Assuming the audit system is actually random, there's no way you can guarantee that two audits won't come up back-to-back either. Are you really willing to take that chance?
I'm assuming that consecutive audits are more likely to irritate customers and that there is a likelihood of a minimum value of checkouts between audits. If I'm wrong, scratch it off the list.
Lastly if you get caught just watch the process and as they go to scan a stolen item say something like "Wait, that's not supposed to be in there. I thought I put that back on the shelf."
Yeah, I'm sure he's heard that one before too. The guys manning these stations aren't likely to be that naive.
So what if they've heard it before? I'd bet it's actually true more often than it isn't. And the repercussions for a false accusation are so high that anything less than concrete proof won't be used. The thief would have to put the item back, but that's not such a big deal for them. And for the ones who make a genuine mistake and aren't audited, it still amounts to shrink if not actual theft.
People actually determined to shoplift are still more likely to just stuff the item in their jacket, where the auditor is unlikely to check anyway.
They might. It depends on how easy it is to beat the system without doing that.
Yeah. I've heard of a similar, albeit more primitive, concept called "self-checkout lane" - that never took off, either.
I'm assuming that was sarcastic. If not, the rest of this doesn't make as much sense.
Self checkout lanes still typically have a person at the end monitoring a few lanes, and some scales you have to put everything on after you scan it.
As I understand, these still require a random audit, which isn't too hard to defeat still. For one, it's unlikely to require audits close together, so just keep an eye on things and then jump on the line that just had an audit. Alternately you can bury the thing you want to steal underneath a bunch of other stuff in the cart. Avoid a line that has the rare diligent auditor. Lastly if you get caught just watch the process and as they go to scan a stolen item say something like "Wait, that's not supposed to be in there. I thought I put that back on the shelf."
OTOH, that doesn't make this a show stopper. With higher custom satisfaction (which hopefully translates to a higher repeat sale rate) and reduced total cashier payroll this can still work to a net profit if the additional shrink isn't too severe.
Something I try to explain to my kids -- if your way is actually better, then by all means don't conform. But sometimes conforming isn't following the herd so much as realizing that the way everyone else does something is actually the best way to do something.
I'm also a huge fan of checklists. Have a checklist for each phase... make it a requirement for everything to be checked off (or an appropriate excuse filled in).
Make sure you also take the time to remove things from the checklist. If you keep things around that were relevant to be checked a few years ago, but aren't anymore, then the checklist starts to become less helpful. When outdated items outnumber necessary ones, it becomes ignored.
If you find, after interviews, that you're hiring candidates who lack some particular skill X, then the solution is to find a way to test for that skill IN PERSON. Any other means leaves you wide open to the hordes of people who will find some way to fake it the moment it becomes understood that something is required. If your interviewers consistently return duds, you need to hone their techniques or have someone else do the interviews.
It comes down to this:
Are you asking questions that display knowledge or programming techniques, or just obscure language trivia?
Are you relying too heavily on generic (non-programming) problem solving questions?
Hand them a spec for a small code sample. Something that will take 15-20 minutes to write. After you review it, change some part of the spec and ask them how this would alter their approach.
I'll bet they counted the people using CCTV footage
More likely they have some traffic counters installed. (linked to the first one that came up in google since wikipedia didn't have an article that I could find.
I had always assumed that they would collect whatever they could, take their cut, and then pass the rest along to the client. Seems odd to me that the agency doing the collecting didn't have their money upfront on each collection.
Their estimate is 80 kWh for just 62.1 mile range which is not enough for Americans. They like to see 300 miles between fuel stops, or ~380 kWh.
~4 million watt draw for 5-6 minute fuel stop.
Yeah, very impractical in the US, outside of local driving in population centers.
I drove to visit my sister last month, who lives about 900 miles away. Needing to stop for 5 minutes every 60 miles would be absolutely maddening. It would add over an hour to the trip just for recharges. Plus there are places where it's more than 60 miles between consecutive gas stations, so we would need recharge stations to be significantly more frequent than gas stations.
I strongly prefer ruby to perl (despite that I current make my living doing perl dev), but I couldn't stand Why's Poignant Guide. Found the Dave Thomas book vastly better.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the audit system is actually random, there's no way you can guarantee that two audits won't come up back-to-back either. Are you really willing to take that chance?
I'm assuming that consecutive audits are more likely to irritate customers and that there is a likelihood of a minimum value of checkouts between audits. If I'm wrong, scratch it off the list.
Lastly if you get caught just watch the process and as they go to scan a stolen item say something like "Wait, that's not supposed to be in there. I thought I put that back on the shelf."
Yeah, I'm sure he's heard that one before too. The guys manning these stations aren't likely to be that naive.
So what if they've heard it before? I'd bet it's actually true more often than it isn't. And the repercussions for a false accusation are so high that anything less than concrete proof won't be used. The thief would have to put the item back, but that's not such a big deal for them. And for the ones who make a genuine mistake and aren't audited, it still amounts to shrink if not actual theft.
People actually determined to shoplift are still more likely to just stuff the item in their jacket, where the auditor is unlikely to check anyway.
They might. It depends on how easy it is to beat the system without doing that.
Yeah. I've heard of a similar, albeit more primitive, concept called "self-checkout lane" - that never took off, either.
I'm assuming that was sarcastic. If not, the rest of this doesn't make as much sense.
Self checkout lanes still typically have a person at the end monitoring a few lanes, and some scales you have to put everything on after you scan it.
As I understand, these still require a random audit, which isn't too hard to defeat still. For one, it's unlikely to require audits close together, so just keep an eye on things and then jump on the line that just had an audit. Alternately you can bury the thing you want to steal underneath a bunch of other stuff in the cart. Avoid a line that has the rare diligent auditor. Lastly if you get caught just watch the process and as they go to scan a stolen item say something like "Wait, that's not supposed to be in there. I thought I put that back on the shelf."
OTOH, that doesn't make this a show stopper. With higher custom satisfaction (which hopefully translates to a higher repeat sale rate) and reduced total cashier payroll this can still work to a net profit if the additional shrink isn't too severe.
But... my complaint was about a LACK of redheads.
Yep... this is why I don't work for the NSA, despite being fully qualified and in need of a job.
For me it was just a lack of redheads in the office.
Point of origin is irrelevant for what they were studying. If it's commonly eaten in the US, then it's a US dish. Otherwise it's not.
Does that mean my comment is an even bigger waste of time?
Not that it's necessarily the case here, but if you have a few REALLY bad drivers in the mix, it's possible for 80% to be above 'average'.
Something I try to explain to my kids -- if your way is actually better, then by all means don't conform. But sometimes conforming isn't following the herd so much as realizing that the way everyone else does something is actually the best way to do something.
I'm also a huge fan of checklists. Have a checklist for each phase... make it a requirement for everything to be checked off (or an appropriate excuse filled in).
Make sure you also take the time to remove things from the checklist. If you keep things around that were relevant to be checked a few years ago, but aren't anymore, then the checklist starts to become less helpful. When outdated items outnumber necessary ones, it becomes ignored.
If you find, after interviews, that you're hiring candidates who lack some particular skill X, then the solution is to find a way to test for that skill IN PERSON. Any other means leaves you wide open to the hordes of people who will find some way to fake it the moment it becomes understood that something is required. If your interviewers consistently return duds, you need to hone their techniques or have someone else do the interviews.
It comes down to this:
Are you asking questions that display knowledge or programming techniques, or just obscure language trivia?
Are you relying too heavily on generic (non-programming) problem solving questions?
Hand them a spec for a small code sample. Something that will take 15-20 minutes to write. After you review it, change some part of the spec and ask them how this would alter their approach.
Disagree. Facebook reveals:
- party affiliation (i.e. communist)
Mine says: Polical views: yes
- race (asian)
haven't been asked that one
- porn habit
No one need pester me with questions like "What do you want for Christmas?" anymore.
- sexting photos
Anyone who has met me in the flesh would be shuddering right now
- you're a Japanese comic book collector
What a horrible thing for strangers to know about you!
- posting "My boyfriend is a college guy" when you're only 16 or 17.
and?
Took Woodcock-Johnson Tests...
When they told me they gave my daughter the "Woodcock-Johnson" I did a double take.
I'll bet they counted the people using CCTV footage
More likely they have some traffic counters installed. (linked to the first one that came up in google since wikipedia didn't have an article that I could find.
Ah. That makes sense then, thanks.
I had always assumed that they would collect whatever they could, take their cut, and then pass the rest along to the client. Seems odd to me that the agency doing the collecting didn't have their money upfront on each collection.
And a pitchfork. Because that is necessary for awesome to be achieved.
I've got nothing useful to add but I had to show some love for the SC2 reference.
I said salvia not alcohol. Drinking wont allow you to experience and appreciate death.
Spoken like a man who's never drunk himself to death.
And in 1973 a disappointed Sisqo sang "Let me see that Phong..."
If you are going into a programming course in univ you probably already know at least the basics of programming.
Anecdotal, but from many interviews, that's about all most have when they're done with the univ too.
First time through I read that as "SSL Cert Weaknesses Exposed by Commando Breach"
Their estimate is 80 kWh for just 62.1 mile range which is not enough for Americans. They like to see 300 miles between fuel stops, or ~380 kWh.
~4 million watt draw for 5-6 minute fuel stop.
Yeah, very impractical in the US, outside of local driving in population centers.
I drove to visit my sister last month, who lives about 900 miles away. Needing to stop for 5 minutes every 60 miles would be absolutely maddening. It would add over an hour to the trip just for recharges. Plus there are places where it's more than 60 miles between consecutive gas stations, so we would need recharge stations to be significantly more frequent than gas stations.
Didn't know they gave out 15. I've been getting 5 about twice a week. I usually don't use all of them (3 left right now).
I strongly prefer ruby to perl (despite that I current make my living doing perl dev), but I couldn't stand Why's Poignant Guide. Found the Dave Thomas book vastly better.
Normally I'd honor that request, but the irony in this particular case got the better of me.
(from dictionary.reference.com)
1. convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2. to the point; relevant; pertinent.