Actually there's a significant number of companies that you won't get a "bad reference" from in this case. It's not usual these days for HR departments to have policies wherein they will only tell the person inquiring about the person's reference the start and end dates of the person's employment at the organization. They do this because it isn't unusual for C-level (and other managerial-level) employees to have their friends call the company, posing as people checking references. If they get a bad referral, then the ex-C/manager sues the organization. Not sure what they sue for (defamation? not sure), but there you have it.
While IT workers generally get better treatment than this, most IT workers I know work much more than 40 hours a week, one result of this is they have little or no social life.
I think you have the causal relationship reversed there, bud.
This is true. The place I'm working for just got a full-time non-contract Oracle DBA after over a year oflooking for one.
A coworker told the DBA they'd been looking a long time for someone and wondered aloud why it'd been so hard to get one hired. Said DBA replied, "I think it's because the word is out that this place sucks."
Sure, makes ya wonder why they would take the job (maybe the pay is good enough?), but then again, makes you wonder why I, myself, am still working here.
It still exists in some companies. I was a one-man team running a training site in metropolitan area where our HQ was halfway across the continent (and I was the only employee in the state). After a couple months, I'd only hear from the owners/management team once every few weeks, because I'd established that I was 1) trustworthy and 2) competent.
When I left, I told them ahead of time, and they asked me to look over and interview some candidates for my replacement.
So it happens, but, I agree, it's less common than it used to be.
If I wasn't at work I'd look up the citation, but apparently double-blind studies have pretty conclusively shown that ruffies aren't really useful as a "date rape" drug, seeing as they're not a magical knockout potion.
Now, getting trashed out of your mind, that'll give yer frat boy an opening. Doesn't need a magical additive for that, though.
Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iran.
However, the mere fact that a country says bad things about us or our interests (or worse, doesn't do what we tell them they should be doing!), shouldn't on its own cause us to spend time and resources to escalate the situation.
Take a look again at the article. The root folder of the files queued for moving (in my example, it'd be the folder with A,B,C,D in it; in the article it's called "test") disappears from the desktop because the move operation nuked it.
Let's think about this. I'm copying a folder called A,B,C, and D from a local volume to a Samba share. I start copying, I get "A" and "B" to the share, and then the Samba connection drops. I should expect A,B to be on the remote share, and C,D in the local volume.
In this current OS X implementation, what I get is A,B on the remote share, with C and D vanished, because OS X deleted the pointer to the folder on the local volume.
This is not sane behavior which certainly doesn't happen on any recent release of Windows, and I'm also reasonably certain it doesn't happen on recent versions of any Linux dist I've used.
You're asking if a bug wherein entire folder hierarchies can go *poof* in the event a network share drops should be considered critical? Are you serious?
I know you're trolling/being sarcastic, but just in case anyone is tempted to agree with you, the answer is "almost every person using OS X". (even though Finder is really friggin annoying)
I'm fairly certain, though I can't recall an exact example, that this is done on a regular basis. Pretty sure it is, shall we say, frowned upon by the Men in Green.
Your down is probably one of two things: freaking out a fritzy modem, OR (more likely in my experience) it's choking your Linksys cable/dsl NAT router. I used to have huge problems with my Linksys WRT56G's after long downloads at high speeds (even, sadly, with the DD-WRT 3rd-party firmware). I went over to a D-link gaming router and I haven't had to touch it for months unless I change DHCP reservations or something of the sort.
Because articles written by journalists are complex and potentially difficult to read! That could alienate a sizable part of your potential audience!
Besides, its much easier to produce "to catch a predator" over and over again, then pass it off as journalism, than it is to convince people that real news stories can't be contained in simple, bite-sized nuggets.
It doesn't much matter whether YOU think it's important or not, it's important in this application and while Linux should be able to do handle this application easily, it's currently not doing so.
Ubuntu, you mean. Apparently SUSE was working fine, and is also Linux. Furthermore, the video driver is also not Linux, so...
Really what you're saying is that you have a beef with the drivers for a videocard, and really this has nothing to do with Linux at all. At most you have a beef with Ubuntu, not Linux itself.
That's unfortunate that you have a customer who is dumb. Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.
I stand by my statement, though. Getting a monitor to work at high res on a server should be waayyyyyat the bottom of the "things that matter in any way whatsoever" list, since any reasonably smart admin is going to be utilizing a remote connnection anyway.
If the boxen are being used as a render farm, for example, having the hardware for the graphics card is probably good, but does it really matter what resolution the card can display?
Really? Yoda told us size doesn't matter with the force.
I dunno. Yoda has been established as pretty much the most powerful Jedi at the height of the Jedi's power. Yet it required him to focus just on the X-Wing in ESB to move it out of the swamp.
Now, granted, I hear that in the novels Luke does some light-dark combo FTW bits, but it seems to me that Vader's "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force" bit is an expression of a "theoretical" upper limit, as opposed to a practical limit (or ability, depending on how you look at it).
Well, and I'm not sure if this is reflected in reality (or worldwide, for that matter), but the public perception certainly is that Amex is a "better" card that is more difficult to be approved for and signifies something positive about the holder. Who knows, tho.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there's a significant number of companies that you won't get a "bad reference" from in this case. It's not usual these days for HR departments to have policies wherein they will only tell the person inquiring about the person's reference the start and end dates of the person's employment at the organization. They do this because it isn't unusual for C-level (and other managerial-level) employees to have their friends call the company, posing as people checking references. If they get a bad referral, then the ex-C/manager sues the organization. Not sure what they sue for (defamation? not sure), but there you have it.
I think you have the causal relationship reversed there, bud.
This is true. The place I'm working for just got a full-time non-contract Oracle DBA after over a year oflooking for one.
A coworker told the DBA they'd been looking a long time for someone and wondered aloud why it'd been so hard to get one hired. Said DBA replied, "I think it's because the word is out that this place sucks."
Sure, makes ya wonder why they would take the job (maybe the pay is good enough?), but then again, makes you wonder why I, myself, am still working here.
It still exists in some companies. I was a one-man team running a training site in metropolitan area where our HQ was halfway across the continent (and I was the only employee in the state). After a couple months, I'd only hear from the owners/management team once every few weeks, because I'd established that I was 1) trustworthy and 2) competent.
When I left, I told them ahead of time, and they asked me to look over and interview some candidates for my replacement.
So it happens, but, I agree, it's less common than it used to be.
Eh, chances are she got paid for that leftover vacation anyway. Tends to be the case at most organizations I've worked for / have seen.
Dunno where you got the idea that slashdot ever let one edit their posts after submitting. That has never been the case.
Probably because Sony left out some parts in order to try making their PS3 production quota.
If I wasn't at work I'd look up the citation, but apparently double-blind studies have pretty conclusively shown that ruffies aren't really useful as a "date rape" drug, seeing as they're not a magical knockout potion.
Now, getting trashed out of your mind, that'll give yer frat boy an opening. Doesn't need a magical additive for that, though.
Which is, again, *more* than capable of defending itself, seeing as it is, itself a nuclear power (sure, sure I know it isn't).
Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iran.
However, the mere fact that a country says bad things about us or our interests (or worse, doesn't do what we tell them they should be doing!), shouldn't on its own cause us to spend time and resources to escalate the situation.
Take a look again at the article. The root folder of the files queued for moving (in my example, it'd be the folder with A,B,C,D in it; in the article it's called "test") disappears from the desktop because the move operation nuked it.
Let's think about this. I'm copying a folder called A,B,C, and D from a local volume to a Samba share. I start copying, I get "A" and "B" to the share, and then the Samba connection drops. I should expect A,B to be on the remote share, and C,D in the local volume.
In this current OS X implementation, what I get is A,B on the remote share, with C and D vanished, because OS X deleted the pointer to the folder on the local volume.
This is not sane behavior which certainly doesn't happen on any recent release of Windows, and I'm also reasonably certain it doesn't happen on recent versions of any Linux dist I've used.
You're asking if a bug wherein entire folder hierarchies can go *poof* in the event a network share drops should be considered critical? Are you serious?
I know you're trolling/being sarcastic, but just in case anyone is tempted to agree with you, the answer is "almost every person using OS X". (even though Finder is really friggin annoying)
I'm fairly certain, though I can't recall an exact example, that this is done on a regular basis. Pretty sure it is, shall we say, frowned upon by the Men in Green.
Your down is probably one of two things: freaking out a fritzy modem, OR (more likely in my experience) it's choking your Linksys cable/dsl NAT router. I used to have huge problems with my Linksys WRT56G's after long downloads at high speeds (even, sadly, with the DD-WRT 3rd-party firmware). I went over to a D-link gaming router and I haven't had to touch it for months unless I change DHCP reservations or something of the sort.
Because articles written by journalists are complex and potentially difficult to read! That could alienate a sizable part of your potential audience!
Besides, its much easier to produce "to catch a predator" over and over again, then pass it off as journalism, than it is to convince people that real news stories can't be contained in simple, bite-sized nuggets.
Ubuntu, you mean. Apparently SUSE was working fine, and is also Linux. Furthermore, the video driver is also not Linux, so...
Really what you're saying is that you have a beef with the drivers for a videocard, and really this has nothing to do with Linux at all. At most you have a beef with Ubuntu, not Linux itself.
That's unfortunate that you have a customer who is dumb. Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.
I stand by my statement, though. Getting a monitor to work at high res on a server should be waayyyyyat the bottom of the "things that matter in any way whatsoever" list, since any reasonably smart admin is going to be utilizing a remote connnection anyway.
If the boxen are being used as a render farm, for example, having the hardware for the graphics card is probably good, but does it really matter what resolution the card can display?
What's the point of caring if a rackmount server runs 1600x1200?
Mike was head writer since, IIRC, CC season 2. To say that Joel "made" the show, is silly.
Many organizations do traffic shaping, it's just that Comcast is a behemoth where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
I dunno. Yoda has been established as pretty much the most powerful Jedi at the height of the Jedi's power. Yet it required him to focus just on the X-Wing in ESB to move it out of the swamp.
Now, granted, I hear that in the novels Luke does some light-dark combo FTW bits, but it seems to me that Vader's "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force" bit is an expression of a "theoretical" upper limit, as opposed to a practical limit (or ability, depending on how you look at it).
Well, and I'm not sure if this is reflected in reality (or worldwide, for that matter), but the public perception certainly is that Amex is a "better" card that is more difficult to be approved for and signifies something positive about the holder. Who knows, tho.