the stable or the buggy version, and you get it. They do a fair amount of testing for each version of any program to make sure it's stable. For instance, gnome 2.6 still hasn't hit the stable setting. Even the 2.6 kernel isn't the default kernel for some sources (the gaming sources come to mind).
They have a great system, if you ask me.
at this point I'd do just about anything if they'll pay my bills and a little extra this summer. If they gave me a mere 10,000, I'd do a study on just about anything that took 3 months of work.
It's amazing how much feeding your family makes one willing to do things they wouldn't otherwise do...:)
Yes, but if you search for AXA, and *other* companies have that term in their meta tags (or elsewhere on the page), then google could well have a legitimate reason to serve those up. Obviously there are problems with this idea, but if another company uses their competitor's name as a key term, then that is hardly google's responsibility, no is it?
/.).
Look at it this way: say I am running an anti-Limbaugh effort, because I don't like the guy. Now let's suppose that I use the terms rush and limbaugh (check my spelling) in the head tags, and throughout my sight.
Now Google would most likely pick that up and display that as a result when I am searching for Rush Limbaugh. Furthermore, it would be reasonable enough to assume that Rush wouldn't like this, especially if my site was listed before his.
Would the proper thing to do, then, be to sue Google? I don't think so. Rather, Rush would probably sue me over the use of his name.
I think we *may* have a similar situation here. I'm not certain, mind you, since I'm not completely up on how google does their search rankings, and whatnot, but I can see a case being made along these lines.
Let's be careful about jumping to conclusions (yes, even though this is
Obviously you don't want to be happy with Gentoo.
That's fine. I personally feel that its no fun being miserable. I therefore suggest that you not use it.
But for those of us who enjoy its flexibility, the ports system, and even like the idea of compiling from source (or using packages), then its a great distro.
Personally I use XFCE4 with gdm and XF86 on a 2.6.3 kernel. I have a great custom set of cursors, the fonts look great, and I'm happy.
Your experience may be different--that's fine.
I just don't see railing against a particular distro unless they are doing things that are "anti-linux", like refusing to release source or some such.
Gentoo is a great system. I don't like the installer (I would rather see an *option* for a graphical installer, but that view seems to be heavily opposed by the developers), but that is my only real complaint.
If only I had mod points...
I sat through DARE. As someone who has NEVER used illegal drugs, (though plenty of my friends did), I thought it was a waste of time. My friends did too, though for a different reason.
The truth is simple: if you aren't into drugs, chances are you think "who cares, I don't do em anyways" and if you are you think, "that moron doesn't know jack!"
Personally, I think it's fallacious to think that these programs have that much influence when presented to large groups.
If you want to change someones attitude about something, small (2-4) groups work best. It is also best to have a peer do the talking, not some cop.
The same applies to the MPAA. If they want to change kids attitudes, they have to get kids who care, and are considered cool by the target group.
This is hard, because those mostly likely to get movies are not likely to think anyone who is against it is cool without some serious groundwork.
I know that's why I won't. I never said that I expected to become president, or would even want to be voted into that position. But that's what I would do there.
Granted, but he could have vetoed on general principle. I would have respected that.
IF I were ever made president, I would veto EVERY peice of legislation that I didn't feel was constitutional, such as the DMCA. If congress wanted override that, then fine, but I would have let my voice be known.
Clinton didn't veto it, and didn't express displeasure. If he had, the dems in the congress would have paid close attention.
Of course, the old wifey prolly didn't want that, since it would have hurt her relations with the cronies, and killed her chances of running for congress/pres.
Your my friend...
I posted on this earlier, and got slammed for my stance against gun control/registration. Thank you for telling it like it is.
I'll bring the feathers AND the torches. And several 6' lengths of rope....
(maybe I'll bring a 12' high platform too-- just in case).
I am in the middle of a redesign, which you can't see yet. I am not going to grouse about your complaints concerning my current site--I don't even like it. And if you will notice, it doesn't use pngs either.
No my new site is better, and I have checked it out in Opera, where it looks the same as it does in both MOz/firefox. IE has trouble with the new layout.
Sorry about that, I should have clarified that.
Yes, I know all that, but some people don't. That's the point. There are a lot of people who don't realize that jpg doesn't do transparency. I know that I was annoyed when I figured it out.
.htc files). But if M$ would fix alpha support, then I could actually make a case for being wiling to use IE (well, aside from security concerns).
Yes, jpg is smaller, which makes it great for web-photo images.
I disagree that I (or most others) am trying to position png as super-format. You act as if microsoft not fixing alpha-channel support in png isn't a problem. It is a problem, and its a huge one. Without alpha-cannel support png's are virtually worthless over gifs, except in those cases where the png is actually smaller than a gif (which does occur).
Furthermore, png is much better for transferring the original of photos or any other images than is something like a gif or jpg (being non-lossy and supporting more colors).
I want transparency on my site, and it really torques me off that I can only acheive that through crazy javascript hacks and css weirdness (or in the case of ie7,
The final reason to use png is lack of patent encumberance, which is the real reason we are likely to see a companion site to burnallgifs.com for jpg.
Yeah, well we all Know why we don't use png. I am working on a new layout for my website that calls for the heavy use of pngs (due to transparency), but when I showed it to a web-savvy friend he asked why not use GIF.
My point is that many people are still unaware of why PNG is better, despite having more than adequate time to become educated.
The real trouble is that microsoft still hasn't fixed png support, and the hacks, such as IE7 (by dean edwards) and sleight (www.skyzyx.com) aren't perfect.
For now, my site looks awesome in Moz/Opera compliant browsers, but only so-so in IE, and its a fully w3c compliant site.
JPG's are also useful in their own right, but lack certain features that make png's better. Interestingly enough, PNG's do well enough with photos for my admittedly low standards.
LOL...
except that we needed the granite in fairly big chunks, and kinda squarish too (it was going to a fairly sizeable building in downtown salt lake).
Random bombs would have been a pain in the backside. We *could* have dealt with it (after, there was no shortage of rocks!), but unless they happened to cut the rock just right for us, it would have slowed us down.
The really annoying time was when they threatened to blow up *other* property that was owned by the same organization. Security was stepped up after that.
sure I do. But it wasn't quite definite enough. I even note this possibility. It's just that I thought the troll-hunters (mods) might have broken their sarcasm meters, and wanted to give them something to think about.
Yes, well I kept thinking of games, sony and nintendo. Oh well...
Good for you.
My brother was in a similar position, working for the CA state maximum security prisons. They wanted to give him a promotion and put him on salary, but he had already looked around at other salaried workers and decided that it wasn't worth it--everyone on salary worked 50-60hrs with no additional pay.
The trouble with limiting overtime pay is that you must ALSO restrict overtime work and make it illegal for the company to require overtime. Then if you are asked to work it when they aren't supposed to, you very firmly say no, and document it (and tell them that you are). Then if they fire you, its time to go to court.
If people would actually do this, companies would be much more wary about asking ridiculous amounts of overtime.
I have to further note that it is unreasonable to expect people to work more than 40hrs/week. Very few are productive that many hours in one week. I agree that 30-35 should be the standard, even in positions that are essentially vigilance duty (guards, orderlies in a mental hospital, process control workers (steel plants), etc).
Fatigue and exhaustion are a nasty little set of problems, but most managers run roughshod over them, claiming that workers are lazy.
The only job that I ever had where I worked 60+ hrs was granite mining. I lost a lot of weight that summer. We got up at about 6am and were on the job at by 6:30 or 7. We went home at 7:30 or 8. We worked saturdays too. We stayed productive and we had fun (blowing things up helps keep it exciting).
Due to the location (Little Cottonwood Canyon in Utah), we even got occasional bomb-threats and protestors (we were ruining some really good climbing spots, but hey the property was privately held and the owner wanted lots of granite of a very particular variety).
On the other hand I've had part-time jobs where no one was productive more than about 50% of the time, and we only worked about 20hrs/week.
It partly depends on the job, but there are a lot of jobs where 25 hrs of hard work would be enough to keep up with the work.
You sir, are on (or more) of several things:
*Very new here.
*Very brave--this usually is posted as AC
*Very stupid (note that this is not exclusive of other options.
*A troll (also not exclusive).
*porting balls of steel the size of a semi truck.
*trying to be funny. I really hope this is what it is, because you are going to get flamed.
BTW, care to provide links and or sources? (in case you aren't trying to be funny.
no no no. THANK YOU.
I keep forgetting about that site, but I absolutely love it.
I can only get 544. I also managed a 153, trying for lowest non-zero score.
The really odd thing is this:: of ALL the trouble I've EVER had with linux, sound was NOT it. ALSA took *maybe* 10 minutes to set up under GENTOO (of all distros). If gentoo can get it right, so can most everyone else.
I can't print. Personally, if I had to choose, I would rather be able to print with my CX5200 than have sound. FWIW, I've really tried to print--it just won't do it.
Oh well.
That part about her getting testy applies to most women. Wonder why....:)
I never claimed parents needed a newer car than the kids. I said only that kids don't need a brand new car.
I am of the mindset that you buy a car and then drive it until the wheels fall off. I *might* be convinced to give my old car to my kid if there was a good reason.
As far as safety differences go, you do make an interesting point. I don't necessarily agree though. One trouble with buying young Jimbo a new car is that he is likely to start showing it off. If its a sports car, he's likely to speed. If its a SUV, he'll go offroad. The trouble with a safer car is that most people will drive more dangerously to compensate for the added safety features. This isn't a technical problem, but a psychological one, and well established at that (and may be the reason that hands-free cell phones are no safer than regular ones as far as drivers are concerned).
I would say that IF you feel compelled to buy Jimbo a new car, get him a four-door Volvo (great safety), or a non-sporty hybrid (not a civic!). SUV's are right out, as are mustangs, celicas, civics, and all the other sporty types. The idea is to get a utilitarian car (after all, this is the only thing that makes sense if your argument is for safety reasons).
As a matter of record (AAMOR?), the only reason I got a car from my parents was because my dad spent summer of 94 in the hospital (96 days to be exact), and I needed to be able to get around. If we hadn't lived 10 miles from the closest town, it might have been different, but as it was, I needed to eat (mom only came home about 4 times that summer--the hospital was 80+ miles away).
I have to agree that attraction isn't purely physical, but if you aren't physically attracted (at some level), then you're in deep trouble.
/. guys don't do well with women--they are too picky about which women they want to date? On second thought, maybe not...)
I had guessed you liked 'em small--no big deal really. FWIW, there are lots of girls that definitely don't meet the "geek" challenge that know integration by parts--I can think of about 15 or 20 off the top of my head. Of the ones that _might_ fit the geek criterion, I don't think that there are very many (if any) that could pass the size test.
For the record, I myself prefer smaller sized women--but I'm happy with my wife, who is only 2 inches shorter than I am (5'11"). At her height, there are very few women under 130, even very slender ones.
She is smart, and more important, we have a lot of common interests (games, humor, movies, music, religion, etc).
Note that my quick calcs never took into account all those other things--only weight, age, and IQ. IF you need a true geek, then you are in even more trouble.
Good luck in your search--you'll need it. At the same time, I think you'll be happy when you get there.
(As an aside, maybe this is the real reason
Have fun.