While there is the possibility of this giving life to Sci-Fi plots such as Dune, Terminator, and Battlestar
Let's see...
Terminator, Robots rise up and try to kill us all, I see the connection. Battlestar, Robots rise up and try to kill us all, I see the connection. Dune, young boy takes refuge among oppressed natives and later uses them to defeat the emperor... I think I missed that one.
Anything medical that he described always *sounded* right to me, but I don't know squat in that realm. I know that anytime he bumped into software he was borderline ridiculous... on a good day.
One of the parts I liked in Cryptominicon was where he described how software used to minimize bandwidth during teleconferencing could be modified in short order to rig a laptop to take a picture every time somebody stepped in front of it. That moment told me that he truly understood software.
Re:Just two words
on
Daemon
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I had figured on parental inattention, but wow that's actually worse than I expected. The kid actually had a good reason for wanting to drive the car somewhere.
It's right. No one should take your stuff without an overwhelmingly compelling reason. "I think he might be doing something wrong" doesn't come close. If this happened to me, I'd be loud, obnoxious, and threaten physical violence if he tried to touch my computer. As far as I'm concerned it's theft, and if he tries to take it from me by force that's assault (and maybe mugging? IANAL) too and I'll see him prosecuted.
I actually think they'll eventually get to a point where you have enough cameras on the field that you can take anything that happened during the game and get a composite view of it from any angle you could possibly want.
That *will* happen sometimes, especially at larger corps. But education is typically the last item listed on a resume. All relevant work experience will come ahead of it and will usually be the focus of the questions anyway. If you want to hide it, you can either completely omit it (recruiters didn't like this approach, but no one else seemed to care), or list whatever college you have taken. Whatever else you do, don't lie about having one. I'm told it's one of the easiest things to verify.
Also, once you've got more than about 5 years work experience, it's okay to have a multi page resume. It's also becoming less of an issue as most resumes are emailed and only printed at the end, rather than primarily viewed on paper. But if you have multiple pages, it ends up pushing your education info to the back where it may not even be looked at.
I've generally found that unless I'm unemployed, I really haven't had much interest in most of the jobs where a degree is required anyway.
I think his argument is more marketing/PR driven. His main point is valid, in that MySQL claims simplicity/lightness when they don't have the features, and claims maturity when they add them.
Re:You won't get a job in the fortune 500, but...
on
IT Job Without a Degree?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
More or less how I see it too. When I'm interviewing, the last thing I care about is if they have a degree or what it's in/where it's from. It rarely comes up when I'm interviewed as well (though it seems to be a major focal point for recruiters -- I'd say 90% of them ask about it vs. maybe 25% of prospective employers).
But, like you said, if you have no experience, a degree is about all they can gauge you by on paper.
Use mnemonics. E.g., your friend introduces his two sons Sam and Bill. Bi l l is the o l der one. ... but what if Sam is older? Now you're totally screwed.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but it does require that the two situations are recognized as parallels to each other. I don't really think these are natural parallels, and I'll further illustrate my point by a touch of editing and fabrication:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to pick your nose during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Slashdot Mirror
While there is the possibility of this giving life to Sci-Fi plots such as Dune, Terminator, and Battlestar
Let's see...
Terminator, Robots rise up and try to kill us all, I see the connection.
Battlestar, Robots rise up and try to kill us all, I see the connection.
Dune, young boy takes refuge among oppressed natives and later uses them to defeat the emperor... I think I missed that one.
Also, unlike alcohol, marijuana users know how impaired they are, and compensate.
So if I get really drunk, and I know being really drunk impairs me, I should be able to compensate for it just fine while I'm driving?
Anything medical that he described always *sounded* right to me, but I don't know squat in that realm. I know that anytime he bumped into software he was borderline ridiculous... on a good day.
One of the parts I liked in Cryptominicon was where he described how software used to minimize bandwidth during teleconferencing could be modified in short order to rig a laptop to take a picture every time somebody stepped in front of it. That moment told me that he truly understood software.
Neal Stephenson, sure.
Vernor Vinge, absolutely.
MICHAEL CRICHTON?? Are you kidding?
Not at all. Get your priorities in line, man. It is MORE important that people survive than that they're free.
New Hampshire State Motto:
Live Free or Die.
Not everyone would agree with you.
but mine didn't show me how to turn the key while pushing the gas pedal down with the car in park.
Last car I ever had to do that with was made in the 80s.
I had figured on parental inattention, but wow that's actually worse than I expected. The kid actually had a good reason for wanting to drive the car somewhere.
Yes, I completely agree that there is some reason they are doing. I decline to agree that it's simple brutality and a love of torture.
If I torture you and I don't enjoy doing it, does that make it ok?
I don't think it was meant as funny.
It's right. No one should take your stuff without an overwhelmingly compelling reason. "I think he might be doing something wrong" doesn't come close. If this happened to me, I'd be loud, obnoxious, and threaten physical violence if he tried to touch my computer. As far as I'm concerned it's theft, and if he tries to take it from me by force that's assault (and maybe mugging? IANAL) too and I'll see him prosecuted.
More difficult to do at the same time maybe. Impossible to do at the same time? Not too likely.
The more you're doing, the more of what's being done can be done at the same time.
Sounds reasonable.
I actually think they'll eventually get to a point where you have enough cameras on the field that you can take anything that happened during the game and get a composite view of it from any angle you could possibly want.
That actually a different argument.
It's indisputable that the only way to eliminate violence via a particular thing is to completely eliminate that thing.
It's another thing to argue whether or not eliminating that thing is practical or even necessarily correct.
Internet Man, help, I'm being flooded with spam!
Fear not young web surfer, I'll save you!
there's no practical way you can ever limit violent gun crime without removing the guns from the populace.
That's pretty self evident. There's no practical way you can ever limit violent noun crime without removing the nouns from the populace.
It must be French, the OP is much too polite for what that word sounds like in English.
That *will* happen sometimes, especially at larger corps. But education is typically the last item listed on a resume. All relevant work experience will come ahead of it and will usually be the focus of the questions anyway. If you want to hide it, you can either completely omit it (recruiters didn't like this approach, but no one else seemed to care), or list whatever college you have taken. Whatever else you do, don't lie about having one. I'm told it's one of the easiest things to verify.
Also, once you've got more than about 5 years work experience, it's okay to have a multi page resume. It's also becoming less of an issue as most resumes are emailed and only printed at the end, rather than primarily viewed on paper. But if you have multiple pages, it ends up pushing your education info to the back where it may not even be looked at.
I've generally found that unless I'm unemployed, I really haven't had much interest in most of the jobs where a degree is required anyway.
And when I don't say something, I often refer to it as self-censoring. So nyah.
I think the point is that the end result is the same: an idea goes unheard. That one is morally repugnant and the other is not is a separate issue.
I think his argument is more marketing/PR driven. His main point is valid, in that MySQL claims simplicity/lightness when they don't have the features, and claims maturity when they add them.
More or less how I see it too. When I'm interviewing, the last thing I care about is if they have a degree or what it's in/where it's from. It rarely comes up when I'm interviewed as well (though it seems to be a major focal point for recruiters -- I'd say 90% of them ask about it vs. maybe 25% of prospective employers).
But, like you said, if you have no experience, a degree is about all they can gauge you by on paper.
Use mnemonics. E.g., your friend introduces his two sons Sam and Bill. Bi l l is the o l der one. ... but what if Sam is older? Now you're totally screwed.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but it does require that the two situations are recognized as parallels to each other. I don't really think these are natural parallels, and I'll further illustrate my point by a touch of editing and fabrication:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to pick your nose during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Those aren't even censorship.
You're not being forbidden from saying anything, you're simply being held responsible for your actions.