I initially thought you were a jerk for so blatantly lying on your resume, but now I'm impressed. You must've studied your ass off for the RoR test, and, it seems to me, if you aced the company's test, then by definition you're an excellent candidate to work there, whether you had really implemented your CRM system in their language or not. Getting hired is a stupid game, that HR plays against you (and often to the detriment of the company they're supposed to be serving), so if you're well-qualified for the job, you do what you have to to get past HR. If you're not qualified for the job, you won't last there anyways.
Just don't try that with something like C++, which contains many pitfalls that newbies don't know about at first, or Java, which has a gianormous class library. Experts in those languages could easily find out if somebody had just picked up a book on it two weeks ago.
In addition to friends and foes lists, and modifiers for them, Slashdot should have a global "party line" list. The many here who only want to hear popular opinions could put themselves on the list, and filter out those who aren't on it. Then others of us could assign a modifier to bring all the "+5 I Agree" moderations back down to normal.
The only problem with this is that Eolas has freely admitted that they are not going to go after any other browser, only IE.
Unless they've delivered to all other browser makers legal documents forfeiting the right to sue them for infringing this patent, that promise means nothing. IANAL but I doubt this could even be done in a legally valid way unless some consideration was involved.
For some reason, nurses and pharmacists have a much harder time phoning their work in.
People in both those occupations are overworked and treated like shit. And there's less opportunity in them. Hospitals are using less nurses and more nursing aides and orderlies. Pharmacies only need one pharmacist and any number of pharmacy technicians. If you want job security in occupations that are growing, not shrinking, you have to look really low.
RTFA. They aren't talking about getting domain experience. Hell, they aren't even talking about knowing how to program well:
"The time period one spends as a programmer is becoming compressed."
Businessfolk want you to be "...promoted from programming to project management jobs in just two years rather than the five or more years such a climb typically requires."
Basically what businessfolk want you to be is: More like them and less like you. And sooner than later. That is, they want you to know how to manage things. But then no one will (have time to) know how to program well.
There are a lot of things that are not the federal government's job. For example, disaster relief. Spreading democracy. Etc. Too bad both sides of the political spectrum are convincing more and more people that their desired expansions of government are things it just always was responsible for.
Not sure how that pertains to anything, but since the judge surely must have, since it's directly applicable to his job, I wonder where he saw the part about "perception by the public" in there. As in, being reluctant to decide a certain way because of public perception. Maybe he should instead just fucking do his job and make a judgment based on the Constitution and existing laws and legal precedent, and let the branch of govt. that should be highly susceptible to public perception change the law if and when enough people are outraged.
Yup. Google knew the Chinese people would "understand" if they caved in to their govt. without a fight, but knows in the U.S. we're not so complacent. So far. Bottom line is Google has no problem doing evil, as long as it doesn't hurt them. Hmm, kind of like Microsoft.
But, if I don't play those types of games for a few months I find myself back at square one.
Same here. To the questioner, while pressure behind the eyeballs sounds like a scary medical issue you might want to get checked out even if you give up on the game, I too was extremely queasy starting off. You just have to build up some resistance. It's been months now, but I could play for an hour or better and only feel slightly something if I hadn't eaten anything yet that day. Even at my peak resistance, watching someone else play would set me off within two minutes. But would be fine so long as I was directing the movement.
Only insofar as they choose to maintain that self-restraint indefinitely. It's not weakness to initially show restraint and try to work things out. It takes the bigger man to not escalate things prematurely. But it is weakness, and foolishness, to continue trying to work it out when that has failed time and time again, and the situation seems to be getting worse instead of better.
I wonder what the Palestinians would do if Israel psychologically turned to the next logical chapter. If they thought Israel had given up and was seriously considering simply annihilating them completely, would they have elected Hamas?
3) "Interested in a one millisecond contract job in <some city a thousand miles away>?"
2) "Maybe you know some people who might be interested in new opportunities?"
And the #1 experience:
"Can you please forward me a copy of your resume in Word format?"
A notable experience I've never had with a recruiter? Getting a job via one.
Why do they always want a Word version of your resume? When I was last looking and got contacted, I'd just point them to my online resume. It seemed to drive them crazy. Why? They still could've copied-and-pasted it into a new Word doc, and saved it off. Or was it about me not specifically sending it to them? As if that constituted an implicit contract or something, or my consent that they submit my resume all over town? The problem with that is, they're not going to position just you for the job, they're going to position the person who they think they have the best chance of placing. But if you then want to take a shot at getting an interview for the job yourself, it seems like if the company received your resume from a recruiter, then they cannot deal with you directly. So you're effectively screwed out of that potential job.
The bottom line is, I'm not really clued in to the rules of the game when playing with recruiters, and they sure don't seem to want to reveal anything about it, so I can only assume there's a lot that's not in my best interest.
I suppose the pay-spammers would have to be selective about who they send out mail to, since a lot of it could be "spam farmers".
This is a fantastic idea. Spam's a problem because the economics are completely lopsided, and spammers have no good reason for exercising any restraint. Let the crooks have to worry about crooks themselves.
True for UNIX, but the typical Windows user doesn't exactly open a command prompt at "Temporary Internet Files" and "notepad ReadMeInNotepad!.txt".:-) They use the GUI shell. File type associations are stored in the registry, which is non-writable under a proper non-admin account. The system folders and Program Files dirs are non-writable under a non-admin account, so commands can't be replaced. About the only thing I can think of is that if you have say a shortcut to Notepad in the SendTo folder of your IE account, and you used that shortcut to say view something, it could have been replaced by a shortcut to a deposited EXE in that user account's area. (I log in as admin but run IE as a User, so my SendTo shortcuts are always the protected ones under the admin profile.)
Second, it assumes that your personal data is not worth anything.
True only if you run IE under the same account that you do your data-creating activities in. If you make a separate, additional non-admin account for IE to run under, then you only fear points 1 and 3.
And #3's not really valid because, if you're clueful enough to not run as non-admin, you're clueful enough not to run any new thing you find in your IE account's area that you can't identify.
I didn't mean to imply that my "what if" involved coddling, I just wondered if the perceptions would change if the attitude went from "you're on your own -- sink or swim" to "let's get everyone in here to learn this".
Maybe it's got something to do with science always ending up being a filter for students; teachers make it feel as if it were designed only for 'smart' people,...
Good point. For example, in CS programs, freshman Calculus and Physics are "weed-out" courses. And taught as such.
Maybe if they took the same attitude that they do with your required History or Govt. elective, where it's "this is not rocket science" and "we gotta get everyone through this", more teens would be receptive to it.
...the 280HP engine that your dad would never need usually translate into higher torque number at lower RPM.
As I've said before, it's generally the exact opposite -- you can tune for either the high end, or the low end. If you don't believe me, go ask on a car forum. But somehow I doubt you'll believe them either.
Horsepower = Torque X RPM / 5252
Try plugging in some numbers. My car's peak torque is 302 lb-ft. Let's say it had the impossible, perfectly-flat torque curve. Mine's the cheaper, SOHC model. Say it red-lines at 5500 rpm. There my ideal motor is making 316 hp, its peak hp. But the DOHC version doesn't red-line until 6500 rpm. There it's making 373 hp, its peak hp. In comparison a much higher hp figure, and looks much better in automaker advertising, but in my convenient example both have the same exact torque, at all engine speeds. So they both pull, or feel, exactly the same (they both exert the same amount of rotational force (torque) on the drive axles), despite your being fooled by the marketing.
...it's still a good indication a engine that has a high peak torque number is likely torquer down under.
If you're comparing a car that has a peak torque of 200 lb-ft with one that peaks at 400, then yes, the latter probably has more low-end torque as well. But in a less non-sensical comparison, where the peak torque values are similar, even slightly different engine designs can have greatly different torque curves. Go here and search for "torque curve". In that paragraph, comparing the Mustang Bullitt's 4.6L SOHC V8 with the standard GT's 4.6L SOHC V8, with peak hp of 265 compared to 260, and peak torque of 305 compared to 302, so only a 3 ft-lb and in this case around 1% difference, yet they point out that the Bullitt is at around 300 lb-ft around 2000 rpm while the GT doesn't get there until 3000 rpm. Only 3 lb-ft difference, but the Bullitt's torque curve is significantly flatter. No, I'm afraid you can't tell by peak torque either.
You can probly bring out someother odd design like s2000 and other crap...
At least you're capable of seeing the weakness in your own argument. Unfortunately, it's been a long time now since these were "odd designs". Manufacturers, esp. the Japanese, have been boosting peak hp, and advertising that, while keeping engine size the same. Hence they don't pull any harder. (Although they do pull longer.) Since nowadays everyone makes small OHC engines, they're all of this "odd design" -- no low-end torque to speak of, unremarkable peak torque, and a stratospheric red-line that you need to approach to wake the motor up at all. I guess they get better mileage by moving the real power generation up the rev band, away from where you drive most of the time (where an automatic transmission keeps you). It's called progress, I guess. But it definitely ain't odd anymore -- it's been commonplace for a while now.
I agree that it makes sense for the drive wheels and the steer wheels to be the same,...
OTOH, a pair of tires can only grip so much, and if you ask one pair of tires to accelerate hard and turn hard, they're going to slip. That's why it doesn't make sense for them to be the same in a performance car.
While you may not be interested in understanding, for anyone else reading this thread, when you say:
As a higher HP engine tends to be bigger and therefor torquer and more powerful overall,...
You're close. A bigger engine will tend to have more torque. This is what you feel (the push back in your seat), and a more effortless launch leads to a "quieter, more comfortable ride", and gives the feeling of being "more powerful overall". Horsepower is not a force, but a more nebulous thing that's calculated from torque, factoring in time and distance I believe (although IANAPhysicist). It's more of a marketing number, to fool people in just the way that you are, into thinking that it translates into something it doesn't. With normally-aspirated engines, look at displacment -- not hp, not number of cylinders -- bigger will generally feel better. With turbo- or super-charging thrown into the comparison, you don't know to what degree the extra packing amounts to, or what its equilavent liters of displacement would be, and torque figures are only peak torque, so you really have to look at torque curves to see which will be "more powerful overall."
GM didn't go for ultimate slipperiness -- the Vette redirects some air to the front brakes for helping cool them under track conditions, and it uses some air for downward force for stability at high speeds on the track. Things Toyota didn't exactly have to worry about with the Prius.
It looks like Cd's can get down to 0.11 when it's made a really important criterion.
Except it doesn't work that way. Behold this graph of hp and torque curves. Specifically the 2001 LS1 engine (in the standard Corvette) and the 2001 LS6 engine (in the Z06 version). Both 5.7L V8's. Both hp curves rise almost identically, except near the LS1's peak hp, where it begins to the taper off, and the LS6's keeps rising before tapering off. In the absence of something that would compact a denser (i.e. more) fuel-air mixture into the cylinders, such as super- or turbo-charging, or NOS, both engines have the same total cylinder volume for detonations, so both are, as shown, going to produce essentially the same power curve through most of/the most drivable portion of the power band. On the LS6 they employed some technological tweaks to allow it to rev higher, so it adds a bit more hp, but only on the top end, not proportionately across the rev band. (In fact, and this may not be typical, but notice their torque curves -- the LS6 has a slightly lower curve through the most drivable part of the rev band (the lower 3/4ths). While that is probably not noticeable to the driver, in general, all else being equal, you can tune for low-end torque or high-end hp. The LS6 was built with more emphasis on the high end.)
Most people do not use the power their car has, but they think they need it.
Most people never even see the power their car has, but they think it's a benefit.
Dad: The new Lincoln LS has 280 hp.
Me: It doesn't occur until 6000 rpm. Unless you're willing to rev your car up that high, and with that automatic transmission you may not even be able to, you'll never see it.
The figure is wrong. Google sayeth the Prius is 0.26. The new Vettes are 0.28. It seems like them Pri are more upright than the Vette, so short, stubbiness must a significant positive factor in avoiding drag.
Slashdot Mirror
I initially thought you were a jerk for so blatantly lying on your resume, but now I'm impressed. You must've studied your ass off for the RoR test, and, it seems to me, if you aced the company's test, then by definition you're an excellent candidate to work there, whether you had really implemented your CRM system in their language or not. Getting hired is a stupid game, that HR plays against you (and often to the detriment of the company they're supposed to be serving), so if you're well-qualified for the job, you do what you have to to get past HR. If you're not qualified for the job, you won't last there anyways.
Just don't try that with something like C++, which contains many pitfalls that newbies don't know about at first, or Java, which has a gianormous class library. Experts in those languages could easily find out if somebody had just picked up a book on it two weeks ago.
In addition to friends and foes lists, and modifiers for them, Slashdot should have a global "party line" list. The many here who only want to hear popular opinions could put themselves on the list, and filter out those who aren't on it. Then others of us could assign a modifier to bring all the "+5 I Agree" moderations back down to normal.
The only problem with this is that Eolas has freely admitted that they are not going to go after any other browser, only IE.
Unless they've delivered to all other browser makers legal documents forfeiting the right to sue them for infringing this patent, that promise means nothing. IANAL but I doubt this could even be done in a legally valid way unless some consideration was involved.
For some reason, nurses and pharmacists have a much harder time phoning their work in.
People in both those occupations are overworked and treated like shit. And there's less opportunity in them. Hospitals are using less nurses and more nursing aides and orderlies. Pharmacies only need one pharmacist and any number of pharmacy technicians. If you want job security in occupations that are growing, not shrinking, you have to look really low.
RTFA. They aren't talking about getting domain experience. Hell, they aren't even talking about knowing how to program well:
"The time period one spends as a programmer is becoming compressed."
Businessfolk want you to be "...promoted from programming to project management jobs in just two years rather than the five or more years such a climb typically requires."
Basically what businessfolk want you to be is: More like them and less like you. And sooner than later. That is, they want you to know how to manage things. But then no one will (have time to) know how to program well.
Corporations, unions, any organization. None of them get to vote. So why should they get to donate? They should stay the fuck out of the process.
Instead of infringing on citizens' rights, assholes McCain and Feingold should've simply banned all non-individual contributions.
There are a lot of things that are not the federal government's job. For example, disaster relief. Spreading democracy. Etc. Too bad both sides of the political spectrum are convincing more and more people that their desired expansions of government are things it just always was responsible for.
Not sure how that pertains to anything, but since the judge surely must have, since it's directly applicable to his job, I wonder where he saw the part about "perception by the public" in there. As in, being reluctant to decide a certain way because of public perception. Maybe he should instead just fucking do his job and make a judgment based on the Constitution and existing laws and legal precedent, and let the branch of govt. that should be highly susceptible to public perception change the law if and when enough people are outraged.
Yup. Google knew the Chinese people would "understand" if they caved in to their govt. without a fight, but knows in the U.S. we're not so complacent. So far. Bottom line is Google has no problem doing evil, as long as it doesn't hurt them. Hmm, kind of like Microsoft.
But, if I don't play those types of games for a few months I find myself back at square one.
Same here. To the questioner, while pressure behind the eyeballs sounds like a scary medical issue you might want to get checked out even if you give up on the game, I too was extremely queasy starting off. You just have to build up some resistance. It's been months now, but I could play for an hour or better and only feel slightly something if I hadn't eaten anything yet that day. Even at my peak resistance, watching someone else play would set me off within two minutes. But would be fine so long as I was directing the movement.
But that better is weakness.
Only insofar as they choose to maintain that self-restraint indefinitely. It's not weakness to initially show restraint and try to work things out. It takes the bigger man to not escalate things prematurely. But it is weakness, and foolishness, to continue trying to work it out when that has failed time and time again, and the situation seems to be getting worse instead of better.
I wonder what the Palestinians would do if Israel psychologically turned to the next logical chapter. If they thought Israel had given up and was seriously considering simply annihilating them completely, would they have elected Hamas?
My top 3 experiences with recruiters have been:
3) "Interested in a one millisecond contract job in <some city a thousand miles away>?"
2) "Maybe you know some people who might be interested in new opportunities?"
And the #1 experience:
"Can you please forward me a copy of your resume in Word format?"
A notable experience I've never had with a recruiter? Getting a job via one.
Why do they always want a Word version of your resume? When I was last looking and got contacted, I'd just point them to my online resume. It seemed to drive them crazy. Why? They still could've copied-and-pasted it into a new Word doc, and saved it off. Or was it about me not specifically sending it to them? As if that constituted an implicit contract or something, or my consent that they submit my resume all over town? The problem with that is, they're not going to position just you for the job, they're going to position the person who they think they have the best chance of placing. But if you then want to take a shot at getting an interview for the job yourself, it seems like if the company received your resume from a recruiter, then they cannot deal with you directly. So you're effectively screwed out of that potential job.
The bottom line is, I'm not really clued in to the rules of the game when playing with recruiters, and they sure don't seem to want to reveal anything about it, so I can only assume there's a lot that's not in my best interest.
I suppose the pay-spammers would have to be selective about who they send out mail to, since a lot of it could be "spam farmers".
This is a fantastic idea. Spam's a problem because the economics are completely lopsided, and spammers have no good reason for exercising any restraint. Let the crooks have to worry about crooks themselves.
True for UNIX, but the typical Windows user doesn't exactly open a command prompt at "Temporary Internet Files" and "notepad ReadMeInNotepad!.txt". :-) They use the GUI shell. File type associations are stored in the registry, which is non-writable under a proper non-admin account. The system folders and Program Files dirs are non-writable under a non-admin account, so commands can't be replaced. About the only thing I can think of is that if you have say a shortcut to Notepad in the SendTo folder of your IE account, and you used that shortcut to say view something, it could have been replaced by a shortcut to a deposited EXE in that user account's area. (I log in as admin but run IE as a User, so my SendTo shortcuts are always the protected ones under the admin profile.)
Second, it assumes that your personal data is not worth anything.
True only if you run IE under the same account that you do your data-creating activities in. If you make a separate, additional non-admin account for IE to run under, then you only fear points 1 and 3.
And #3's not really valid because, if you're clueful enough to not run as non-admin, you're clueful enough not to run any new thing you find in your IE account's area that you can't identify.
I didn't mean to imply that my "what if" involved coddling, I just wondered if the perceptions would change if the attitude went from "you're on your own -- sink or swim" to "let's get everyone in here to learn this".
Maybe it's got something to do with science always ending up being a filter for students; teachers make it feel as if it were designed only for 'smart' people,...
Good point. For example, in CS programs, freshman Calculus and Physics are "weed-out" courses. And taught as such.
Maybe if they took the same attitude that they do with your required History or Govt. elective, where it's "this is not rocket science" and "we gotta get everyone through this", more teens would be receptive to it.
As I've said before, it's generally the exact opposite -- you can tune for either the high end, or the low end. If you don't believe me, go ask on a car forum. But somehow I doubt you'll believe them either.
Horsepower = Torque X RPM / 5252
Try plugging in some numbers. My car's peak torque is 302 lb-ft. Let's say it had the impossible, perfectly-flat torque curve. Mine's the cheaper, SOHC model. Say it red-lines at 5500 rpm. There my ideal motor is making 316 hp, its peak hp. But the DOHC version doesn't red-line until 6500 rpm. There it's making 373 hp, its peak hp. In comparison a much higher hp figure, and looks much better in automaker advertising, but in my convenient example both have the same exact torque, at all engine speeds. So they both pull, or feel, exactly the same (they both exert the same amount of rotational force (torque) on the drive axles), despite your being fooled by the marketing.
If you're comparing a car that has a peak torque of 200 lb-ft with one that peaks at 400, then yes, the latter probably has more low-end torque as well. But in a less non-sensical comparison, where the peak torque values are similar, even slightly different engine designs can have greatly different torque curves. Go here and search for "torque curve". In that paragraph, comparing the Mustang Bullitt's 4.6L SOHC V8 with the standard GT's 4.6L SOHC V8, with peak hp of 265 compared to 260, and peak torque of 305 compared to 302, so only a 3 ft-lb and in this case around 1% difference, yet they point out that the Bullitt is at around 300 lb-ft around 2000 rpm while the GT doesn't get there until 3000 rpm. Only 3 lb-ft difference, but the Bullitt's torque curve is significantly flatter. No, I'm afraid you can't tell by peak torque either.
You can probly bring out someother odd design like s2000 and other crap...
At least you're capable of seeing the weakness in your own argument. Unfortunately, it's been a long time now since these were "odd designs". Manufacturers, esp. the Japanese, have been boosting peak hp, and advertising that, while keeping engine size the same. Hence they don't pull any harder. (Although they do pull longer.) Since nowadays everyone makes small OHC engines, they're all of this "odd design" -- no low-end torque to speak of, unremarkable peak torque, and a stratospheric red-line that you need to approach to wake the motor up at all. I guess they get better mileage by moving the real power generation up the rev band, away from where you drive most of the time (where an automatic transmission keeps you). It's called progress, I guess. But it definitely ain't odd anymore -- it's been commonplace for a while now.
I agree that it makes sense for the drive wheels and the steer wheels to be the same,...
OTOH, a pair of tires can only grip so much, and if you ask one pair of tires to accelerate hard and turn hard, they're going to slip. That's why it doesn't make sense for them to be the same in a performance car.
Evidently the Prius has a "breaking system" as well -- the model's on its third recall.
yaeh yeah...
While you may not be interested in understanding, for anyone else reading this thread, when you say:
As a higher HP engine tends to be bigger and therefor torquer and more powerful overall,...
You're close. A bigger engine will tend to have more torque. This is what you feel (the push back in your seat), and a more effortless launch leads to a "quieter, more comfortable ride", and gives the feeling of being "more powerful overall". Horsepower is not a force, but a more nebulous thing that's calculated from torque, factoring in time and distance I believe (although IANAPhysicist). It's more of a marketing number, to fool people in just the way that you are, into thinking that it translates into something it doesn't. With normally-aspirated engines, look at displacment -- not hp, not number of cylinders -- bigger will generally feel better. With turbo- or super-charging thrown into the comparison, you don't know to what degree the extra packing amounts to, or what its equilavent liters of displacement would be, and torque figures are only peak torque, so you really have to look at torque curves to see which will be "more powerful overall."
GM didn't go for ultimate slipperiness -- the Vette redirects some air to the front brakes for helping cool them under track conditions, and it uses some air for downward force for stability at high speeds on the track. Things Toyota didn't exactly have to worry about with the Prius.
It looks like Cd's can get down to 0.11 when it's made a really important criterion.
Except it doesn't work that way. Behold this graph of hp and torque curves. Specifically the 2001 LS1 engine (in the standard Corvette) and the 2001 LS6 engine (in the Z06 version). Both 5.7L V8's. Both hp curves rise almost identically, except near the LS1's peak hp, where it begins to the taper off, and the LS6's keeps rising before tapering off. In the absence of something that would compact a denser (i.e. more) fuel-air mixture into the cylinders, such as super- or turbo-charging, or NOS, both engines have the same total cylinder volume for detonations, so both are, as shown, going to produce essentially the same power curve through most of/the most drivable portion of the power band. On the LS6 they employed some technological tweaks to allow it to rev higher, so it adds a bit more hp, but only on the top end, not proportionately across the rev band. (In fact, and this may not be typical, but notice their torque curves -- the LS6 has a slightly lower curve through the most drivable part of the rev band (the lower 3/4ths). While that is probably not noticeable to the driver, in general, all else being equal, you can tune for low-end torque or high-end hp. The LS6 was built with more emphasis on the high end.)
Most people do not use the power their car has, but they think they need it.
Most people never even see the power their car has, but they think it's a benefit.
Dad: The new Lincoln LS has 280 hp.
Me: It doesn't occur until 6000 rpm. Unless you're willing to rev your car up that high, and with that automatic transmission you may not even be able to, you'll never see it.
The figure is wrong. Google sayeth the Prius is 0.26. The new Vettes are 0.28. It seems like them Pri are more upright than the Vette, so short, stubbiness must a significant positive factor in avoiding drag.