Re:Want a job? Get on LinkedIn
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I thought affirmative action was supposed to kill that. Or perhaps I just dreamed that. That is perhaps the worst way to manage a company. People should be able to work together, but blurring the lines between work and not work is really dangerous.
When lay offs come or somebody needs to be let go. Chummy coworkers that are a bit too comfortable with each other. There are any number of ways in which that can blow up and damage the company's productivity.
There's a bit of a difference, Google is tolerated, but Comcast is largely government created. In areas where Comcast has service, there is no other option for cable service. Your options are Comcast, Satellite or an aerial.
Whereas with Google, it's largely a matter of turning a blind eye to them buying up their biggest competitor.
That's fairly common, but the type of right that the GP was referring to isn't connected in such a way. You can wander through yards and properties without being harassed. Well, assuming you're behaving and not wrecking things.
That was one of the stark differences between the US and Switzerland. It seems to work for them, but I can't imagine it working without a long cultural tradition.
What an inane straw man you've created. Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not. If I park my car on the side of a (public) road or in my (private) driveway, the theft of it is the same crime.
Not quite, technically it's grand theft auto in both cases, but in the latter there's also probably a charge for trespass. And if they had to damage a gate getting the car out there's that as well.
Overreact much? Kids will be kids and any adult that expects that kind of obedience is better off being wrong. This happened in the US where much of our wealth ultimately comes from that sort of "attitude problem." Just because adults can behave in anti-social ways because of their power doesn't mean that it's appropriate to do so.
Fires are a very different matter, I can not conceive of a way in which that analogy is cogent. Like it or not in most places kids do not have the option of withdrawing from schools or moving over to other ones just because they're not being appropriately taught.
The scary thing is that this sort of thing happens every generation and yet we've yet to get even a single generation that doesn't get drunk on power when it's their turn.
Because that's over kill. There is no justification for requiring that the number be shown. The fact of the matter is that the number can be spoofed and some of us don't want our number to show up for one reason or another.
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it, if they really want it they should have to ask. That way I get a say in whether or not my number ends up on a list.
Sort of like how you have to pay a fee to get out of the telephone book, why it is that the phone companies can put it in without permission is beyond me.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I don't have any idea where to start. In cases where it's that bad, one has to wonder why there's shared custody involved. And it really makes me wonder why they need to use the phone, some other form of communication, one with logs, would probably be a better choice anyways.
Then again, I can't imagine who in their right mind would call from their landline assuming that it couldn't be logged or have the number otherwise identified. My phone number is blocked from caller ID and most companies I call for service know what it is without asking.
That's apples to oranges. Adding color to the specification was a relatively minor affair, they added color information to what they had and older televisions didn't know about it. Sort of like the move to stereo.
But in this case, one of the big things they were solving was the problem of wasted spectrum. And yes I do mean wasted, the number of people that only receive television via the airwaves is a small fraction of the total and the spectrum does have other uses.
At this point, we don't really know what we've gotten, with all the FUD about people that aren't bright enough to be able to plug in the box, I doubt that the media is portraying it fairly.
Um, you do realize that dtv hasn't been broadcast at full power, right? It does depend upon where you live, but around here, I get more channels now that we're doing dtv than I could reasonably get with the older signals. Plus they're all watchable, which is a plus over cable.
Starting today stations will start to broadcast their full power and we'll begin to get a better picture of what's going on.
When things are all turned on to full power, then we'll see whether or not it's working. But it's quite difficult to know that based upon the trial offerings.
Well, how do they catch people for racial discrimination? It's not any different than other forms of discrimination, it's tough to prove, but that doesn't mean that a prudent firm gets lax. And there are huge penalties when caught.
I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist. Interpreting it as being a right to personal firearms without any qualifiers is unjustified. Felons, children and those not trained to use them safely not have any protections that guarantee them access.
The second amendment is the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of militias to bear arms in their own defense. The amendment does not at any point grant an explicit individual right to gun ownership. Interpreting it as such requires a purposeful misreading of the amendment.
It is also worth pointing out that the case law of the US doesn't support the particular ruling that SCOTUS put out last year. Just as the government has the right to make certain rules related to slander and false claims without running afoul of the first amendment protections.
But, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll, because hey it's not like that first clause is of any importance.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's pretty cut and dried, it applies to regulated militias. Or in other words it applies only to those that are in a militia for the purposes of civil defense. All other gun rights are based upon which ones aren't taken away in law.
Um, considering the fact that most voters tend to vote against the winner of the US Presidential election, I'm not sure your argument holds much water.
Bush was elected without winning a majority and without winning the popular vote either. And the last recount in Florida was incomplete leaving the electoral win somewhat ambiguous.
Once in office he spent a lot time cramming legislation down the throats of those that voted against him. Sure technically he didn't, it was him and the Republican party, but still.
Now you're telling me that the votes against him didn't count less? I find that very, very hard to believe. Had the constitution been respected to any meaningful degree the losing side would have had redress for the abuse.
I believe that in most cases the prospective employer farms out the task to a third party. Anything really worthwhile would require verification via court files anyways. And most of the time they really don't want the added liabilities of knowing anything beyond what they really need. The screeners typically give just the information that they need to make a decision.
But most of the time you have to agree to the background check or forgo the opportunity for consideration.
Whether or not it's illegal really depends upon the jurisdictions involved.
I disagree to some extent, it is relatively common for HR to look into those sorts of things quickly. But I don't think that they can legally use somebody else's actions against a prospective employee.
It's often part of the screening to do to make sure that they're not going to be embarrassed by web information. I don't think the practice will continue into the future, especially in light of the fact that it's going to be increasingly difficult to avoid candidates that are completely clean or non-existent online.
But honestly, many employers do have a prescreen which would catch both that as well as the lack of a criminal conviction. It would be potentially dangerous legally to use wrong information of that nature in a decision to not hire.
I'm surprised it took this long for anybody to mention it. It depends how many the OP has over all, but you definitely want to have some excess capacity that can be brought online for those sudden unpredictable spikes in activity. Regular spikes should already be factored in.
I suspect though that if the OP has enough servers to max out the bandwidth that some of the extras should be sold and use the money for bandwidth and related costs.
That's not true. Well, it would be if the inflation rate were really that low. The problem is that what you're referring to as inflation is really an increase in the price of a section of commodities.
The real inflation rate is based entirely upon the rate at which the local country prints money. Right now that rate is way, way over 3%, nobody really knows what it is because the US stopped keeping track of the money supply, but it's going to be quite high.
Continuous shufflers aren't as reliable about screwing things up as one might imagine. The basic problem is that you aren't guaranteed to hit those dead spots in the decks where most of the cards suck.
This is actually fairly important because it means that with the constraints on the dealer, it means that there's a relatively consistent number of 10 point cards left in the deck. And with the dealer being required to take a hit at any total less than 16 and depending upon the casino will uniformly take a hit or not on 17s.
And as such it changes the dynamics of what you take a hit on, knowing that the dealer has a card between 2 and 6 is more consistent than it is on a table where the decks aren't being shuffled as often.
Which is a long way of saying that while it does limit the traditional card counting, it does open up other conditions in a way which opens up other options.
Well, the reason is speed, accuracy and memory. Mechanical devices used for card counting have been banned for quite a while, this is more of a notification that the iPhones have an app to do it.
When people are doing it in their head, there are strategies in place to cope with that. Usually the dealer will have things that he's allowed to do and in the worst case the pit boss will come over and talk up the player.
I'm not sure that the iPhone is specifically a problem, but it is within the category of cheating devices when used for card counting.
But it is also worth while pointing out that Black Jack isn't a game that any sane casino would offer if they weren't able to make card counting difficult. It's just not profitable, mainly they offer it as a sort of favor to the clients.
That's not true, it's because Motorola uses a non-standard USB cable. I think the official line is so that they can connect the head set up to the port, but you have to physically mod a cable if that's what you want to do.
The _only_ thing standard about those is the fact that they have the mini-USB jack.
So why is it that Motorola uses a proprietary cable? You can make a USB charging cable, but if you want it to charge with anything other than their charger you have to alter the cable. It definitely can be done, but it's not a standard mini-USB charger.
I'm not sure that numbers of licenses is a problem, it's really more a matter of having too many similar licenses. Having a large number of nearly identical licenses causes far more problems than just having a large number.
Well, that and the fact that we'd probably be better off having a dozen or so boilerplate licenses and just add a few relevant bits for customization as needed.
Having 200 licenses is fine if there's a genuine reason to have that many, if a rider or simple addition isn't enough. But it definitely isn't desirable.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed which is why I always post AC.
I thought affirmative action was supposed to kill that. Or perhaps I just dreamed that. That is perhaps the worst way to manage a company. People should be able to work together, but blurring the lines between work and not work is really dangerous.
When lay offs come or somebody needs to be let go. Chummy coworkers that are a bit too comfortable with each other. There are any number of ways in which that can blow up and damage the company's productivity.
There's a bit of a difference, Google is tolerated, but Comcast is largely government created. In areas where Comcast has service, there is no other option for cable service. Your options are Comcast, Satellite or an aerial.
Whereas with Google, it's largely a matter of turning a blind eye to them buying up their biggest competitor.
That's fairly common, but the type of right that the GP was referring to isn't connected in such a way. You can wander through yards and properties without being harassed. Well, assuming you're behaving and not wrecking things.
That was one of the stark differences between the US and Switzerland. It seems to work for them, but I can't imagine it working without a long cultural tradition.
What an inane straw man you've created. Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not. If I park my car on the side of a (public) road or in my (private) driveway, the theft of it is the same crime.
Not quite, technically it's grand theft auto in both cases, but in the latter there's also probably a charge for trespass. And if they had to damage a gate getting the car out there's that as well.
That's probably the most expensive time consuming way of doing it. If you're going for the divorce you may as well spend the money on hookers.
Either way you get the divorce, but in the second case, who cares if the net works, you've got hookers.
Overreact much? Kids will be kids and any adult that expects that kind of obedience is better off being wrong. This happened in the US where much of our wealth ultimately comes from that sort of "attitude problem." Just because adults can behave in anti-social ways because of their power doesn't mean that it's appropriate to do so.
Fires are a very different matter, I can not conceive of a way in which that analogy is cogent. Like it or not in most places kids do not have the option of withdrawing from schools or moving over to other ones just because they're not being appropriately taught.
The scary thing is that this sort of thing happens every generation and yet we've yet to get even a single generation that doesn't get drunk on power when it's their turn.
Because that's over kill. There is no justification for requiring that the number be shown. The fact of the matter is that the number can be spoofed and some of us don't want our number to show up for one reason or another.
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it, if they really want it they should have to ask. That way I get a say in whether or not my number ends up on a list.
Sort of like how you have to pay a fee to get out of the telephone book, why it is that the phone companies can put it in without permission is beyond me.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I don't have any idea where to start. In cases where it's that bad, one has to wonder why there's shared custody involved. And it really makes me wonder why they need to use the phone, some other form of communication, one with logs, would probably be a better choice anyways.
Then again, I can't imagine who in their right mind would call from their landline assuming that it couldn't be logged or have the number otherwise identified. My phone number is blocked from caller ID and most companies I call for service know what it is without asking.
That's apples to oranges. Adding color to the specification was a relatively minor affair, they added color information to what they had and older televisions didn't know about it. Sort of like the move to stereo.
But in this case, one of the big things they were solving was the problem of wasted spectrum. And yes I do mean wasted, the number of people that only receive television via the airwaves is a small fraction of the total and the spectrum does have other uses.
At this point, we don't really know what we've gotten, with all the FUD about people that aren't bright enough to be able to plug in the box, I doubt that the media is portraying it fairly.
Um, you do realize that dtv hasn't been broadcast at full power, right? It does depend upon where you live, but around here, I get more channels now that we're doing dtv than I could reasonably get with the older signals. Plus they're all watchable, which is a plus over cable.
Starting today stations will start to broadcast their full power and we'll begin to get a better picture of what's going on.
When things are all turned on to full power, then we'll see whether or not it's working. But it's quite difficult to know that based upon the trial offerings.
Well, how do they catch people for racial discrimination? It's not any different than other forms of discrimination, it's tough to prove, but that doesn't mean that a prudent firm gets lax. And there are huge penalties when caught.
I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist. Interpreting it as being a right to personal firearms without any qualifiers is unjustified. Felons, children and those not trained to use them safely not have any protections that guarantee them access.
The second amendment is the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of militias to bear arms in their own defense. The amendment does not at any point grant an explicit individual right to gun ownership. Interpreting it as such requires a purposeful misreading of the amendment.
It is also worth pointing out that the case law of the US doesn't support the particular ruling that SCOTUS put out last year. Just as the government has the right to make certain rules related to slander and false claims without running afoul of the first amendment protections.
But, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll, because hey it's not like that first clause is of any importance.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's pretty cut and dried, it applies to regulated militias. Or in other words it applies only to those that are in a militia for the purposes of civil defense. All other gun rights are based upon which ones aren't taken away in law.
Um, considering the fact that most voters tend to vote against the winner of the US Presidential election, I'm not sure your argument holds much water.
Bush was elected without winning a majority and without winning the popular vote either. And the last recount in Florida was incomplete leaving the electoral win somewhat ambiguous.
Once in office he spent a lot time cramming legislation down the throats of those that voted against him. Sure technically he didn't, it was him and the Republican party, but still.
Now you're telling me that the votes against him didn't count less? I find that very, very hard to believe. Had the constitution been respected to any meaningful degree the losing side would have had redress for the abuse.
I believe that in most cases the prospective employer farms out the task to a third party. Anything really worthwhile would require verification via court files anyways. And most of the time they really don't want the added liabilities of knowing anything beyond what they really need. The screeners typically give just the information that they need to make a decision.
But most of the time you have to agree to the background check or forgo the opportunity for consideration.
Whether or not it's illegal really depends upon the jurisdictions involved.
I disagree to some extent, it is relatively common for HR to look into those sorts of things quickly. But I don't think that they can legally use somebody else's actions against a prospective employee.
It's often part of the screening to do to make sure that they're not going to be embarrassed by web information. I don't think the practice will continue into the future, especially in light of the fact that it's going to be increasingly difficult to avoid candidates that are completely clean or non-existent online.
But honestly, many employers do have a prescreen which would catch both that as well as the lack of a criminal conviction. It would be potentially dangerous legally to use wrong information of that nature in a decision to not hire.
Um, we did, and at this time he's probably already back in Crawford.
Spamming isn't evil, it's a triumph of free market enterprise in it's war against the standard of living and common American values.
I'm surprised it took this long for anybody to mention it. It depends how many the OP has over all, but you definitely want to have some excess capacity that can be brought online for those sudden unpredictable spikes in activity. Regular spikes should already be factored in.
I suspect though that if the OP has enough servers to max out the bandwidth that some of the extras should be sold and use the money for bandwidth and related costs.
That's not true. Well, it would be if the inflation rate were really that low. The problem is that what you're referring to as inflation is really an increase in the price of a section of commodities.
The real inflation rate is based entirely upon the rate at which the local country prints money. Right now that rate is way, way over 3%, nobody really knows what it is because the US stopped keeping track of the money supply, but it's going to be quite high.
Continuous shufflers aren't as reliable about screwing things up as one might imagine. The basic problem is that you aren't guaranteed to hit those dead spots in the decks where most of the cards suck.
This is actually fairly important because it means that with the constraints on the dealer, it means that there's a relatively consistent number of 10 point cards left in the deck. And with the dealer being required to take a hit at any total less than 16 and depending upon the casino will uniformly take a hit or not on 17s.
And as such it changes the dynamics of what you take a hit on, knowing that the dealer has a card between 2 and 6 is more consistent than it is on a table where the decks aren't being shuffled as often.
Which is a long way of saying that while it does limit the traditional card counting, it does open up other conditions in a way which opens up other options.
Well, the reason is speed, accuracy and memory. Mechanical devices used for card counting have been banned for quite a while, this is more of a notification that the iPhones have an app to do it.
When people are doing it in their head, there are strategies in place to cope with that. Usually the dealer will have things that he's allowed to do and in the worst case the pit boss will come over and talk up the player.
I'm not sure that the iPhone is specifically a problem, but it is within the category of cheating devices when used for card counting.
But it is also worth while pointing out that Black Jack isn't a game that any sane casino would offer if they weren't able to make card counting difficult. It's just not profitable, mainly they offer it as a sort of favor to the clients.
That's not true, it's because Motorola uses a non-standard USB cable. I think the official line is so that they can connect the head set up to the port, but you have to physically mod a cable if that's what you want to do.
The _only_ thing standard about those is the fact that they have the mini-USB jack.
So why is it that Motorola uses a proprietary cable? You can make a USB charging cable, but if you want it to charge with anything other than their charger you have to alter the cable. It definitely can be done, but it's not a standard mini-USB charger.
I'm not sure that numbers of licenses is a problem, it's really more a matter of having too many similar licenses. Having a large number of nearly identical licenses causes far more problems than just having a large number.
Well, that and the fact that we'd probably be better off having a dozen or so boilerplate licenses and just add a few relevant bits for customization as needed.
Having 200 licenses is fine if there's a genuine reason to have that many, if a rider or simple addition isn't enough. But it definitely isn't desirable.