If they are able to hire people with these policies, then they are hiring people that they deserve, and those being hired are getting what they deserve. I honestly cannot envision going into a job interview and writing down, on a piece of paper that will end up who knows where, all of my user names and passwords, for every account I have on the Internet. I have trouble envisioning the idiots who would do so, but I'm guessing they look like the people who came up with this policy. And they deserve each other.
Call times are a good place to start. They point out likely problems. The issue here was that the manager didn't realize the purpose of the metric - and used it incorrectly. As I'm sure you know, the flag should cause the manager to monitor your calls. If your calls are good, and under five minutes, then a note should be added, that removes you from the flagging for awhile. That way the manager can concentrate on the other issues until they have time to check you out again - and they SHOULD check you out again, if you continue to be flagged. And that should be transparent to you, unless you are screwing up.
It's simple, but that doesn't mean you are working for managers that are well trained on their tools - no more than some of your coworkers were trained on theirs.
This shouldn't be moderated as funny - it's insightful. How long does it take for people to realize that trend lines like this are completely bogus? How many failed predictions does it take? There is NO HISTORY that is being projected here. If you take the equivalent of two points of data to make a line - that's not a prediction. That's not a trend line that should be paid attention to - and yet we do, every frickin' day. Wise up, people - the only reason people do this is to "create a news story".
This is a well thought out reply, and I particularly appreciate the last paragraph - I think that is an actual thoughtful response - can we block types of ads? That would certainly solve my grievance with the things. However, I can't say I agree with your response - regardless of the amount of effort you put into it. You brought up the primary reason - the tag will get copied, and it will become a race between modifying the "law and the hacker" - and as always, the hacker will win. That means we've got a potentially useful tool (one I don't use - I don't think it's the best for the purpose) that is suddenly completely useless. Additionally - while I take your point regarding the "extra reminder" for those who forget to unblock ads at sites where they would be happy to fork over bandwidth in order to give the site some revenue - it still seems damn silly. In order to fix what is really a discipline problem, we now invalidate the purpose of the original program. I'd suggest that, again, your solution in the last paragraph of your response is massively more appropriate - and that other solutions can be arrived at that are better conceived as well. This one stinks.
If I wanted to see ads... I wouldn't block them. This feature seems redundant.
Next, we are going to see a new feature to our javascript blocker that asks us if we are sure we want to block access to javascript for a given site, "cause they really, really want it!"
There's no reason everyone can't own a home. Whether you own or rent, you are paying for your living quarters either way. In fact, renting is even more expensive than owning when you consider that you don't get to keep any of the equity, and the landlord needs to make a profit. Knowing this, I would argue that any system where the vast majority of people are not home owners is fundamentally broken.
Here's one: I can rent an apartment that has everything I need for half to 3/4's of the price of a home.
Here's two: I can rent a place even when my credit is not so good (because I'm a fucking flake who can't figure out how to budget), and the person renting the place will probably be okay when they have to kick me out. The same is less true in a homeowner situation.
So, if the bank says you are good for a $100,000 loan, with a payback rate of $200/month, you have no responsibility to mention that your budget only has $100 of free cash to pay the thing back? I'm not sure I understand your point, but if you are absolving the person receiving the loan from the responsibility to consider whether or not they can cover the costs of the loan, then I'd suggest that you reconsider. And to be clear - of course the lender has that responsibility too.
You are making an assumption about me that isn't true. I don't have a college level education in a numerically-oriented field. The paperwork spelled out different scenarios, based on the variable rate. It's the fucking law. And it was right there, in black in white, no math required. So yeah, the average ninth grader who ACTUALLY GLANCED at the paperwork would be able to understand, in my opinion. Have you seen this paperwork? And yes, the brokers definitely took advantage. I'm just suggesting that we don't buy the "I was fooled, but anyone would have been!" bullshit defenses that I've seen reported on the news by people who took these variable rate mortgages and who I (and you, and our children, indefinitely) will be bailing out.
Variable rate mortgages aren't really all that hard to understand - it doesn't take an expert to understand that when things go bad, your rates will go up - perhaps to unaffordable levels. I've seen the friggin' paperwork - it's just not that hard to understand, if you bother reading what you are signing - AT ALL. Blaming the mortgage broker alone is silly.
How much its going to cost the government to enforce these new rules over the next ten years? Is it going to be anywhere near 210 billion? Did ya'all notice that it's 210 billion spread out over TEN years? Otherwise, if you wanted to look at our yearly income - we are talking a $1,023,739,000,000 (approx) in total tax revenue a year - and we are talking about increasing that by about $21,000,000,000. That's about 2%, if I've got my math right. So, again, how much will the enforcement of these new rules cost, per year?
If the federal government is paying for your roads (outside of the interstate highways) and your fire department and things like it, then fuck yeah - my federal income tax sure as hell better not be paying for those things.
The frackin' thing was someone's idea of a good photo shoot! Can I please have your resignation, NOW!!??
CNN Story
Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, apologized for the confusion Monday.
"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision," he said. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption."
We would HAVE health care, pensions and a social safety net, except we SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY - so they are endangered.
So, what, your idea is to spend more money? The real question is - how are we supposed to pay for increased spending when we are already borrowing money to cover our current expenses?
Infragistics - no. Crystal Reports - yes. I've never had any trouble getting support for some really crazy, f-dup things I needed to figure out with Crystal. Their support site sucks - sure - but I can still find my answer, using one of the above methods (from my original post)
I call complete B.S. Closed support means the following:
1. Google your support. It's every frickin' where.
2. Go to the support forum for the closed source software. They usually have ones that don't have any real tech support helping. These are often as good as any open sourced ones I've seen.
3. Go to the support forum that you have access to as a licensed customer. This has developers and tech support on it. Often much better than #2.
4. Call, email, or live chat.
Get over the crap people, and be honest. It's better to extol the true values of open source software than to make up bullshit. I hate it when liars agree with me - you always make my side look like crap.
Slashdot Mirror
No sane person from Oregon would disagree. After all, we want to discourage more idiots from moving here.
I think we should all apply, then sue as a group. Who is with me?
If they are able to hire people with these policies, then they are hiring people that they deserve, and those being hired are getting what they deserve. I honestly cannot envision going into a job interview and writing down, on a piece of paper that will end up who knows where, all of my user names and passwords, for every account I have on the Internet. I have trouble envisioning the idiots who would do so, but I'm guessing they look like the people who came up with this policy. And they deserve each other.
So, when Microsoft allows the same for the Windows 7 install CD, will all your objections die, or will you find new ones?
Call times are a good place to start. They point out likely problems. The issue here was that the manager didn't realize the purpose of the metric - and used it incorrectly. As I'm sure you know, the flag should cause the manager to monitor your calls. If your calls are good, and under five minutes, then a note should be added, that removes you from the flagging for awhile. That way the manager can concentrate on the other issues until they have time to check you out again - and they SHOULD check you out again, if you continue to be flagged. And that should be transparent to you, unless you are screwing up. It's simple, but that doesn't mean you are working for managers that are well trained on their tools - no more than some of your coworkers were trained on theirs.
This shouldn't be moderated as funny - it's insightful. How long does it take for people to realize that trend lines like this are completely bogus? How many failed predictions does it take? There is NO HISTORY that is being projected here. If you take the equivalent of two points of data to make a line - that's not a prediction. That's not a trend line that should be paid attention to - and yet we do, every frickin' day. Wise up, people - the only reason people do this is to "create a news story".
If you don't consider these part of the energy problem, then you need to re-examine your assumptions. You are also very likely an engineer. :)
This is a well thought out reply, and I particularly appreciate the last paragraph - I think that is an actual thoughtful response - can we block types of ads? That would certainly solve my grievance with the things. However, I can't say I agree with your response - regardless of the amount of effort you put into it. You brought up the primary reason - the tag will get copied, and it will become a race between modifying the "law and the hacker" - and as always, the hacker will win. That means we've got a potentially useful tool (one I don't use - I don't think it's the best for the purpose) that is suddenly completely useless. Additionally - while I take your point regarding the "extra reminder" for those who forget to unblock ads at sites where they would be happy to fork over bandwidth in order to give the site some revenue - it still seems damn silly. In order to fix what is really a discipline problem, we now invalidate the purpose of the original program. I'd suggest that, again, your solution in the last paragraph of your response is massively more appropriate - and that other solutions can be arrived at that are better conceived as well. This one stinks.
If I wanted to see ads... I wouldn't block them. This feature seems redundant.
Next, we are going to see a new feature to our javascript blocker that asks us if we are sure we want to block access to javascript for a given site, "cause they really, really want it!"
Please see my response to an almost identical statement: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1223111&cid=27838409
Please read my post that you responded to again. Where do I say that you shouldn't blame the mortgage broker?
*laugh*
Here's one: I can rent an apartment that has everything I need for half to 3/4's of the price of a home.
Here's two: I can rent a place even when my credit is not so good (because I'm a fucking flake who can't figure out how to budget), and the person renting the place will probably be okay when they have to kick me out. The same is less true in a homeowner situation.
Do I need to continue?
So, if the bank says you are good for a $100,000 loan, with a payback rate of $200/month, you have no responsibility to mention that your budget only has $100 of free cash to pay the thing back? I'm not sure I understand your point, but if you are absolving the person receiving the loan from the responsibility to consider whether or not they can cover the costs of the loan, then I'd suggest that you reconsider. And to be clear - of course the lender has that responsibility too.
You are making an assumption about me that isn't true. I don't have a college level education in a numerically-oriented field. The paperwork spelled out different scenarios, based on the variable rate. It's the fucking law. And it was right there, in black in white, no math required. So yeah, the average ninth grader who ACTUALLY GLANCED at the paperwork would be able to understand, in my opinion. Have you seen this paperwork? And yes, the brokers definitely took advantage. I'm just suggesting that we don't buy the "I was fooled, but anyone would have been!" bullshit defenses that I've seen reported on the news by people who took these variable rate mortgages and who I (and you, and our children, indefinitely) will be bailing out.
Variable rate mortgages aren't really all that hard to understand - it doesn't take an expert to understand that when things go bad, your rates will go up - perhaps to unaffordable levels. I've seen the friggin' paperwork - it's just not that hard to understand, if you bother reading what you are signing - AT ALL. Blaming the mortgage broker alone is silly.
Good point!
And that, as I said, is fucked up.
How much its going to cost the government to enforce these new rules over the next ten years? Is it going to be anywhere near 210 billion? Did ya'all notice that it's 210 billion spread out over TEN years? Otherwise, if you wanted to look at our yearly income - we are talking a $1,023,739,000,000 (approx) in total tax revenue a year - and we are talking about increasing that by about $21,000,000,000. That's about 2%, if I've got my math right. So, again, how much will the enforcement of these new rules cost, per year?
Okay, Mr. Strawman - show me one "anti-tax" argument that says there should: (1) be no taxes; (2) be wars fought by our country.
If the federal government is paying for your roads (outside of the interstate highways) and your fire department and things like it, then fuck yeah - my federal income tax sure as hell better not be paying for those things.
CNN Story
We would HAVE health care, pensions and a social safety net, except we SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY - so they are endangered.
So, what, your idea is to spend more money? The real question is - how are we supposed to pay for increased spending when we are already borrowing money to cover our current expenses?
Infragistics - no. Crystal Reports - yes. I've never had any trouble getting support for some really crazy, f-dup things I needed to figure out with Crystal. Their support site sucks - sure - but I can still find my answer, using one of the above methods (from my original post)
I call complete B.S. Closed support means the following:
1. Google your support. It's every frickin' where.
2. Go to the support forum for the closed source software. They usually have ones that don't have any real tech support helping. These are often as good as any open sourced ones I've seen.
3. Go to the support forum that you have access to as a licensed customer. This has developers and tech support on it. Often much better than #2.
4. Call, email, or live chat.
Get over the crap people, and be honest. It's better to extol the true values of open source software than to make up bullshit. I hate it when liars agree with me - you always make my side look like crap.