Interviewing is a skill, like anything else. Unless the job is to sit around all day getting interviewed, you might be rejecting a quality worker with lousy interviewing skills.
From your tone and attitude toward those who work for you, I'm going to speculate that you do not own any company. To my ears, you have the tone of a code-monkey who is worried about having too much competition after the next round of layoffs. I own two businesses, and my policy is to provide feedback upon request. If the applicant lacks the ambition to request it, I don't offer it. But for somebody who has the ambition but lacks the interviewing skills... well... somebody once gave me the courtesy of fixing my interviewing and changed my professional life.
I am willing to do that for others. It's a small world out there, and you never know when you'll meet people again.
The most valuable interview that I've ever had was one where I was not selected for the job. It happened after doing several interviews and maintaining a 100% rejection rate. After informing me that I (yet again) wasn't selected, the HR representative asked me if I would be interested to hear some feedback from the interviewers. It was like a light went on in my head: asking for feedback! Why didn't I think of that?
The feedback that she gave me, and I do not exaggerate, saved my professional life. In the space of 5 minutes, she taught me how to shine during interviews. I went from 100% rejection to 100% acceptance. I wound up having to choose between competing offers. The things she told me should have been obvious, but as a greenbean straight outta college, how was I supposed to know any better?
At this point, I am on the other side of the interviewing table; and I am happy to give constructive feedback upon request. You never know whose life you're going to change for the better.
P.S. I am also a Landlord, and I wind up handing out a lot of rejections in that business. One thing that it's taught me is that angry people sue, whether or not they're in the right. You'll find yourself getting sued a lot less if you treat everyone, even the scum of the earth, and believe me I've seen the scum of the earth, with respect. That means not toying with them, belittling them, laughing at them, refusing to take them seriously, etc. You can reject someone without making him feel bad about it.
I publish SPF records for all of my domains, and I still get a ton of blowback. Here are the options that I evaluated:
Don't use catch-all addresses. Normally blowback is not addressed to a valid user. This was not an option for me, but it may be for you.
Reject invalid bounce messages. Any message coming with an empty envelope sender to an address that has never sent mail on my system is considered invalid and rejected during SMTP with a message stating why. This is what I chose.
The reason for my choice is that it consumes minimal resources (all that's required to reject a message is one SQL query against a small, in-memory table), informs the bouncer of the problem, and eliminates 99.99% of blowback (some incorrectly-configured MTAs produce bounce messages that don't have empty envelope senders... I get like one of those per month).
And I second your pleading: Please, please, please, mail admins, please reject email during SMTP instead of producing bounce messages! Please!
As a parent, please let me assure you that a.xxx TLD does neither facilitate nor inhibit my ability to protect my children.
Also, please let me assure you that "seeing some naked human bodies" is very low on my priority list of things my children need to be protected from. Most kids become naturally curious about sexuality only when they are ready to be curious. Before then, it's "eww, gross! Make it go away!" I see no reason to either encourage or discourage this natural process.
But if you contractually agree to the penalty, I wonder if the Visa T&C will be a valid defense?
I don't think it would be a valid defense for the reasons you gave.
On the other hand, the Fair Credit Billing Act seems like a valid defense. In all my years of watching other landlords in small claims court try to bill a tenant for something he is legally entitled to do, I have never seen a judge enforce that provision of the lease agreement.
On the other hand, judges don't really like seeing people sign contracts with their fingers crossed ("Oh, I'll agree to this crazy provision because no judge would ever enforce it anyway"). You'd be surprised at what a judge can do when he believes one of the parties acted in bad faith.
Well, actually it's an agreement between two entities.
The agreement states that a consumer issuing a chargeback is causing damages to true.com and that both entities agree that the consumer will pay $1000 to make true.com whole in the event that he initiates a chargeback.
That being said, I really doubt any judge would enforce that provision of the contract. A consumer is specifically entitled, by law, to dispute any charge made to his card that was not authorized. Judges, at least in my line of work, don't seem too keen on harshly penalizing someone who is exercising his legal rights. Of course, you get the pleasure of going to court if you want to know for sure.
Go to AOL keyword CANCEL and it'll tell you how to cancel by fax or mail. Follow the instructions exactly for best results.
It's well worth all 39 pennies to cancel by mail (or however much it costs you to send a fax) not to have to duke it out with a "customer retention specialist".
The plaintiff wants to compel $person to surrender his computer for forensic analysis. For the judge to order this, their evidence must meet $standard.
Their evidence is $evidence. How can I show, from a technical perspective, that $evidence does not satisfy $standard?
With a credit card, you need not sue over false billings. Your first stop is to dispute the charge with your credit card company, which usually takes care of the issue. Only after that fails, do you need to worry about your "other options".
But that wasn't really my point. My point is that if you owe a company money (or in your case, if a company thinks (incorrectly) that you owe them money), they are going to attempt to collect it. Your virtual credit card numbers are not going to provide the barrier that you think they provide, that's all I'm saying.
Have you pulled your credit recently? Are you sure there isn't a problem on your report?
I'd suggest that you look at your credit report and have a look-see. (that site is the official place to get your free report... based on the federal law that says they have to give you a free report every 12 months... in other words, you won't have to pay for it or get spyware or anything).
If there are any negative entries, get 'em cleared up if they're false. If they're true, then you get to wait 7 years and they fall off automatically.
Assuming no serious negatives, I'd suggest you get a bank account with a debit card. That will normally show up on your credit report and start establishing your credit. At the very least, it will get you a free Visa card.:)
But the landlord is still going to charge a bounced check fee and late payment fee and insist on certified funds in the future (so you get to pay for a money order or cashier's check)
They can go pound salt if they want any "early termination fees", or plan on charging me for another six months due to "billing problems"
What you say is definitely true about "billing problems", but it is not true about early termination fees.
If you sign a contract that obligates you to pay a fee for early termination, and you terminate early, then you still owe that fee whether your credit card approves or declines the transaction. So, for instance, if you sign up for a 2 year mobile phone plan (seems like they are the most notorious for these early termination fees) with a $175.00 early termination fee, and you terminate after 1 year, you owe the company $175.
If the company cannot collect via the credit card that you provided, they are certainly within their rights to collect that fee via the legal system. You will be in the unenviable position of trying to explain to a small claims court judge why you are willfully violating a crystal-clear term of a contract that you agreed to. At they very least, the company will turn your account over to a collection agency.
In fact, even in the "billing problems" situation, the company will probably still turn you over to collections since according to their (buggy) computer, you owe them money. It's gonna be a hassle for you either way.
I've been looking for a good application that automates checking my/etc directory into subversion. Something like Gentoo's dispatch-conf application, but for Debian?
Any recommendations?
Currently, I just rely on my rsnapshot backups, but that isn't really the most robust solution. Certainly has saved my hide a few times, though.
Actually, putting the decoys by the side of the road is the whole point. They want to catch people "road hunting", which is extremely dangerous and also illegal with or without a hunting permit.
I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but what your friend did was extremely dangerous. He should be thankful that the worst that happened was getting a ticket.
I also disagree with law-enforcement being used as a revenue generator, but I don't think this is a good example of that phenomenon.
The type of thing I object to is automated traffic enforcement, speed traps, etc. I'd much rather see cops just driving around looking for reckless drivers. Lord knows there are plenty.
But this is a tool to catch poachers who are hunting from their trucks on the road. This is really dangerous activity.
Anyhow, I doubt these deer really pay for themselves considering they have to be manned by actual, paid enforcement officers.
This is not entrapment by any stretch of the imagination.
Entrapment is actually a difficult defense to raise at a criminal trial. One of the tests for entrapment is whether or not the defendant would have likely committed the crime without the encouragement of law-enforcement. In other words, if you shoot a decoy from your truck (which is illegal even with a hunting license... you've unlawfully discharged your firearm, among other crimes depending on your state), you would need to convince a judge and jury that you somehow wouldn't have done it had you encountered a real deer.
Yeah, I'm also thinking that would be an uphill battle.
Society is great, eh? The alternative is a homeless person eating from a garbage can. At least then, if he gets a food-borne illness, it was his own fault for "doing something stupid" like trying to get something to eat.
A few months ago, our county tried to pass an ordinance that any perishable foods distributed in shelters must be kept in commercial-grade refrigeration, and under commercial health codes. Thankfully, that measure was defeated. At least I think it was. I should check.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried requesting feedback in a non-threatening way?
You might be surprised by what you hear.
That's kind of a lousy attitude now, isn't it?
Interviewing is a skill, like anything else. Unless the job is to sit around all day getting interviewed, you might be rejecting a quality worker with lousy interviewing skills.
From your tone and attitude toward those who work for you, I'm going to speculate that you do not own any company. To my ears, you have the tone of a code-monkey who is worried about having too much competition after the next round of layoffs. I own two businesses, and my policy is to provide feedback upon request. If the applicant lacks the ambition to request it, I don't offer it. But for somebody who has the ambition but lacks the interviewing skills... well... somebody once gave me the courtesy of fixing my interviewing and changed my professional life.
I am willing to do that for others. It's a small world out there, and you never know when you'll meet people again.
The most valuable interview that I've ever had was one where I was not selected for the job. It happened after doing several interviews and maintaining a 100% rejection rate. After informing me that I (yet again) wasn't selected, the HR representative asked me if I would be interested to hear some feedback from the interviewers. It was like a light went on in my head: asking for feedback! Why didn't I think of that?
The feedback that she gave me, and I do not exaggerate, saved my professional life. In the space of 5 minutes, she taught me how to shine during interviews. I went from 100% rejection to 100% acceptance. I wound up having to choose between competing offers. The things she told me should have been obvious, but as a greenbean straight outta college, how was I supposed to know any better?
At this point, I am on the other side of the interviewing table; and I am happy to give constructive feedback upon request. You never know whose life you're going to change for the better.
P.S. I am also a Landlord, and I wind up handing out a lot of rejections in that business. One thing that it's taught me is that angry people sue, whether or not they're in the right. You'll find yourself getting sued a lot less if you treat everyone, even the scum of the earth, and believe me I've seen the scum of the earth, with respect. That means not toying with them, belittling them, laughing at them, refusing to take them seriously, etc. You can reject someone without making him feel bad about it.
- Don't use catch-all addresses. Normally blowback is not addressed to a valid user. This was not an option for me, but it may be for you.
- Reject invalid bounce messages. Any message coming with an empty envelope sender to an address that has never sent mail on my system is considered invalid and rejected during SMTP with a message stating why. This is what I chose.
The reason for my choice is that it consumes minimal resources (all that's required to reject a message is one SQL query against a small, in-memory table), informs the bouncer of the problem, and eliminates 99.99% of blowback (some incorrectly-configured MTAs produce bounce messages that don't have empty envelope senders... I get like one of those per month).And I second your pleading: Please, please, please, mail admins, please reject email during SMTP instead of producing bounce messages! Please!
As a parent, please let me assure you that a .xxx TLD does neither facilitate nor inhibit my ability to protect my children.
Also, please let me assure you that "seeing some naked human bodies" is very low on my priority list of things my children need to be protected from. Most kids become naturally curious about sexuality only when they are ready to be curious. Before then, it's "eww, gross! Make it go away!" I see no reason to either encourage or discourage this natural process.
I can do all that stuff you claim is so hard in 2 lines of perl.
The fact that you don't know how to code should not be your customer's problem.
On the other hand, the Fair Credit Billing Act seems like a valid defense. In all my years of watching other landlords in small claims court try to bill a tenant for something he is legally entitled to do, I have never seen a judge enforce that provision of the lease agreement.
On the other hand, judges don't really like seeing people sign contracts with their fingers crossed ("Oh, I'll agree to this crazy provision because no judge would ever enforce it anyway"). You'd be surprised at what a judge can do when he believes one of the parties acted in bad faith.
The agreement states that a consumer issuing a chargeback is causing damages to true.com and that both entities agree that the consumer will pay $1000 to make true.com whole in the event that he initiates a chargeback.
That being said, I really doubt any judge would enforce that provision of the contract. A consumer is specifically entitled, by law, to dispute any charge made to his card that was not authorized. Judges, at least in my line of work, don't seem too keen on harshly penalizing someone who is exercising his legal rights. Of course, you get the pleasure of going to court if you want to know for sure.
A subtle message to all other wireless carriers: It's the network, stupid!
Go to AOL keyword CANCEL and it'll tell you how to cancel by fax or mail. Follow the instructions exactly for best results.
It's well worth all 39 pennies to cancel by mail (or however much it costs you to send a fax) not to have to duke it out with a "customer retention specialist".
What he should have said was:
The plaintiff wants to compel $person to surrender his computer for forensic analysis. For the judge to order this, their evidence must meet $standard.
Their evidence is $evidence. How can I show, from a technical perspective, that $evidence does not satisfy $standard?
It used to be that some poor sap would ask a legal question in Ask Slashdot, and he would be told to seek the advice of a real, actual attorney.
Now, we have an attorney posting an Ask Slashdot because he doesn't know how to argue his own case.
This is sad. Sad, indeed. I seriously hope that you are not actually being compensated by Ms. Lindor for this legal "work".
With a credit card, you need not sue over false billings. Your first stop is to dispute the charge with your credit card company, which usually takes care of the issue. Only after that fails, do you need to worry about your "other options".
But that wasn't really my point. My point is that if you owe a company money (or in your case, if a company thinks (incorrectly) that you owe them money), they are going to attempt to collect it. Your virtual credit card numbers are not going to provide the barrier that you think they provide, that's all I'm saying.
Have you pulled your credit recently? Are you sure there isn't a problem on your report?
:)
I'd suggest that you look at your credit report and have a look-see. (that site is the official place to get your free report... based on the federal law that says they have to give you a free report every 12 months... in other words, you won't have to pay for it or get spyware or anything).
If there are any negative entries, get 'em cleared up if they're false. If they're true, then you get to wait 7 years and they fall off automatically.
Assuming no serious negatives, I'd suggest you get a bank account with a debit card. That will normally show up on your credit report and start establishing your credit. At the very least, it will get you a free Visa card.
Good luck!
But the landlord is still going to charge a bounced check fee and late payment fee and insist on certified funds in the future (so you get to pay for a money order or cashier's check)
If you sign a contract that obligates you to pay a fee for early termination, and you terminate early, then you still owe that fee whether your credit card approves or declines the transaction. So, for instance, if you sign up for a 2 year mobile phone plan (seems like they are the most notorious for these early termination fees) with a $175.00 early termination fee, and you terminate after 1 year, you owe the company $175.
If the company cannot collect via the credit card that you provided, they are certainly within their rights to collect that fee via the legal system. You will be in the unenviable position of trying to explain to a small claims court judge why you are willfully violating a crystal-clear term of a contract that you agreed to. At they very least, the company will turn your account over to a collection agency.
In fact, even in the "billing problems" situation, the company will probably still turn you over to collections since according to their (buggy) computer, you owe them money. It's gonna be a hassle for you either way.
I've been looking for a good application that automates checking my /etc directory into subversion. Something like Gentoo's dispatch-conf application, but for Debian?
Any recommendations?
Currently, I just rely on my rsnapshot backups, but that isn't really the most robust solution. Certainly has saved my hide a few times, though.
I've driven my mother's wagon before and had no trouble merging. Why would you cut off a grocery getter?
Driving a friend's Mercedes, on the other hand, meant no one would let me merge.
Saw that one coming from a mile away.
So true. So true.
Actually, putting the decoys by the side of the road is the whole point. They want to catch people "road hunting", which is extremely dangerous and also illegal with or without a hunting permit.
The more road hunters they can nail, the better.
I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but what your friend did was extremely dangerous. He should be thankful that the worst that happened was getting a ticket.
I also disagree with law-enforcement being used as a revenue generator, but I don't think this is a good example of that phenomenon.
The type of thing I object to is automated traffic enforcement, speed traps, etc. I'd much rather see cops just driving around looking for reckless drivers. Lord knows there are plenty.
But this is a tool to catch poachers who are hunting from their trucks on the road. This is really dangerous activity.
Anyhow, I doubt these deer really pay for themselves considering they have to be manned by actual, paid enforcement officers.
This is not entrapment by any stretch of the imagination.
Entrapment is actually a difficult defense to raise at a criminal trial. One of the tests for entrapment is whether or not the defendant would have likely committed the crime without the encouragement of law-enforcement. In other words, if you shoot a decoy from your truck (which is illegal even with a hunting license... you've unlawfully discharged your firearm, among other crimes depending on your state), you would need to convince a judge and jury that you somehow wouldn't have done it had you encountered a real deer.
Yeah, I'm also thinking that would be an uphill battle.
Society is great, eh? The alternative is a homeless person eating from a garbage can. At least then, if he gets a food-borne illness, it was his own fault for "doing something stupid" like trying to get something to eat.
A few months ago, our county tried to pass an ordinance that any perishable foods distributed in shelters must be kept in commercial-grade refrigeration, and under commercial health codes. Thankfully, that measure was defeated. At least I think it was. I should check.
And for the sake of us all, I hope you have better luck in court than you did in this thread.