Some people interview poorly. Give them a problem to solve and a few hours alone and look at the output. It's probably a better way to interview.
I honestly fail at interviewing for programming positions. I just fail at being asked the difference between methods, or what arguments X function takes, etc. I'm a plotting, methodical, researching, developer. Give me a weekend to write you a small application and then spend the interview asking me to defend my design decisions and I think you will see the real level of my skill (for good or bad). Dump me in a meeting and fire questions about obscure (I know your questions above were not that obscure) like most interviewers do and I come off like an idiot.
No amount of training can allow you to have a reasonable chance of shooting someone without killing them. It is simply impossible. Especially under duress like a police officer would be when he needs to take a shot.
My point is that any form of police that trains to shoot to disable are complete morons. This is a impossible and irresponsible and unsafe way to train. No one trains like this. You shoot to hit the largest and easiest thing you can. This is because when you are under stress you lack fine muscle control needed to shoot a gun out of your foes hands.
As evidence, I submit the countless articles of police that fire dozens of rounds as a person 10-20 feet away and hit him maybe 3 times. You train to shoot to kill. This is the only responsible way to train. Thinking your shot is not without a high risk of being fatal is being irresponsible.
My whole comment is targeted at " police are trained to use them in non-fatal manners, if at all possible (i.e. to shoot legs)". Shooting the legs has no less chance of killing someone as shooting the gut, chest, head, arms, feet, hands, etc. In fact, it is probably more dangerous as you have less chance of hitting (putting others nearby at risk), less chance of stopping your attacker (putting yourself at risk), and if by some random chance you are a super soldier and can hit with any reliability you put your target at risk with a giant fucking artery running down your leg.
When you need to shoot someone, the only responsible thing to do is fucking shoot to kill.
There is no safe way to shoot a person. Any firearm that shoots bullets at a person can result in death. There is no amount of training that will allow you to safely shoot a person.
Gun makers have another problem. Guns rarely fail. I have a Mosin–Nagant from 1890's. It still works perfectly today. They are already worried about gun sales. Not because of legislation but because most gun buyers are already gun owners. They worry that eventually the market will shrink as no new buyers get into the gun ownership game.
For me, I need to know those electronics will last and work (and parts made for) the next 200 years. I want my kids to inherit my guns. Currently every firearm I own will still be functional for my great great great grandkids (as long as someone cares for them with cleaning).
There are instances where the gun didn't kill the target. But every time you pull the trigger with a life on the other side you are committing a fatal action. Shoot the leg and hit an artery, or miss and hit the gut. Shoot the shoulder and hit the heart, etc.
Honestly, I could give it a shit about gay marriage. I'm more excited that this ruling enforces that these things are really a states rights issue. This is a nice win for the states.
And this doe nothing legalizing gay marriage wouldn't do.
If the government has no say in marriage and it's a religion only thing, then there will be a church that performs gay marriage (or even a church made for that purpose entirely) and thus gay marriage is now a normal and legal.
So just fucking make it legal. That is the only obvious and simple solution.
When making a something legal or illegal imho it should only have to pass or fail a few tests.
1) Is it physically harming others? 2) Does the constitution explicitly prohibit us from making laws about it?
Why does the church get a monopoly on what is a marriage? We have secular marriage now and have had it for generations, so you want to take away my right as a straight male atheist to get married?
The church should be out of the the whole fucking thing. If they want to do 'weddings' let them, but those should hold no legal standing. Let the state do civil unions or marriages or blow jobs of convenience or whatever they want to call them.
I see no reason to not just call it marriage except to keep a bunch of people who believe in fairy tales happy.
Which still allows gays to be married. So why bother with all that PC bullshit?
If the Government says "We dont' do marriage anymore, just civil unions and marriage is now unregulated in the hands of anyone who wants to perform a 'marriage'." why even bother. Anyone anywhere can setup a group to do marriages and then go get a civil union. So they are still legalizing gay marriage.
People just need to suck it up and understand that these people are not harming anyone and should be able to live their lives as they see fit. Personal, religious, or otherwise beliefs on if being gay is right should not be involved in this simple decision.
1) Wasting the time of your admins and your staff trying to find the right person to call (unless your so tiny the "IT department" is just two guys.
2) See 1. Having help desk (aka lower paid ) spend the time getting to the actual problem frees the admin (higher pay) to spend time solving the problem.
If one guy makes 10 bucks an hour and the other 25, which one do you want to spend 4 hours on the phone vs the 1 hour fixing the problem?
3) There is no such thing as 'rights' in a job context. There are privileges. You give your workers the privilege to call someone after hours. If they are abusing that privilege (calling for frivolously things) you need to take it away. (Or shield them with a after hours help desk).
4) Upgrading needs a budget, gaps in operational time, planning, and the support the department to be upgraded. In some companies each dept has it's own budget and IT does chargebacks. This is not cut and dry. I've told my boss things have needed upgrades and been rejected due to cost. Those things failed and I was of course at fault when the issue went upstairs. It was also my fault when the CFO and her department wouldn't test the new upgrade to the finance software and we got so many releases behind it became unsupported by the vendor. Didn't matter that I had a paper trail to my boss and the CFO. I should have just 'gotten it done'.
5) I agree.
6) Obviously you don't find their time valuable. You are right, it's your time. Don't you want the most value for 'your time'? See point 2. If you are ok with paying me 100k a year to reset passwords I can start next week. If you would like me to work the hard complicated issues that require my training, focus, and experience could you at least try a little to shield me from resetting passwords?
7) You obviously don't get the point.
8) Are the provided a budget for this? Tools? Policies? Devices to train and test with? Or do you think that 'they are computer guys, they should know this shit'?
When the sysadmin is deciding how long to keep backups there is a lot more wrong then you knowing more than he does. That should be a business decision made by the company as a whole with consulting to legal.
I would never make such a decision. I'd ask my CIO to get a policy written with my input on the matter taking into consideration.
Flawed analogy. It would be like having a paycheck problem and going to the head of HR and not the minions on the payroll department first.
The helpdesk is there to filter the work that needs to get to the next tiers. Most users do not know what tier their work is on. Call help desk and if it is important a good help desk will get the admin involved asap. The help desk is trained to gather info that the users often do not have to make our lives easier. They are a vital part of the troubleshooting process.
Call me directly and I'll tell you to call the help desk (unless it just so happens that the words that came out of your mouth seem like a truely dire problem). The help desk has scripts, tools, and knowledge to decide if a) I'm the guy you should be routed to, b) they can fix the problem, or c) what I need to know to fix the problem.
If I didn't have anything better to do I'd fire the helpdesk and just answer the phone myself.
Exactly, I can't see in value in a system the way they described it.
They have a record of all people calling. They get a phone call that says A called B and A is linked to terror. They plugin A into their record and get back B. They give B to the FBI.
Why not just skip the middle and give B to the FBI.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people interview poorly. Give them a problem to solve and a few hours alone and look at the output. It's probably a better way to interview.
I honestly fail at interviewing for programming positions. I just fail at being asked the difference between methods, or what arguments X function takes, etc. I'm a plotting, methodical, researching, developer. Give me a weekend to write you a small application and then spend the interview asking me to defend my design decisions and I think you will see the real level of my skill (for good or bad). Dump me in a meeting and fire questions about obscure (I know your questions above were not that obscure) like most interviewers do and I come off like an idiot.
I did the opposite. I took double my pay to get back to market rate and in exchange I wear a monkey suit, lost my office, and work in a cube.
But at least I can afford to live now... I'd gladly take a small pay cut though to go back to wearing tshirts and having my own private area to work.
I've been mailing things for the last 7 years from my mailbox...seems to work well for me to just put the flag up.
I own this http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/8cdd/?rkgid=275668648&cpg=ogpla&source=google_pla&device=c&network=g&matchtype=&gclid=CJP-74zKyLgCFc4-MgodGFgA3g
It works, I have to take my wallet out and open it for the reader to register my card at work.
So it's quite likely I was born without original sin? Because I come from a linage that doesn't include adam and eve?
No amount of training can allow you to have a reasonable chance of shooting someone without killing them. It is simply impossible. Especially under duress like a police officer would be when he needs to take a shot.
My point is that any form of police that trains to shoot to disable are complete morons. This is a impossible and irresponsible and unsafe way to train. No one trains like this. You shoot to hit the largest and easiest thing you can. This is because when you are under stress you lack fine muscle control needed to shoot a gun out of your foes hands.
As evidence, I submit the countless articles of police that fire dozens of rounds as a person 10-20 feet away and hit him maybe 3 times. You train to shoot to kill. This is the only responsible way to train. Thinking your shot is not without a high risk of being fatal is being irresponsible.
My whole comment is targeted at " police are trained to use them in non-fatal manners, if at all possible (i.e. to shoot legs)". Shooting the legs has no less chance of killing someone as shooting the gut, chest, head, arms, feet, hands, etc. In fact, it is probably more dangerous as you have less chance of hitting (putting others nearby at risk), less chance of stopping your attacker (putting yourself at risk), and if by some random chance you are a super soldier and can hit with any reliability you put your target at risk with a giant fucking artery running down your leg.
When you need to shoot someone, the only responsible thing to do is fucking shoot to kill.
Fine, I'll make it simple.
There is no safe way to shoot a person. Any firearm that shoots bullets at a person can result in death. There is no amount of training that will allow you to safely shoot a person.
But every time you pull the trigger with a life on the other side you are committing a fatal action.
Nice reading comprehension. But sure, attack the letter or the argument and not it's spirit. It shows how weak your troll is.
The context of the discussion is shooting people. So obviously I'm speaking about shooting people.
So back to the rule. Never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy.
Gun makers have another problem. Guns rarely fail. I have a Mosin–Nagant from 1890's. It still works perfectly today. They are already worried about gun sales. Not because of legislation but because most gun buyers are already gun owners. They worry that eventually the market will shrink as no new buyers get into the gun ownership game.
For me, I need to know those electronics will last and work (and parts made for) the next 200 years. I want my kids to inherit my guns. Currently every firearm I own will still be functional for my great great great grandkids (as long as someone cares for them with cleaning).
There is no non-fatal way to use a gun.
There are instances where the gun didn't kill the target. But every time you pull the trigger with a life on the other side you are committing a fatal action. Shoot the leg and hit an artery, or miss and hit the gut. Shoot the shoulder and hit the heart, etc.
These are not laser pointers.
Yea, I field stripped my S&W 686+...oh wait...you can't.
The rest of your point stands however.
He was a horrible parent. Any good parent would have kept the guns locked up in a nice safe. So yea, natural selection.
Plus, had his child not been killed, we would all be slaves to the Gua'uld.
In education they like to send you a quote for a unreasonable amount of money with stupid discounts.
I think our quote was a few million for the license with 98.5% discount.
commvault, zmanda, tivoli?
Because everyone on /. is a web marketer, developer, or designer?
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.
Honestly, I could give it a shit about gay marriage. I'm more excited that this ruling enforces that these things are really a states rights issue. This is a nice win for the states.
Zealots never make much sense. That's part of what makes them Zealots, their ideals get in the way of common sense.
And this doe nothing legalizing gay marriage wouldn't do.
If the government has no say in marriage and it's a religion only thing, then there will be a church that performs gay marriage (or even a church made for that purpose entirely) and thus gay marriage is now a normal and legal.
So just fucking make it legal. That is the only obvious and simple solution.
When making a something legal or illegal imho it should only have to pass or fail a few tests.
1) Is it physically harming others?
2) Does the constitution explicitly prohibit us from making laws about it?
Why does the church get a monopoly on what is a marriage? We have secular marriage now and have had it for generations, so you want to take away my right as a straight male atheist to get married?
The church should be out of the the whole fucking thing. If they want to do 'weddings' let them, but those should hold no legal standing. Let the state do civil unions or marriages or blow jobs of convenience or whatever they want to call them.
I see no reason to not just call it marriage except to keep a bunch of people who believe in fairy tales happy.
Yes, let's cave to vocal minorities who believe in sky wizards, but are ok with me getting married simply because I need a tax break and like women.
Which still allows gays to be married. So why bother with all that PC bullshit?
If the Government says "We dont' do marriage anymore, just civil unions and marriage is now unregulated in the hands of anyone who wants to perform a 'marriage'." why even bother. Anyone anywhere can setup a group to do marriages and then go get a civil union. So they are still legalizing gay marriage.
People just need to suck it up and understand that these people are not harming anyone and should be able to live their lives as they see fit. Personal, religious, or otherwise beliefs on if being gay is right should not be involved in this simple decision.
1) Wasting the time of your admins and your staff trying to find the right person to call (unless your so tiny the "IT department" is just two guys.
2) See 1. Having help desk (aka lower paid ) spend the time getting to the actual problem frees the admin (higher pay) to spend time solving the problem.
If one guy makes 10 bucks an hour and the other 25, which one do you want to spend 4 hours on the phone vs the 1 hour fixing the problem?
3) There is no such thing as 'rights' in a job context. There are privileges. You give your workers the privilege to call someone after hours. If they are abusing that privilege (calling for frivolously things) you need to take it away. (Or shield them with a after hours help desk).
4) Upgrading needs a budget, gaps in operational time, planning, and the support the department to be upgraded. In some companies each dept has it's own budget and IT does chargebacks. This is not cut and dry. I've told my boss things have needed upgrades and been rejected due to cost. Those things failed and I was of course at fault when the issue went upstairs. It was also my fault when the CFO and her department wouldn't test the new upgrade to the finance software and we got so many releases behind it became unsupported by the vendor. Didn't matter that I had a paper trail to my boss and the CFO. I should have just 'gotten it done'.
5) I agree.
6) Obviously you don't find their time valuable. You are right, it's your time. Don't you want the most value for 'your time'? See point 2. If you are ok with paying me 100k a year to reset passwords I can start next week. If you would like me to work the hard complicated issues that require my training, focus, and experience could you at least try a little to shield me from resetting passwords?
7) You obviously don't get the point.
8) Are the provided a budget for this? Tools? Policies? Devices to train and test with? Or do you think that 'they are computer guys, they should know this shit'?
9) Good for you.
When the sysadmin is deciding how long to keep backups there is a lot more wrong then you knowing more than he does. That should be a business decision made by the company as a whole with consulting to legal.
I would never make such a decision. I'd ask my CIO to get a policy written with my input on the matter taking into consideration.
Flawed analogy. It would be like having a paycheck problem and going to the head of HR and not the minions on the payroll department first.
The helpdesk is there to filter the work that needs to get to the next tiers. Most users do not know what tier their work is on. Call help desk and if it is important a good help desk will get the admin involved asap. The help desk is trained to gather info that the users often do not have to make our lives easier. They are a vital part of the troubleshooting process.
Call me directly and I'll tell you to call the help desk (unless it just so happens that the words that came out of your mouth seem like a truely dire problem). The help desk has scripts, tools, and knowledge to decide if a) I'm the guy you should be routed to, b) they can fix the problem, or c) what I need to know to fix the problem.
If I didn't have anything better to do I'd fire the helpdesk and just answer the phone myself.
Exactly, I can't see in value in a system the way they described it.
They have a record of all people calling.
They get a phone call that says A called B and A is linked to terror.
They plugin A into their record and get back B.
They give B to the FBI.
Why not just skip the middle and give B to the FBI.