It's pointless to ask anything other than a basic programming question during an interview.
Totally agree. For many years my go-to question for C coders was to implement strcpy(). Simple enough to do under pressure but it can lead to some really interesting discussions on style, error handling, exceptional inputs, etc.
I saw the movie but not the show. The movie is just OK. It feels very TV, meaning you have to already really love these characters to be interested. It just doesn't stand alone as its own movie. Looks like it would have made a decent episode of a regular TV show, though.
Fair enough, especially in this case where the context was crystal clear. I think the upshot is that even if your point can be clearly inferred, the object of writing or speaking 'properly' comes down to "how can I communicate my point without distracting my listener with poorly formed language". AKA the Principle of Least Astonishment.:)
If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections.
Ask and ye shall receive- that should be "unintelligible" or "is not intelligible".
This is a perfect example of a surprisingly common error- the typo or misspelling that exactly reverses the sense of what the writer is trying to say. It baffles me that people can allow this to go through when it's so easy to catch with a quick proofread.
The summary comment about users not wanting to have their OS limit network connections is a bit of a red herring... The average user doesn't really even know what a network connection IS, much less care about how many their OS allows. As long as it can browse and get e-mail (usually not even at the same time) they're happy with it. Starter Edition may be a silly idea, but at least be realistic about why it's silly.
I love the slashdot commentary. IE performs OK-to-well on some guy's rudimentary speed benchmark and people go nuts.
If you're going to post a story purely about a browser speed test, is it really necessary to make the comment that you shouldn't be using one of the browsers because of non-speed-related issues? It isn't really even an MS-vs-Others article, and you're just showing your rabid zealotry if you try to make it into one. (Although I realize that's the Slashdot Way).
Given the rigor of these tests (not much), the reaction here should really just be 'interesting, not that useful, moving on now'.:)
Of course they never expect *you* to record the call.
Sure they do... When I was doing phone support part of the training was to tell us that customers may record the calls, and if the customer warned us about it to tell them it was fine. The attitude was that it's the customer's call anyway, so they can record it if they want to.
I'm sure it depends on the company, attitudes may vary, etc. But they're certainly aware that some customers will do it.
Instead of posting an ignorant-sounding question, you could always just click on the link and read the Fine article, with a much smaller amount of effort than is required to post a comment.
Dear Condescending Angsty Guy,
The OP is asking that submitters/editors provide enough basic background information to decide whether it's worth reading the article. I don't think this is asking too much.
He was saying that once the nano-replicator exists, nobody has the right to whine about thier intellectual property. If you do so AFTER THE REPLICATOR EXISTS, then you are a greedy control freak. This is a valid point, and totally true.
Bullshit. If all material things were to become worthless, your ideas and creativity would really be the only possession that would be worth protecting. Your reputation would be your entire wealth.
Please don't use this article as evidence for a 'US rocks!' argument. It is a useless article by an author with a tenuous grasp of censorhip and the internet, whose only conclusions are:
There is one large US ISP that has a standard form response to copyright infringement notices
There is one UK ISP that will take down a *free* website after one complaint
It isn't about innovation, it is about preserving the monopoly with the government as the enforcer.
This is exactly correct. Patents grant the inventor exclusive use for the patent duration, with the condition that his invention be made public afterward. The 'public afterward' part is what patents are intended to encourage. 'Exclusive use for the duration' is the carrot to encourage inventors to not keep their innovations proprietary.
Without the exclusive use part of patents, any small company that tried to make their innovations public could be quickly squeezed out of business by a larger company that can ramp up higher volume with lower marginal costs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pointless to ask anything other than a basic programming question during an interview.
Totally agree. For many years my go-to question for C coders was to implement strcpy(). Simple enough to do under pressure but it can lead to some really interesting discussions on style, error handling, exceptional inputs, etc.
But I assume "swap sort" is a term you expect me to know, sorry, I don't know it
Interview OVER! /funny
Man I wish I had points to mod this up, the whole comments section is a wall of this guy's ramble.
I saw the movie but not the show. The movie is just OK. It feels very TV, meaning you have to already really love these characters to be interested. It just doesn't stand alone as its own movie. Looks like it would have made a decent episode of a regular TV show, though.
If that's the only thing you learned, it was still well worth your time...
Fair enough, especially in this case where the context was crystal clear. I think the upshot is that even if your point can be clearly inferred, the object of writing or speaking 'properly' comes down to "how can I communicate my point without distracting my listener with poorly formed language". AKA the Principle of Least Astonishment.
Ask and ye shall receive- that should be "unintelligible" or "is not intelligible".
This is a perfect example of a surprisingly common error- the typo or misspelling that exactly reverses the sense of what the writer is trying to say. It baffles me that people can allow this to go through when it's so easy to catch with a quick proofread.
The summary comment about users not wanting to have their OS limit network connections is a bit of a red herring... The average user doesn't really even know what a network connection IS, much less care about how many their OS allows. As long as it can browse and get e-mail (usually not even at the same time) they're happy with it. Starter Edition may be a silly idea, but at least be realistic about why it's silly.
I love the slashdot commentary. IE performs OK-to-well on some guy's rudimentary speed benchmark and people go nuts.
:)
If you're going to post a story purely about a browser speed test, is it really necessary to make the comment that you shouldn't be using one of the browsers because of non-speed-related issues? It isn't really even an MS-vs-Others article, and you're just showing your rabid zealotry if you try to make it into one. (Although I realize that's the Slashdot Way).
Given the rigor of these tests (not much), the reaction here should really just be 'interesting, not that useful, moving on now'.
Must be a hell of a line. [rim shot]
Sure they do... When I was doing phone support part of the training was to tell us that customers may record the calls, and if the customer warned us about it to tell them it was fine. The attitude was that it's the customer's call anyway, so they can record it if they want to.
I'm sure it depends on the company, attitudes may vary, etc. But they're certainly aware that some customers will do it.
Dear Condescending Angsty Guy,
The OP is asking that submitters/editors provide enough basic background information to decide whether it's worth reading the article. I don't think this is asking too much.
He was saying that once the nano-replicator exists, nobody has the right to whine about thier intellectual property. If you do so AFTER THE REPLICATOR EXISTS, then you are a greedy control freak. This is a valid point, and totally true.
Bullshit. If all material things were to become worthless, your ideas and creativity would really be the only possession that would be worth protecting. Your reputation would be your entire wealth.
There is one large US ISP that has a standard form response to copyright infringement notices
There is one UK ISP that will take down a *free* website after one complaint
Read the PDF at the bottom of the linked article- he missed several references to 'Lycos', apparently the US ISP.
It isn't about innovation, it is about preserving the monopoly with the government as the enforcer.
This is exactly correct. Patents grant the inventor exclusive use for the patent duration, with the condition that his invention be made public afterward. The 'public afterward' part is what patents are intended to encourage. 'Exclusive use for the duration' is the carrot to encourage inventors to not keep their innovations proprietary.
Without the exclusive use part of patents, any small company that tried to make their innovations public could be quickly squeezed out of business by a larger company that can ramp up higher volume with lower marginal costs.