I love how a lot of employers look for someone who has been in jobs for a long period of time, but they're not about to keep you employed for a long period of time.
That is the type of job that does not belong on a technical resume. If it is not relevant to the job you are applying for, either leave it off or include some very good explaination for it that ties in with the fact that you are making a career change and are super motivated to get into you new field, or something along those lines. There are a lot of managers and even more HR people who think along these lines.
No, but he could get a new phone in his name and transfer the old number to it. Then the phone account could be transferred into your name, with the appropriate documentation.
This is why the US Justice Department actively opposes all review of studies that determined marijuana is harmful. The last thing they would want is for their 'facts' to be debunked.
Back in the day when I paid bills by mail, I would stuff all that garbage in the envelope and send it back to them so some minimum wage mailroom employee could throw it away for me.
A candidate can make the world look as rosy as they want to on their own website. You could read just about any candidate's own position statements and come away with a great impression of them, if that is your only source of information about them. Nobody runs for public office without claiming to stand for freedom, justice, taking care of Americans, bla bla bla. Even Al Sharpton claims he would "take back our country".
Dean is just too far out there for most people. The most important issue to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not, is national security. Dean has made it perfectly clear that he does not see terrorism as any real threat, and I have no doubt that if he were president when 9/11 happened, he would expect the UN to handle it. As for Dean and the Patriot Act, he can just thank his lucky stars that he didn't have to vote on it, because there's no way he has the guts to be one of the very few to vote against it. Any politician who rails against Bush for the Patriot Act is a hypocrit, since they voted for it.
Then there is the economy. Dean would do one of two things. Business as usual, or try to enact regulations that strangle economic growth under the guise of helping the people. This of course would cause even more unemployment as businesses would have difficulty expanding. As Vermont governor, Dean was Mr. Special Interests himself, although he is really hoping people won't remember this.
I'm not saying Dean has no redeeming qualities, and his idealism is encouraging in a way. Its just that it won't get him elected. People realize that his idealistic answers to complex social problems will not make things better. He would be much like Jimmy Carter if elected; meaning well, but falling way short. Dean simply does not connect well with the average American voter, and that is showing in the polls.
As an aside for slashdotters, anyone who is in the tech industry should never even consider supporting Dean. Do you want someone in office who even has the idea that people should be electronically and uniqely tracked whenever they use any computer? That combined with his anti-business attitude will kill the American tech industry.
Dean's support being eroded by the scream is a myth. He never really had all that much support. Remember the scream came AFTER losing the Iowa primary by quite a lot of votes. Dean made a lot of money early on, but pretty soon all the people who were going to donate money on the internet had donated already. His actual numbers were pretty low, in spite of media hype. Its not surprising, considering Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue.
Can I drive around in a truck with a loudspeaker on the roof making political speeches all night long in your neighborhood? It is not unconstitutional to have SOME restrictions on political speech. If the speech is made in a way that constitutes a public nuisance, it can certainly be restricted. Sending email in a manner that uses other peoples' resources without compensation, as spammers typically do, can and should be outlawed along with other spam. If candidates want to send email using equipment or services that they pay for, and using a reasonable unsubscribe policy, that probably could not be prohibited. Just like any other form of communication, some reasonable restrictions are constitutional, but a blanket ban would not be.
Funny how its easy to turn off images in Outlook Express, but not in the full version of Outlook (the one you actually pay for). I just looked in all the menus for about 10 minutes, and it seems like there is no option to not load images or HTML in email. Somebody please prove me wrong!
Re:The tale of Ray Diosack and Mike Rocenter
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 1
If my company hired this guy, they just might have to change their policy of always using first initial and last name for email addresses.
Microsoft knows better than to try to patent XML itself. That would not stand up even with the U.S. patent office in its current state. Instead, they will patent many aspects and possible uses of XML so there will be no practical method to use XML in a meaningful way without infringing a Microsoft patent.
What will they do with all of those patents years from now when they have lost, or are about to lose, their monopoly on the desktop after some powerful new competitor emerges? Introducing Microsoft's newest division, MSSource!
Think of all the buggy and whip makers the automobile put out of work. I know this is a very tired old example, but its obvious some people need to hear it again. The parent poster obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word PROGRESS.
I don't see things going that far in the western world, however I could easily see temporary wartime censorship of the internet if there were a major terrorist attack larger than 9/11, for example. Considering the censorship that occurred during the world wars, its not unthinkable at all.
When I was a senior in high school and visiting colleges to decide which one to go to, I was at Indiana University taking the campus tour. A student was leading a group of us around campus and was talking about what the dorms are like. Someone in the group asked if the dorms were wired for high speed internet access, this being back in the day when not all schools had this yet. The girl said that they didn't have the internet, but they had the ethernet, which she said was just as good. Most of the people in the group had to try hard to suppress a laugh after that. I think she was a psych major, go figure.
Its amazing how much privacy some professors at public universities often feel they are entitled to have. I'm not saying all professors are like this, but some have this superiority attitude where they feel completely accountable to nobody. They don't want criticism of them or their classes made available to the student body. They don't want anyone making lecture notes available outside the classroom. They won't change aspects of their class that students and/or administrators dislike. And to top it off, they feel that material they develop on the university's dime is their own property. Someone needs to remind these jokers they are paid by public funding and student tuition, so they are accountable to both of those groups.
With our society relying on more digitized information all the time, it is not practical to make it all inadmissable as evidence. There's no way in the world that you could prosecute computer crime or for that matter almost any fraud without digital evidence. As for the photo example, non digital photos can be doctored as well. For example, you could doctor a photo digitally, recapture the picture with film and develop the non-digital photo of the digitally altered image. If its done well, it would be very hard to detect. Bottom line is, we need better evidence authentication, not exclusion of all digital evidence.
Good thing you got out when you did. The way I see it, people who own any valuable IP that they're worried about a company taking are probably skilled enough to find new work without a problem.
Wow, dude. You sure do have some valuable experience with IP issues. This is a textbook case of why you need to be careful about this stuff. Too bad you had such poor luck with some of your earlier clients. If there's one thing I've decided, based on lots of evidence, I will never work for families.
This lawyer sounds like a real whack job. Was his name Lionel Hutz, by chance? You can't agree to something like this by default. Especially in a situation where someone is asking you to sign a document with possibly illegal terms that ask you to give up some of your legal rights. Either you signed it or you didn't. If default agreements were permitted, you could get people to 'agree' to all kinds of things that they didn't even realize.
I'll have to disagree. When European countries started losing world market share, they reacted by creating more social programs which required higher taxes and more business-unfriendly policies to sustain. This drove many companies out of these countries. I don't see the United States taking this approach, and I think they'll be better off for it. Remember, the majority of the money made by companies with most of their operations in the U.S. is still coming back to the U.S.
Assuming this is all true, why don't you write the ACLU and ask them why they have not been suing on behalf of people who were actually denied their free speech rights? I'm quite sure they would have done so if they really had a case.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how a lot of employers look for someone who has been in jobs for a long period of time, but they're not about to keep you employed for a long period of time.
That is the type of job that does not belong on a technical resume. If it is not relevant to the job you are applying for, either leave it off or include some very good explaination for it that ties in with the fact that you are making a career change and are super motivated to get into you new field, or something along those lines. There are a lot of managers and even more HR people who think along these lines.
No, but he could get a new phone in his name and transfer the old number to it. Then the phone account could be transferred into your name, with the appropriate documentation.
This is why the US Justice Department actively opposes all review of studies that determined marijuana is harmful. The last thing they would want is for their 'facts' to be debunked.
A fool and his (or her) money are soon parted. This is a fundamental truth, no matter how many laws are passed.
Back in the day when I paid bills by mail, I would stuff all that garbage in the envelope and send it back to them so some minimum wage mailroom employee could throw it away for me.
A candidate can make the world look as rosy as they want to on their own website. You could read just about any candidate's own position statements and come away with a great impression of them, if that is your only source of information about them. Nobody runs for public office without claiming to stand for freedom, justice, taking care of Americans, bla bla bla. Even Al Sharpton claims he would "take back our country". Dean is just too far out there for most people. The most important issue to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not, is national security. Dean has made it perfectly clear that he does not see terrorism as any real threat, and I have no doubt that if he were president when 9/11 happened, he would expect the UN to handle it. As for Dean and the Patriot Act, he can just thank his lucky stars that he didn't have to vote on it, because there's no way he has the guts to be one of the very few to vote against it. Any politician who rails against Bush for the Patriot Act is a hypocrit, since they voted for it. Then there is the economy. Dean would do one of two things. Business as usual, or try to enact regulations that strangle economic growth under the guise of helping the people. This of course would cause even more unemployment as businesses would have difficulty expanding. As Vermont governor, Dean was Mr. Special Interests himself, although he is really hoping people won't remember this. I'm not saying Dean has no redeeming qualities, and his idealism is encouraging in a way. Its just that it won't get him elected. People realize that his idealistic answers to complex social problems will not make things better. He would be much like Jimmy Carter if elected; meaning well, but falling way short. Dean simply does not connect well with the average American voter, and that is showing in the polls. As an aside for slashdotters, anyone who is in the tech industry should never even consider supporting Dean. Do you want someone in office who even has the idea that people should be electronically and uniqely tracked whenever they use any computer? That combined with his anti-business attitude will kill the American tech industry.
Dean's support being eroded by the scream is a myth. He never really had all that much support. Remember the scream came AFTER losing the Iowa primary by quite a lot of votes. Dean made a lot of money early on, but pretty soon all the people who were going to donate money on the internet had donated already. His actual numbers were pretty low, in spite of media hype. Its not surprising, considering Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue.
Can I drive around in a truck with a loudspeaker on the roof making political speeches all night long in your neighborhood? It is not unconstitutional to have SOME restrictions on political speech. If the speech is made in a way that constitutes a public nuisance, it can certainly be restricted. Sending email in a manner that uses other peoples' resources without compensation, as spammers typically do, can and should be outlawed along with other spam. If candidates want to send email using equipment or services that they pay for, and using a reasonable unsubscribe policy, that probably could not be prohibited. Just like any other form of communication, some reasonable restrictions are constitutional, but a blanket ban would not be.
Funny how its easy to turn off images in Outlook Express, but not in the full version of Outlook (the one you actually pay for). I just looked in all the menus for about 10 minutes, and it seems like there is no option to not load images or HTML in email. Somebody please prove me wrong!
If my company hired this guy, they just might have to change their policy of always using first initial and last name for email addresses.
Microsoft knows better than to try to patent XML itself. That would not stand up even with the U.S. patent office in its current state. Instead, they will patent many aspects and possible uses of XML so there will be no practical method to use XML in a meaningful way without infringing a Microsoft patent.
What will they do with all of those patents years from now when they have lost, or are about to lose, their monopoly on the desktop after some powerful new competitor emerges? Introducing Microsoft's newest division, MSSource!
Remember who the parent company was, at that time.
Think of all the buggy and whip makers the automobile put out of work. I know this is a very tired old example, but its obvious some people need to hear it again. The parent poster obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word PROGRESS.
I don't see things going that far in the western world, however I could easily see temporary wartime censorship of the internet if there were a major terrorist attack larger than 9/11, for example. Considering the censorship that occurred during the world wars, its not unthinkable at all.
When I was a senior in high school and visiting colleges to decide which one to go to, I was at Indiana University taking the campus tour. A student was leading a group of us around campus and was talking about what the dorms are like. Someone in the group asked if the dorms were wired for high speed internet access, this being back in the day when not all schools had this yet. The girl said that they didn't have the internet, but they had the ethernet, which she said was just as good. Most of the people in the group had to try hard to suppress a laugh after that. I think she was a psych major, go figure.
Its amazing how much privacy some professors at public universities often feel they are entitled to have. I'm not saying all professors are like this, but some have this superiority attitude where they feel completely accountable to nobody. They don't want criticism of them or their classes made available to the student body. They don't want anyone making lecture notes available outside the classroom. They won't change aspects of their class that students and/or administrators dislike. And to top it off, they feel that material they develop on the university's dime is their own property. Someone needs to remind these jokers they are paid by public funding and student tuition, so they are accountable to both of those groups.
With our society relying on more digitized information all the time, it is not practical to make it all inadmissable as evidence. There's no way in the world that you could prosecute computer crime or for that matter almost any fraud without digital evidence. As for the photo example, non digital photos can be doctored as well. For example, you could doctor a photo digitally, recapture the picture with film and develop the non-digital photo of the digitally altered image. If its done well, it would be very hard to detect. Bottom line is, we need better evidence authentication, not exclusion of all digital evidence.
Good thing you got out when you did. The way I see it, people who own any valuable IP that they're worried about a company taking are probably skilled enough to find new work without a problem.
Wow, dude. You sure do have some valuable experience with IP issues. This is a textbook case of why you need to be careful about this stuff. Too bad you had such poor luck with some of your earlier clients. If there's one thing I've decided, based on lots of evidence, I will never work for families.
This lawyer sounds like a real whack job. Was his name Lionel Hutz, by chance? You can't agree to something like this by default. Especially in a situation where someone is asking you to sign a document with possibly illegal terms that ask you to give up some of your legal rights. Either you signed it or you didn't. If default agreements were permitted, you could get people to 'agree' to all kinds of things that they didn't even realize.
I'll have to disagree. When European countries started losing world market share, they reacted by creating more social programs which required higher taxes and more business-unfriendly policies to sustain. This drove many companies out of these countries. I don't see the United States taking this approach, and I think they'll be better off for it. Remember, the majority of the money made by companies with most of their operations in the U.S. is still coming back to the U.S.
I'd be curious to see where you get these 'one half' numbers from. And what country are you talking about?
Assuming this is all true, why don't you write the ACLU and ask them why they have not been suing on behalf of people who were actually denied their free speech rights? I'm quite sure they would have done so if they really had a case.