In other news, scientists have found convincing evidence that geographical and geopolitical maps can be used by terrorists to pinpoint vulnerable locations and possible targets and to coordinate terrorist troop movements. They propose the BAM [Banish All Maps] Act in order to prevent terrorists' orientation.
He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars
All I can say is, talk is cheap. It doesn't matter how much you've payed him. It only matters how much you promised to pay and then how much you really payed. Rest is rubbish.
Certainly, I think an interviewer has zero obligation to spend his time explaining to somebody what they did wrong. Certainly not for free.
Sorry if I would offend with this to some extent, but let me just suppose that the people who spend their hours answering [the sometimes angering or unrelated tests and questions and everything else those interviewers might come up with] have also lives and things to do, even if the interviewer thinks they are jobless loosers without a life trying to land in some fatty position at their company. Meaning, time is precious on both ends. Just because someone would wish to work at your company doesn't (shouldn't) by default mean they couldn't apply to anywhere else and they are yours to use.
I don't say explanations should be given. I personally wouldn't mind either way, if they don't want me (for whatever reason), why would I want to be there, job search is a double sided sword, I should like the place plus they should want me working there. But I just find the quoted reasoning pretty flawed and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the company where such lines would be said on an interview.
How about stepping up to the plate and showing the rest of the world
Well, you can do that best when you let in immigrants easily, then compete for the jobs and positions with them, and then, if you all manage to get the jobs, you could easily show that you are more skilled. Competition doesn't mean making it harder for others so you can win easier.
With a completely open border, anybody could come in unchecked. Fugitives, Al Queda, drug dealers, and others would have a field day.
I wouldn't want to disappoint you, but thing is, probably these are the guys who can easily go across borders and countries if they want to, since they probably have the money and the resources to do so, as they already have demonstrated on several sad and unfortunate occasions. Most probably, the people that get the most hassle are working, law-abiding ones. E.g. did you know that even today there are EU countries from where the US is one of the most hard to visit places (legally, of course) ?
I find this thing way too stupid. Why ? _Not_ because of the idea, I would be in the front line to support a system that would detect drunk drivers reliably. What's my problem then ? The same as with those "reliable" face recognition systems that get deployed everywhere, which have let's say one digit false rate which still mean hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily hassled. Only thing is, I would have bigger issues against an even a few percentage false rate device that could take over steering and engine control from the driver, in situations which could be totally unacceptable (just look up possts above, some of them give good examples) and given the number of cars these days, that would also mean tens or hundreds of thousands of cursing people along the freeways. Thing is, such systems, all of them, have a false positive rate that can be PR-ed this way or another, but until they __prove__ believably that a) the number of drunk driver incidents can drop significantly and b) the number of hassled drivers is so small you actually can believe you'll never have trouble, until these are proved, let it rot in some company's drawers and waste your tax-dollars for something more useful, like - for a change - something which increases your freedom, people.
- they don't take away the driving control from your hands while on the way - we shouldn't trust them to put _any_ direct driving control-capable system into the car which can have _any_ false positive rate - and I guess this one will have rates measurable in one or two digit percentages.
I don't want my car to not take me home from work because I'm sleepy. I don't drink and I know myself to make good judgment whether I drive or I call a cab.
While I agree that usually large cash payments seem suspicious, and sometimes worthy to check after, I find it fairly laughable to mention a $1000 sum... is a thousand bucks such a large sum these days that it would draw attention ? If I'd pay an equal amount here, in my countries currency, in cash (not that I would, I use my cards 99%), nobody would raise an eyebrow, maybe 2-3x more would.
Yup, i.e. you have to give them any information they request, for free, and congratulate them in the process.
This payed-with-credit-card trouble is pretty wierd, sometimes you can read they think it's suspicious if someone is paying with cash, and sometimes that it's suspicious if someone pays with a card. And I guess if we'd ask which payment method is less suspicious, that would be the most suspicious.
It's a wierd world. You'd go to some friends, family, a conference, for business issues, etc. to find out years later that your mailing has been monitored for years because you dared to pay your hardly earned money for a flight ? An let's say you send some really suspicious letter a few years later, then they can finally jump and sing see-we-knew-it:)
These guys come up with more and more transparent "reasons" to monitor everybody, slowly but surely.
How true. It's a _huge_ difference if you knowingly place edited links on a web page which will point to illegal material - it's like showing the way for someone to the next drug dealer - and if you automatically gather and link to page contents [i.e. google and co.] _without_ the intent of knowingly providing access to illegal or infringing material.
Could it be that the guy was raised on Windows ? Or what ? I mean, in the real world, there are more file systems that the one which your OS uses by default. And adding native support for them is not a questionable move, it's an applaudible move.
Hell, I remember what a happy day it was when I found crossmeta's xfs reading tools for Windows. Things like this shouldn't be a thing to raise an eyebrow for. What you all should raise your eyebrows for is why some OSes repetitively do not want to add native support for widespread file systems.
It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip
No, what it's hard to see is how he managed to get this job. Probably ought to have talked to the guy before giving him the office. But, I guess it takes skill to notice the lack of it.
Well, and how does that listening help MS's image become better, unless 1) you jump over to a job at higher management and 2) do more than listening. I mean really do something, and a bit more than trying to persuade with PR, buzzwords, promises [of features, of security, of standards, and so on] or playing fast follower catchup for too long. I know it's enough for the masses, but there are people out there who don't just buy [take for granted] everything they read or hear.
It's like with MPAA and co.: if a new article pops up about another stupid move, people easily believe it, even if it's fake [it happened] since it fits into the picture. You have no chance until the average opinion of your company stays negative. And that requires moves, talk is not enough.
Additionally, someone with deep connections saying that it's nice and good is only good enough for some close friends. For the rest, well, talk is cheap.
I'm more positive about MS than I used to be, partly as a result of meeting some great and really smart employees
Sadly, good people working for a company isn't enough to make the company's general perception more positive. I also know some nice fellas working at companies I don't especially like. But hey, good people also have to work someplace:))
And me, dumb as I may seem, thought the whole writing was describing his experience, and his opinions about his visit at MS. I guess you're about the only one thinking that wasn't obvious enough.
the subjects deliberately avoided government surveillance
Ok, so what does that mean, and when exactly is that taken as on offensive/criminal activity ? If you see a cctv camera and go around it, or if you don't take your mobile phone with you on the road, or wear sunglasses and baseball cap, or just simply don't leave your house ? Or what ? Since the wording of the short quote sounds like that avoidance is a bad thing or illegal or something. Is this yet another case of if you didn't do anything you should have nothing to hide (we should make an automatic system like there was in the Demolition Man movie which should automatically fine everyone coming up with that sorry excuse) ?
how they paid for tickets,..., seating preference and the meals they ordered in-flight
Except I, for one, very rarely pay myself for the tickets, never choose explicitly any of the rest, I simply don't care. So, when should I expect them to come for me ?:|
Not really. Come back when you can link to someone who has been exploited by it. Deliberately downloading and using such a corrupted dmg doesn't count.
Despite the iFanboy jabber that Zune sales were horrific
[off to burn] Ok, so if those people are iFanboys, and some pretty and unpretty another dozen names some people can conjure up every now and then, then how shall we call this guy ? My glass has just gotten full with zealotry remarks. Also, I find it harder and harder these days to refrain myself from slapping every oh-never-mind-he's-just-a-*-zealot dismissers. [/off]
I'm really just curious at this point what is driving the anti-Exchange bandwagon, because I don't see a real, viable competitor out there.
And if everybody had this attitude, there would never be one either. Saying one product is the best so don't waste your time developing a free (or not free, whatever) alternative is just senselessly stupid. If there were now an exchange-alternative that could replace it (needn't replicate all functionality, just give me what I need), not developed and sold by ms, I'd buy it and I'd use it, with no second thoughts and long thinking. Two points would count: if it's working and it's ms-free, then it's a winner.
The limit is there since probably the ink doesn't go away, it just becomes transparent, so after many uses the paper will get thicker and harder. IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, scientists have found convincing evidence that geographical and geopolitical maps can be used by terrorists to pinpoint vulnerable locations and possible targets and to coordinate terrorist troop movements. They propose the BAM [Banish All Maps] Act in order to prevent terrorists' orientation.
He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars
All I can say is, talk is cheap. It doesn't matter how much you've payed him. It only matters how much you promised to pay and then how much you really payed. Rest is rubbish.
Certainly, I think an interviewer has zero obligation to spend his time explaining to somebody what they did wrong. Certainly not for free.
Sorry if I would offend with this to some extent, but let me just suppose that the people who spend their hours answering [the sometimes angering or unrelated tests and questions and everything else those interviewers might come up with] have also lives and things to do, even if the interviewer thinks they are jobless loosers without a life trying to land in some fatty position at their company. Meaning, time is precious on both ends. Just because someone would wish to work at your company doesn't (shouldn't) by default mean they couldn't apply to anywhere else and they are yours to use.
I don't say explanations should be given. I personally wouldn't mind either way, if they don't want me (for whatever reason), why would I want to be there, job search is a double sided sword, I should like the place plus they should want me working there. But I just find the quoted reasoning pretty flawed and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the company where such lines would be said on an interview.
How about stepping up to the plate and showing the rest of the world
Well, you can do that best when you let in immigrants easily, then compete for the jobs and positions with them, and then, if you all manage to get the jobs, you could easily show that you are more skilled. Competition doesn't mean making it harder for others so you can win easier.
With a completely open border, anybody could come in unchecked. Fugitives, Al Queda, drug dealers, and others would have a field day.
I wouldn't want to disappoint you, but thing is, probably these are the guys who can easily go across borders and countries if they want to, since they probably have the money and the resources to do so, as they already have demonstrated on several sad and unfortunate occasions. Most probably, the people that get the most hassle are working, law-abiding ones. E.g. did you know that even today there are EU countries from where the US is one of the most hard to visit places (legally, of course) ?
I find this thing way too stupid. Why ? _Not_ because of the idea, I would be in the front line to support a system that would detect drunk drivers reliably. What's my problem then ? The same as with those "reliable" face recognition systems that get deployed everywhere, which have let's say one digit false rate which still mean hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily hassled. Only thing is, I would have bigger issues against an even a few percentage false rate device that could take over steering and engine control from the driver, in situations which could be totally unacceptable (just look up possts above, some of them give good examples) and given the number of cars these days, that would also mean tens or hundreds of thousands of cursing people along the freeways. Thing is, such systems, all of them, have a false positive rate that can be PR-ed this way or another, but until they __prove__ believably that a) the number of drunk driver incidents can drop significantly and b) the number of hassled drivers is so small you actually can believe you'll never have trouble, until these are proved, let it rot in some company's drawers and waste your tax-dollars for something more useful, like - for a change - something which increases your freedom, people.
What's with you guys with such arguments ? Since when is a seatbelt an active device that can directly control and stop your car's engine ?
Yes, but
- they don't take away the driving control from your hands while on the way
- we shouldn't trust them to put _any_ direct driving control-capable system into the car which can have _any_ false positive rate - and I guess this one will have rates measurable in one or two digit percentages.
I don't want my car to not take me home from work because I'm sleepy. I don't drink and I know myself to make good judgment whether I drive or I call a cab.
Well, I thought it would go into the next generation Viper :))))
While I agree that usually large cash payments seem suspicious, and sometimes worthy to check after, I find it fairly laughable to mention a $1000 sum... is a thousand bucks such a large sum these days that it would draw attention ? If I'd pay an equal amount here, in my countries currency, in cash (not that I would, I use my cards 99%), nobody would raise an eyebrow, maybe 2-3x more would.
Freedom of Information request
:)
Yup, i.e. you have to give them any information they request, for free, and congratulate them in the process.
This payed-with-credit-card trouble is pretty wierd, sometimes you can read they think it's suspicious if someone is paying with cash, and sometimes that it's suspicious if someone pays with a card. And I guess if we'd ask which payment method is less suspicious, that would be the most suspicious.
It's a wierd world. You'd go to some friends, family, a conference, for business issues, etc. to find out years later that your mailing has been monitored for years because you dared to pay your hardly earned money for a flight ? An let's say you send some really suspicious letter a few years later, then they can finally jump and sing see-we-knew-it
These guys come up with more and more transparent "reasons" to monitor everybody, slowly but surely.
How true. It's a _huge_ difference if you knowingly place edited links on a web page which will point to illegal material - it's like showing the way for someone to the next drug dealer - and if you automatically gather and link to page contents [i.e. google and co.] _without_ the intent of knowingly providing access to illegal or infringing material.
could there be any other reasons to support ZFS
Could it be that the guy was raised on Windows ? Or what ? I mean, in the real world, there are more file systems that the one which your OS uses by default. And adding native support for them is not a questionable move, it's an applaudible move.
Hell, I remember what a happy day it was when I found crossmeta's xfs reading tools for Windows. Things like this shouldn't be a thing to raise an eyebrow for. What you all should raise your eyebrows for is why some OSes repetitively do not want to add native support for widespread file systems.
It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip
No, what it's hard to see is how he managed to get this job. Probably ought to have talked to the guy before giving him the office. But, I guess it takes skill to notice the lack of it.
It's good to know, that if they don't release patches, that means IE7 is clean from bugs. I got all comfy and calm now.
Keep the feeback coming. We're listening.
Well, and how does that listening help MS's image become better, unless 1) you jump over to a job at higher management and 2) do more than listening. I mean really do something, and a bit more than trying to persuade with PR, buzzwords, promises [of features, of security, of standards, and so on] or playing fast follower catchup for too long. I know it's enough for the masses, but there are people out there who don't just buy [take for granted] everything they read or hear.
It's like with MPAA and co.: if a new article pops up about another stupid move, people easily believe it, even if it's fake [it happened] since it fits into the picture. You have no chance until the average opinion of your company stays negative. And that requires moves, talk is not enough.
Additionally, someone with deep connections saying that it's nice and good is only good enough for some close friends. For the rest, well, talk is cheap.
I'm more positive about MS than I used to be, partly as a result of meeting some great and really smart employees
:))
Sadly, good people working for a company isn't enough to make the company's general perception more positive. I also know some nice fellas working at companies I don't especially like. But hey, good people also have to work someplace
that statement above should have read:
And me, dumb as I may seem, thought the whole writing was describing his experience, and his opinions about his visit at MS. I guess you're about the only one thinking that wasn't obvious enough.
the subjects deliberately avoided government surveillance
Ok, so what does that mean, and when exactly is that taken as on offensive/criminal activity ? If you see a cctv camera and go around it, or if you don't take your mobile phone with you on the road, or wear sunglasses and baseball cap, or just simply don't leave your house ? Or what ? Since the wording of the short quote sounds like that avoidance is a bad thing or illegal or something. Is this yet another case of if you didn't do anything you should have nothing to hide (we should make an automatic system like there was in the Demolition Man movie which should automatically fine everyone coming up with that sorry excuse) ?
No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.
Hopefully the judge - and/or the investigators - will have a bit more knowledge about that.
how they paid for tickets, ..., seating preference and the meals they ordered in-flight
:|
Except I, for one, very rarely pay myself for the tickets, never choose explicitly any of the rest, I simply don't care. So, when should I expect them to come for me ?
Not really. Come back when you can link to someone who has been exploited by it. Deliberately downloading and using such a corrupted dmg doesn't count.
Despite the iFanboy jabber that Zune sales were horrific
[off to burn] Ok, so if those people are iFanboys, and some pretty and unpretty another dozen names some people can conjure up every now and then, then how shall we call this guy ? My glass has just gotten full with zealotry remarks. Also, I find it harder and harder these days to refrain myself from slapping every oh-never-mind-he's-just-a-*-zealot dismissers. [/off]
I'm really just curious at this point what is driving the anti-Exchange bandwagon, because I don't see a real, viable competitor out there.
And if everybody had this attitude, there would never be one either. Saying one product is the best so don't waste your time developing a free (or not free, whatever) alternative is just senselessly stupid. If there were now an exchange-alternative that could replace it (needn't replicate all functionality, just give me what I need), not developed and sold by ms, I'd buy it and I'd use it, with no second thoughts and long thinking. Two points would count: if it's working and it's ms-free, then it's a winner.
The limit is there since probably the ink doesn't go away, it just becomes transparent, so after many uses the paper will get thicker and harder. IMHO.