I don't see where the "no fraternization" rule applies when the employee is in uniform.
The rules themsleves apply to "uniform employees", but that's not the same thing.
The NLRB ruling cites the rule thus: "While one duty you must NOT... fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employeess or with co-employees."
While it's true that a person's character can be judged during times of duress, I think to judge by the same standard as you would during good times is ridiculous. Character is judged in context. Thus, if Bill Gates were to go broke tomorrow, nobody would expect him to be donate as much as he does today. But if, as a poor man, he still gave away more money than other poor people, you would say he was a charitable person. Lance Armstrong was a much better cancer patient than I think I would have been, but at the time he was near death, I was certainly a healthier person.
My point was, that the US and UK, even at war, are still more free than most other nations in the world. The claim that any curtailment of civil liberties during wartime means that a nation is no longer free makes no sense, either politically or logically.
"The real measure of a free, open and just society is how it behaves in bad times - not in good times"
While this sort of thing sounds good, a few problems come to mind in the current context.
Is the true test of a person's health that a person is only as healthy as they are when they're sick? Lance Armstrong was in pretty bad shape a few years ago, but he'll be remembered as one of the most fit people on earth.
Whatever your measure of freedom is, it must be relative. So a country like the UK (in this case) may not be free according to some abstract critical standard, but when compared with all the states that exist or have existed it fares pretty well. Would you rather be an American living under the regime of the Patriot Act, or living in Iran or China?
You're missing the point of the the exam. It's not to see if you can do X; it's to test if you can do X the MS way. That's because it's an MS Certification exam. There's nothing scumbaggy about that. They have certain practices and they want to make sure you know them so that all people working on an Windows project are doing so from the same frame of reference. You may argue that their best practices are flawed, but the purpose of the test is to prove that you do in fact know them.
What planet are you living on? You're actually suggesting that Alan Greenspan, the man who has been attempting to carefully control growth and inflation by manipulating the money supply for almost 20 years now, thinks that the government should have a hands-off relationship to the market?? No, there is no proof that such government meddling is any better than the alternative, unless you count the Great Depression.
The fact that you keep repeating this idiotic point about the governments role in modern economies without citing a single example of an economy where it works, just proves you don't want to know anything about economics. It's like somebody arguing the communism works, all evidence to the contrary.
By the way, Mr. Economist, wtf does "taking money out the economy" mean?
real life government is always a hindrance and impediment to the economy, because the government interfers in the most basic economic units: the voluntary and spontaneous transactions between individuals. These games can't even distribute resources without the autocrat's (your) help!
Yeah, I guess by enforcing contracts, maintaining the the communication and transportation infrastructure, providing for the security of your property, the government really screws it up for those of you who are able "produce wealth" out of your magic orifice.
How the hell does making people be more cross platform be "less inclusive" ?
I dunno, how is making people learn to speak another language less inclusive? Why is it better for the government to force people to use FOSS then for them to force them to use proprietary formats? The government in this case should put as few roadblocks between themselves and the people as possible, even if that means having to open and Excel file sometimes.
Either you or the Norwegian Minister of Modernization (!!) seems to misunderstand what's being said here. By not accepting proprietary formats, the government would be becoming less capable and inclusive, not more. "Without mentioning any other languages by name, the minister said that all trials will henceforth be conducted in Esperanto."
How that kind of nonsense gets modded Insightful is beyond me.
While I don't believe that the bombings were ultimately immoral, I don't see how you can have no sympathy for the Japanese people. As a citizen of a free country, I cannot hold the average Japanese of 1945 responsible for the actions of the brutal military junta that ruled their country.
WWII was perhaps the most tragic chapter in modern history. While there were clear "bad guys", most of the world's population were hostage to them. Those who dropped the bombs did what they thought was right to end the war; that doesn't mean that those who suffered don't deserve sympathy.
I don't buy the logic that if I like something, I'm obliged to support the person who made it. For example, should I send the NY Times money becasue I like to read their paper on-line?I beleive that the onus is on the person trying to make a profit from a service, not on the consumer, to make sure that it is in fact profitable.
Nevertheless, if you're going to ascribe to that logic, at least please be consistent. If Windows is good enough for use, and what I want to use must be supported by me, therefore it must be good enough to pay for. Right? Isn't Windows just as necessary to running Neverwinter Nights as the Neverwinter Nights discs themselves?
I really don't give a damn about Quark, but I am a developer, and if you stop and think what you're asking from them, it's pretty unfair.
Let's say you've spend 15 years or so developing a stable product for a single OS. Over that time, your application has become the standard tool for it job, and enourmously complex and powerful. Then the OS changes.
How long should it take to turn that Aircraft carrier around? A couple of years to get back to wear you were is reasonable from a my perspective. But customers get impatient, and during that time your competitors who had less code to port and test get a head start.
This doesn't even take into account the question of when you time the transition to OSX. You have to guess not only if and when it will be stable and popular, but when your customers are going to make the switch. Not everyone is an early adopter.
Everything has a price; in this case the trade-off is between some performance and speed in getting the app to the customer. As has been documented many times, the ratio of bugs to lines of code in C++ is significantly higher than in the other higher-level languages. If the performance hit is unnoticable, only a fool would choose to hire a more expensive developer to take longer.
And please, let's compare apples to apples: a competent programmer writing the same quality code in C++ and C#. This competent programmer would write better code in the same time in C# or Java than she would in C++. Like they tell the first day of class: C and C++ are more powerful languages, but they present the opportunity for many more subtle and hard-to-find errors. E.g., the garbage collector in.Net is as good as any that the best developers would write themselves, and better than what 90% would. Remember, Pride goeth before the fall.
C++ gives you the opportunity to more efficient code. But runtime efficiency is only one of several facets that I would say go into making good code.
Can someone please explain this? I've head that necessity is the mother of invention, but this sounds like parthenogenesis.
The need to remember your password is no less vital than your need to remember them. How come this problem hasn't designed it's solution yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Your "post" is very *Insightful* and "Interesting". I'm sure a lot of your *friends* think you're really "smart".
If this were part of a viral campaign, the grammar of the article would almost certainly be better.
Yes, if there is any group that helps to promote the use of proper English above all else, it is advertisers.
Don't be a jerk.
I don't see where the "no fraternization" rule applies when the employee is in uniform. The rules themsleves apply to "uniform employees", but that's not the same thing.
The NLRB ruling cites the rule thus: "While one duty you must NOT... fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employeess or with co-employees."
Leave the companies to make money and the voters to tell the government how to behave.
Yes, I've often wondered why those people in China keep voting for that terrible government they have.
Get a grip. Spam is annoying, but not harmful. And sending it is hardly sufficient to qualify you as sociopathic.
While it's true that a person's character can be judged during times of duress, I think to judge by the same standard as you would during good times is ridiculous. Character is judged in context. Thus, if Bill Gates were to go broke tomorrow, nobody would expect him to be donate as much as he does today. But if, as a poor man, he still gave away more money than other poor people, you would say he was a charitable person. Lance Armstrong was a much better cancer patient than I think I would have been, but at the time he was near death, I was certainly a healthier person.
My point was, that the US and UK, even at war, are still more free than most other nations in the world. The claim that any curtailment of civil liberties during wartime means that a nation is no longer free makes no sense, either politically or logically.
"The real measure of a free, open and just society is how it behaves in bad times - not in good times"
While this sort of thing sounds good, a few problems come to mind in the current context. Is the true test of a person's health that a person is only as healthy as they are when they're sick? Lance Armstrong was in pretty bad shape a few years ago, but he'll be remembered as one of the most fit people on earth.
Whatever your measure of freedom is, it must be relative. So a country like the UK (in this case) may not be free according to some abstract critical standard, but when compared with all the states that exist or have existed it fares pretty well. Would you rather be an American living under the regime of the Patriot Act, or living in Iran or China?
Is there any manufacturer of anything that a) wants to see a competitor dominate the market, or b) doesn't want to dominate the market itself.
Apparently someone has confused the words Insightful and Tautological
You're missing the point of the the exam. It's not to see if you can do X; it's to test if you can do X the MS way. That's because it's an MS Certification exam. There's nothing scumbaggy about that. They have certain practices and they want to make sure you know them so that all people working on an Windows project are doing so from the same frame of reference. You may argue that their best practices are flawed, but the purpose of the test is to prove that you do in fact know them.
What planet are you living on? You're actually suggesting that Alan Greenspan, the man who has been attempting to carefully control growth and inflation by manipulating the money supply for almost 20 years now, thinks that the government should have a hands-off relationship to the market?? No, there is no proof that such government meddling is any better than the alternative, unless you count the Great Depression.
The fact that you keep repeating this idiotic point about the governments role in modern economies without citing a single example of an economy where it works, just proves you don't want to know anything about economics. It's like somebody arguing the communism works, all evidence to the contrary.
By the way, Mr. Economist, wtf does "taking money out the economy" mean?
Every mainstream economics text affirms that government interference in the economy has a negative effect.
And every mainstream economy in the world affirms the opposite.
Sincerly,
Alan Greenspan
real life government is always a hindrance and impediment to the economy, because the government interfers in the most basic economic units: the voluntary and spontaneous transactions between individuals. These games can't even distribute resources without the autocrat's (your) help!
Yeah, I guess by enforcing contracts, maintaining the the communication and transportation infrastructure, providing for the security of your property, the government really screws it up for those of you who are able "produce wealth" out of your magic orifice.
Whoa yourself. I hear that in Paris French is still mighty popular.
How the hell does making people be more cross platform be "less inclusive" ?
I dunno, how is making people learn to speak another language less inclusive? Why is it better for the government to force people to use FOSS then for them to force them to use proprietary formats? The government in this case should put as few roadblocks between themselves and the people as possible, even if that means having to open and Excel file sometimes.
Either you or the Norwegian Minister of Modernization (!!) seems to misunderstand what's being said here. By not accepting proprietary formats, the government would be becoming less capable and inclusive, not more. "Without mentioning any other languages by name, the minister said that all trials will henceforth be conducted in Esperanto."
The entire whatnow?
How that kind of nonsense gets modded Insightful is beyond me.
While I don't believe that the bombings were ultimately immoral, I don't see how you can have no sympathy for the Japanese people. As a citizen of a free country, I cannot hold the average Japanese of 1945 responsible for the actions of the brutal military junta that ruled their country.
WWII was perhaps the most tragic chapter in modern history. While there were clear "bad guys", most of the world's population were hostage to them. Those who dropped the bombs did what they thought was right to end the war; that doesn't mean that those who suffered don't deserve sympathy.
I don't buy the logic that if I like something, I'm obliged to support the person who made it. For example, should I send the NY Times money becasue I like to read their paper on-line?I beleive that the onus is on the person trying to make a profit from a service, not on the consumer, to make sure that it is in fact profitable.
Nevertheless, if you're going to ascribe to that logic, at least please be consistent. If Windows is good enough for use, and what I want to use must be supported by me, therefore it must be good enough to pay for. Right? Isn't Windows just as necessary to running Neverwinter Nights as the Neverwinter Nights discs themselves?
Spoken like a true blogger.
I really don't give a damn about Quark, but I am a developer, and if you stop and think what you're asking from them, it's pretty unfair. Let's say you've spend 15 years or so developing a stable product for a single OS. Over that time, your application has become the standard tool for it job, and enourmously complex and powerful. Then the OS changes. How long should it take to turn that Aircraft carrier around? A couple of years to get back to wear you were is reasonable from a my perspective. But customers get impatient, and during that time your competitors who had less code to port and test get a head start.
This doesn't even take into account the question of when you time the transition to OSX. You have to guess not only if and when it will be stable and popular, but when your customers are going to make the switch. Not everyone is an early adopter.
My God, where did he learn such mind control?!
Everything has a price; in this case the trade-off is between some performance and speed in getting the app to the customer. As has been documented many times, the ratio of bugs to lines of code in C++ is significantly higher than in the other higher-level languages. If the performance hit is unnoticable, only a fool would choose to hire a more expensive developer to take longer.
.Net is as good as any that the best developers would write themselves, and better than what 90% would. Remember, Pride goeth before the fall.
And please, let's compare apples to apples: a competent programmer writing the same quality code in C++ and C#.
This competent programmer would write better code in the same time in C# or Java than she would in C++. Like they tell the first day of class: C and C++ are more powerful languages, but they present the opportunity for many more subtle and hard-to-find errors. E.g., the garbage collector in
C++ gives you the opportunity to more efficient code. But runtime efficiency is only one of several facets that I would say go into making good code.
Woops. Replace that second "remember" with "have".
Security is designed by the need for it.
Can someone please explain this? I've head that necessity is the mother of invention, but this sounds like parthenogenesis.
The need to remember your password is no less vital than your need to remember them. How come this problem hasn't designed it's solution yet?