As I'm sure you've figured out, if you're in such an environment, the only way to deal with this is to realize that the people who will legitimately give you shit (as opposed to teasing you in a friendly manner) are people who just aren't worth caring about. I mean, yes. There are assholes in the world. You may have no choice but to work for/with some of these losers, but they're obviously losers, and so their opinions have no value. You can't let your sense of self-worth be tied to the opinion of people who are themselves worthless.
Well, depending on who the aggressor and who the target, you could potentially use an agent which the overwhelming majority of your population is already inoculated against, but which the majority of the target population is not.
Or, if you are more of a terror group (or don't care about your population) just inoculate yourself and don't worry about "collateral damage"
Employers never offered retirement plans that took care of employees.
many of them still do to this day...
Employers never paid for medical care.
many of them still do to this day...
Most manufactured retail goods were always imported. ...US-made stuff is still available... it's just neither as cheap as the cheap foreign stuff nor as good as the good foreign stuff
College educations at state schools were never free. No, though they were pretty darn cheap until the last 5-7 years.
When I set up my utilities, they all asked for my SSN.
The gas company and the phone company both told me that providing it was optional. BUT, if I didn't provide it, they would not run a credit check on me, and so would require a $250 cash deposit (interesting that both companies had $250 as the deposit amount) before connecting service, to remain in their possession until I canceled service upon moving out.
I was glad that I had the option, and I thought it was most honest and upfront of them to tell me my choices.
I elected to let them run the credit check, but I appreciated having the option.
I find that when I'm out interviewing, I usually ask my questions during the "body" of the interview -- when I think of them (usually when something the interviewer says prompts me to ask something).
So, when I get to the "do you have any questions" part, I often can't think of anything else that I haven't already asked. This, plus the fact that frankly I already have a lot to digest, plus the general effect of nerves pushing stuff out of my head all makes it really hard.
I have two general strategies here which have worked passably for me. Of course, if I have any remaining questions to mind, I ask them. When I do, they are usually the best questions to ask.
But, for when I'm drawing a blank:
Strategy One: Before the interview, I think up 2-3 questions that should be legitimate questions in most situations. Questions about the company as a whole, the business strategy, the department... something that I should be able to ask. Then I write them in my notebook, and make a point not to ask them earlier. Thus, if I can't think of anything, I've got something of acceptable quality to ask. I try not to have to look in my notebook, but knowing they are there just in case helps me be less nervous, and I usually don't have to look.
Strategy Two: A long interview leaves you with lots to digest. So, when I'm done I always say that I have no questions *at the moment*, but that I might have more questions later, after I've had a chance to think through everything some more. I always ask if I can / how to send those questions later. Then I go home and make it a point to send at least one or two interesting questions after a few days. This has the added bonus of showing that I'm still thinking about the position / still interested (if I am... if I'm not, I won't usually bother with the follow-up questions), and also of reminding the employer that I'm still here / still interested at a time when they might be busy thinking about other applicants.
It's worked for me. If it does nothing else, it makes me feel less nervous about that part of the interview, which makes me sound more comfortable, more interesting, and less awkward.
Cost for parts to make 100x 10ft Cat6 yellow (stranded, rated for in-wall install): $124.92
---
Cost for 1 10ft Cat6 yellow cable (24AWG Stranded, rated for in-wall install): $1.22 (qty > 50), x100 = $122.00
---
No matter how fast you can make 'em, you can't make 'em cheaper yourself.
If you bought their cheaper bulk cable (23AWG solid), you'd save $17.60. Then, if you could make all 100 cables in an hour, and you made less than about $15/hr (including overhead), it would be cheaper to make your own.
Realistically, its cheaper to buy big piles of all the lengths you're likely to need, unless you go through enough cable to buy 20+ boxes at a time. And even then...
(I picked 10ft semi-randomly... the numbers might vary slightly if you did a different length, I don't know)
The result of the lawsuit was that Microsoft (or Dell, I forget which, now) was required to allow a user that didn't agree to the EULA for pre-installed windows to be able to "return" the copy of windows for a refund.
There was a lawsuit about this already, if I recall.
The issue here is the first sale doctrine, which essentially says that once the initial transaction has been completed, the terms cannot be changed without your consent.
Since you bought the software before viewing (let alone agreeing to) the licensing terms, you can not be forcibly prevented from using the software if you don't agree to additional terms presented after the fact.
HOWEVER, some software (like all MS software) says ON THE BOX that there are significant terms and conditions of use that you must agree to before you will be allowed to use the software, but that you may receive a full refund if you do not agree to them.
The lawsuit was regarding a copy of Windows preinstalled on a Dell PC, so this part wasn't part of the lawsuit. It is arguable that this notice would be sufficient.
Certainly, if it were not sufficient, Microsoft could mandate that stores keep copies of the EULA available as part of the retail sales display, and the box could inform customers that they must agree to the terms & conditions prior to use. That would almost certainly be acceptable, at least insofar as first-sale is concerned.
At least according to my untrained understanding of the legal issues...
{ // If the array is full, then expand it (or fail if we can't)
if(full())
{
if(expandable())
expand();
else
throw range_error("The array is full, but we can't expand it");
}
//add the new item to the position after the current last element //and make lastElement point at the new element
array[++lastElement] = newElement;
}
because the comments in example #1 are in a different language than the code...
If I could read all C++ code snippets and instantly understand the purpose and nuances, then comments (including the ASSERT()s would be totally unnecessary, since the code itself would tell me the purpose and all of the details.
Because, however, I can't always figure out exactly what's going on in the C++ code, I prefer to have comments that, typically in more informal and higher-level terms, explain to me the sense of what's going on, pointing out any unexpected but important details.
If the code is simple enough to be self-documenting... then it doesn't need "documentation" in the form of extra code to get in the way. If, on the other hand, documentation is necessary, then comments in english are better than ASSERT()s which could be just as confusing, or hide just as much complexity, as the rest of the code.
At the same time, however, these fraudulent transactions were in fact made without permission of the account holder, and banks claim to guarantee protection against that.
Otherwise, I could print a book of checks for your account and write checks, and it'd be your fault for giving me the info to make that possible (even though a check is sufficient info).
The bank promises that only transactions actually authorized by you will be applied. The fact that someone has figured out how to trick the bank in to thinking they're talking to you does not imply that you authorized the transactions, although what you did might be exceptionally stupid.
right, because the government running schools has led to things working nicely.
Take your all-non-government-entities-are-in-it-to-fuck-us-a ll theories back to your ivory tower, while the rest of us deal with how it plays out in reality.
That sounds very good, however you might want to think about these two facts, and how they interact:
1: All software has some number of bugs.
2: A VM is a piece of software
--
Also realize that in order to be effective, each such piece of software would have to execute inside its own VM in complete isolation from other applications... no IPC, no shared memory, no networking -- after all, a bug in one application could be exploited by a "properly" invalid network request... While highly secure, this is not the most useful of configurations...
Perhaps I'm being unimaginative, but I can't invision anything that the use of fossil fuels could reasonably be expected to cause that would cause devastation lasting a quarter million years...
(because even over the short run, it is virtually guaranteed that there would be accidents such as the ones I described)
I'm just concerned that one such accident (of either sort) could cause terrible damage... and that people like to gloss over that when talking about how "clean" nuclear power is...
Entirely ignoring the "security" considerations, what could happen if one barrel full of high-level radioactive waste was washed into a river because the truck carrying it drove off the road...
How do you propose to get 100% of that material into these underground vaults without ever *ever* having one of the vehicles carrying the stuff get into an accident...
How do you propose to guarantee that the material stays there until the year 252006?
Slashdot Mirror
As I'm sure you've figured out, if you're in such an environment, the only way to deal with this is to realize that the people who will legitimately give you shit (as opposed to teasing you in a friendly manner) are people who just aren't worth caring about. I mean, yes. There are assholes in the world. You may have no choice but to work for/with some of these losers, but they're obviously losers, and so their opinions have no value. You can't let your sense of self-worth be tied to the opinion of people who are themselves worthless.
Personally, I've never heard of this. But do you really want to gamble with your career? /rimshot
I get the pun, but...
Realistically, whatever decisions you make regarding your career are made without foreknowledge of how they'll turn out.
No matter what you do, you're gambling with your career. Short of not having one, anyway.
Or, I guess you could say "You can't win if you don't play"
Well, depending on who the aggressor and who the target, you could potentially use an agent which the overwhelming majority of your population is already inoculated against, but which the majority of the target population is not.
Or, if you are more of a terror group (or don't care about your population) just inoculate yourself and don't worry about "collateral damage"
Not if you build back on the same lot, they won't.
Employers never offered retirement plans that took care of employees.
many of them still do to this day...
Employers never paid for medical care.
many of them still do to this day...
Most manufactured retail goods were always imported.
College educations at state schools were never free.
No, though they were pretty darn cheap until the last 5-7 years.
It was probably true then too.
When I set up my utilities, they all asked for my SSN.
The gas company and the phone company both told me that providing it was optional. BUT, if I didn't provide it, they would not run a credit check on me, and so would require a $250 cash deposit (interesting that both companies had $250 as the deposit amount) before connecting service, to remain in their possession until I canceled service upon moving out.
I was glad that I had the option, and I thought it was most honest and upfront of them to tell me my choices.
I elected to let them run the credit check, but I appreciated having the option.
though the fact that the jail population keeps increasing indicates that even the jails don't stop the crime.
The reason that I don't steal from my employer is not that I could be punished.
It's because I don't steal. Or, rather, because theft is dishonest and wrong.
I find that when I'm out interviewing, I usually ask my questions during the "body" of the interview -- when I think of them (usually when something the interviewer says prompts me to ask something).
So, when I get to the "do you have any questions" part, I often can't think of anything else that I haven't already asked. This, plus the fact that frankly I already have a lot to digest, plus the general effect of nerves pushing stuff out of my head all makes it really hard.
I have two general strategies here which have worked passably for me. Of course, if I have any remaining questions to mind, I ask them. When I do, they are usually the best questions to ask.
But, for when I'm drawing a blank:
Strategy One: Before the interview, I think up 2-3 questions that should be legitimate questions in most situations. Questions about the company as a whole, the business strategy, the department... something that I should be able to ask. Then I write them in my notebook, and make a point not to ask them earlier. Thus, if I can't think of anything, I've got something of acceptable quality to ask. I try not to have to look in my notebook, but knowing they are there just in case helps me be less nervous, and I usually don't have to look.
Strategy Two: A long interview leaves you with lots to digest. So, when I'm done I always say that I have no questions *at the moment*, but that I might have more questions later, after I've had a chance to think through everything some more. I always ask if I can / how to send those questions later. Then I go home and make it a point to send at least one or two interesting questions after a few days. This has the added bonus of showing that I'm still thinking about the position / still interested (if I am... if I'm not, I won't usually bother with the follow-up questions), and also of reminding the employer that I'm still here / still interested at a time when they might be busy thinking about other applicants.
It's worked for me. If it does nothing else, it makes me feel less nervous about that part of the interview, which makes me sound more comfortable, more interesting, and less awkward.
Prices from Monoprice:
1000ft box, Cat 6 cable, stranded, rated for in-wall installation (24AWG): $92.00 ($0.092/ft)
Cat6 plug for stranded. 100pcs: $12.60. qty discount $12.06 x2 for 100 cables = $24.12.
RJ-45 boots, yellow, 50pcs: $2.31. $2.20 with qty discount x4 (100 cables) = $8.80
Cost for parts to make 100x 10ft Cat6 yellow (stranded, rated for in-wall install): $124.92
---
Cost for 1 10ft Cat6 yellow cable (24AWG Stranded, rated for in-wall install): $1.22 (qty > 50), x100 = $122.00
---
No matter how fast you can make 'em, you can't make 'em cheaper yourself.
If you bought their cheaper bulk cable (23AWG solid), you'd save $17.60. Then, if you could make all 100 cables in an hour, and you made less than about $15/hr (including overhead), it would be cheaper to make your own.
Realistically, its cheaper to buy big piles of all the lengths you're likely to need, unless you go through enough cable to buy 20+ boxes at a time. And even then...
(I picked 10ft semi-randomly... the numbers might vary slightly if you did a different length, I don't know)
wait, I missed something.
The result of the lawsuit was that Microsoft (or Dell, I forget which, now) was required to allow a user that didn't agree to the EULA for pre-installed windows to be able to "return" the copy of windows for a refund.
There was a lawsuit about this already, if I recall.
The issue here is the first sale doctrine, which essentially says that once the initial transaction has been completed, the terms cannot be changed without your consent.
Since you bought the software before viewing (let alone agreeing to) the licensing terms, you can not be forcibly prevented from using the software if you don't agree to additional terms presented after the fact.
HOWEVER, some software (like all MS software) says ON THE BOX that there are significant terms and conditions of use that you must agree to before you will be allowed to use the software, but that you may receive a full refund if you do not agree to them.
The lawsuit was regarding a copy of Windows preinstalled on a Dell PC, so this part wasn't part of the lawsuit. It is arguable that this notice would be sufficient.
Certainly, if it were not sufficient, Microsoft could mandate that stores keep copies of the EULA available as part of the retail sales display, and the box could inform customers that they must agree to the terms & conditions prior to use. That would almost certainly be acceptable, at least insofar as first-sale is concerned.
At least according to my untrained understanding of the legal issues...
stuff copies of it in a file called "robots.txt" and serve it up over http on loopback.
After all, it's the responsibility of the writer of the robot to check for permission in robots.txt before performing operations on the server, right?
Personally, I'd rather read instead of because the comments in example #1 are in a different language than the code...
If I could read all C++ code snippets and instantly understand the purpose and nuances, then comments (including the ASSERT()s would be totally unnecessary, since the code itself would tell me the purpose and all of the details.
Because, however, I can't always figure out exactly what's going on in the C++ code, I prefer to have comments that, typically in more informal and higher-level terms, explain to me the sense of what's going on, pointing out any unexpected but important details.
If the code is simple enough to be self-documenting... then it doesn't need "documentation" in the form of extra code to get in the way. If, on the other hand, documentation is necessary, then comments in english are better than ASSERT()s which could be just as confusing, or hide just as much complexity, as the rest of the code.
At the same time, however, these fraudulent transactions were in fact made without permission of the account holder, and banks claim to guarantee protection against that.
Otherwise, I could print a book of checks for your account and write checks, and it'd be your fault for giving me the info to make that possible (even though a check is sufficient info).
The bank promises that only transactions actually authorized by you will be applied. The fact that someone has figured out how to trick the bank in to thinking they're talking to you does not imply that you authorized the transactions, although what you did might be exceptionally stupid.
right, because the government running schools has led to things working nicely.
a ll theories back to your ivory tower, while the rest of us deal with how it plays out in reality.
Take your all-non-government-entities-are-in-it-to-fuck-us-
unfortunately, that works only for the about 5% of people on the internet who have any idea what https or ssl mean...
That sounds very good, however you might want to think about these two facts, and how they interact:
1: All software has some number of bugs.
2: A VM is a piece of software
--
Also realize that in order to be effective, each such piece of software would have to execute inside its own VM in complete isolation from other applications... no IPC, no shared memory, no networking -- after all, a bug in one application could be exploited by a "properly" invalid network request... While highly secure, this is not the most useful of configurations...
may I ask, then, who is the arbiter of what constitutes a "reasonable" surcharge?
If you do not benefit from the transaction, why do you engage in it?
Perhaps I'm being unimaginative, but I can't invision anything that the use of fossil fuels could reasonably be expected to cause that would cause devastation lasting a quarter million years...
(because even over the short run, it is virtually guaranteed that there would be accidents such as the ones I described)
I'm just concerned that one such accident (of either sort) could cause terrible damage... and that people like to gloss over that when talking about how "clean" nuclear power is...
Entirely ignoring the "security" considerations, what could happen if one barrel full of high-level radioactive waste was washed into a river because the truck carrying it drove off the road...
How do you propose to get 100% of that material into these underground vaults without ever *ever* having one of the vehicles carrying the stuff get into an accident...
How do you propose to guarantee that the material stays there until the year 252006?
because producing waste products that aren't safe to be around for 250,000 years is definitely cleaner than producing some CO2.