• Asiago Chow (unregistered) in reply to Code Dependent
    Code Dependent:
    Asiago Chow:
    Living alone is just another vice.
    Not according to the apostle Paul. 1 Corinthians 7:7 -- "I would like everyone to be unmarried, like I am."

    I'm not sure what qualifications Paul had to discuss human needs...none as far as I know...but his likes do not define vice. Anyway, unmarried does not mean alone. He may have lived with 50 guys for all any of us know.

  • (cs) in reply to Non-serious coder
    Non-serious coder:
    Shush! Dont tell them how to sort out the serious (i.e "all I want in life is to code!") coders from the non-serious (i.e "I like coding, but i also like other things").. ;)
    Uh, "serious coder" doesn't mean "likes to code more than anything else". It means, "knows that finding an item in a hash table is O(1), finding in a balanced tree is O(ln n), and finding in a linked list is O(n)". It means a whole lot more as well, but that's a good start, given my experiences interviewing developers.
  • asdfasf (unregistered)

    Reminder to self: Don't skip to page 4 from page 1 unless you want to be totally confused.

  • Jo Bob (unregistered) in reply to asdfasf
    asdfasf:
    Reminder to self: Don't skip to page 4 from page 1 unless you want to be totally confused.
    The title did say the "The Mandatory Three", people just took that to mean three (wildly diverging) threads running at once. ;-)
  • (cs) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    I'm not sure what qualifications Paul had to discuss human needs...none as far as I know...but his likes do not define vice.
    Theoretically (or perhaps, theologically), his qualifications would be due to having been anointed by holy spirit, and thereby having special knowledge given him by the creator of humankind. Me being agnostic, I don't insist upon the factualness of that belief; but some folks do, and Paul's authority overrides their own. I was curious to see your reaction.

    Noting that everything I've quoted above applies to you, I'll tip my hat and bow out now... I'm within minutes of embarking on a four-day weekend, and I'm too content to wrestle with inanities.

  • JJ (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    The idea of a living wage is that someone who's worth employing is worth paying enough that they aren't eternally a hair's breadth from starvation. This doesn't mean that they have a glamorous life on minimum wage, but they do get enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, and some money left over that can be used for some sort of luxury - going out a couple times per month or something like that. Nowhere in there is the notion that money above subsistence + epsilon should be taken and given to others, just that starving masses are a bad idea all round.

    It's a forced, government solution that creates as many problems as it purports to solve. It's also inappropriate for many positions: do teenagers and elderly looking for supplemental income really need a "living wage?" Who determines what it is? Why not make it $50 per hour? Should it include enough to survive on, or enough to survive on plus cable TV and a tricked-up Honda CRX? Where does it end?

    There's way too much hubris in suggesting that government could actually do a good job in this area, based on lots and lots of past experience. The best thing for all concerned would be for government to get out of the welfare business, and put humans back into the equation. Were the government not to suck up to 40% of income (and then spend a tiny fraction of that on the people who really need it), I warrant many of us would do much more than tithe to the truly needy. Cut out the middleman! Especially when the middleman is a greedy, crooked, power-hungry enterprise/system like the government.

  • Georgy Porgy (unregistered)

    Well don't skim over the fact that it was a "dyanamic" intranet site. It surely had interactive links and/or animated GIF's.

  • Shill (unregistered) in reply to Heron
    Heron:
    Jay Jay:
    Seeing as how it just generated function stubs, I told him that, according to the requirements I had been given, it was a waste of time. Useful for spec'ing out a project, but absolute crap as far as generating code. I gave it a failing grade, once again based upon what had been requested of me.

    Turns out that he had preemptively purchased a corporate license and just needed a positive recommendation for his boss (a member of VERY high management) to sign off on it. My failing grade made it (and him) look bad.

    I'm in charge of IT at my company now, but I used to work on a programming team. I parted from that team on bad terms with the my former manager (he fired me, a story for another time). He e-mailed me three months ago asking whether a particular 4GB kit of RAM (OCZ Fatal1ty) would be appropriate for three of his development machines.

    I responded that because our software did not even compile in 64-bit, and we weren't currently running 64-bit OSes on two of the machines, it would not be useful to get extra RAM, and that getting our software actually compiling in 64-bit (a task that, three months later, is not even close to completion) is a higher priority than buying more RAM.

    The response I got was perhaps the rudest e-mail I've ever received, and I'll reproduce it here in its brief entirety:

    We are working on a 64-bit version. I don't care if you think I am wasting "my teams money". Tell me if either of these items of RAM would be appropriate for my, John and Blair's computers. I don't want your opinion about whether or not it is the right purchase or the right time.

    I'm not sure why he put the phrase "my teams money" in quotes, because I never mentioned its price at all (perhaps he already knew the RAM was more expensive than necessary?). In any case, what I think is funny is that he says "tell me if they're appropriate" and "I don't want your opinion" back-to-back. Isn't whether the RAM is useful integral to whether the RAM is appropriate for the machines?

    This particular manager has a habit of being extremely rude unless his subordinates (or people he views as subordinates) do exactly as he wishes, even if what he wants is useless or even counterproductive.

    Oh, ironically, he bought the RAM anyway, and it doesn't even work in one of the machines (bluescreens galore). As a result, my opinion carries more weight right now than it used to...

    In other words, if you had done your job instead of trying to do his, he wouldn't have wasted money on equipment that doesn't work.

  • blunder (unregistered) in reply to Lumberjack
    Lumberjack:
    Experience in XML? It's tags, people! Tags! As in <tag></tag>. What kind of "experience" are we talking about here? Knowing where to find the angle bracket on a keyboard?

    I really hope that when the time comes for you to use XML, you actually take the time to learn about things like the DTD, rather than hard code some god-awful mess of angle brackets.

  • Asiago Chow (unregistered) in reply to Code Dependent
    Code Dependent:
    Theoretically (or perhaps, theologically), [Paul's] qualifications would be due to having been anointed by holy spirit, and thereby having special knowledge given him by the creator of humankind. Me being agnostic, I don't insist upon the factualness of that belief; but some folks do, and Paul's authority overrides their own. I was curious to see your reaction.

    Huh. Well, being an atheist myself I don't have much truck with anointment by mythical agencies...but I guess some do. Such is life.

    Noting that everything I've quoted above applies to you, I'll tip my hat and bow out now... I'm within minutes of embarking on a four-day weekend, and I'm too content to wrestle with inanities.

    Enjoy your weekend! But I will offer this parting shot: I'm not saying I dislike living wages, living alone, or anything else I've mentioned. I'm certainly not saying that I'm any sort of authority whose likes should control the behavior of others. I'm saying that certain things cause harm, the harm can be (and has been) measured, and ethically we are have a responsibility to minimize harm and maximize happiness. A living wage does neither. Your attempt to equate my statements with the likes or dislikes of Paul are incorrect because paul wasn't saying "we've done research and our research shows that, statistically, people who get married are worse off than people who are single like me so everyone should stay single." Had he done that research his findings would have been just the opposite -- marriage increases happiness, lifespan, and wealth. We as a society have done the research and our policy should be based on our best knowledge...not on some fuzzy feel good or religious ideal.

    The "Living Wage" is not based on our best knowledge. It is based on a quasi-religious "fairness" ideal. Idealism has its place but NOT in public policy.

  • Spudd86 (unregistered) in reply to newfweiler

    Two weeks for a Priority Queue? more like a few hours...

  • (cs) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    I'm saying that certain things cause harm, the harm can be (and has been) measured, and ethically we are have a responsibility to minimize harm and maximize happiness.
    I've seen the reports from the studies. I've been married twice and lived with three other women besides. I'm at a fairly ripe semi-old age, and I assure you, my happiest days, and years, have been those when I lived alone. Reports and statistics change. Coffee used to be bad for you; now it's good for you. Sugar, butter... same thing. Statistically, black people used to be dumber then whites; statistically, women used to be dumber than men. Atheist, put your faith in those statistics.

    I'm not female, but a couple of females summed up my position very well. In a paraphrase of Katherine Hepburn, K.T. Oslin sang:

    I love ya baby I like your company You make me laugh, You never make me cry I think you're sexy I like to kiss ya Even my dog thinks you're quite a guy

    I'm not looking for a husband Found out the hard way that doesn't work for me I need a friend I want a lover I have to be alone occasionally

    So live close by, visit often That'll work, that'll work for me Live close by, visit often Save us both a lot of misery

    You fix me breakfast I'll buy you dinner We'll hit a movie on Wednesday night You go to your place I'll go to my place Sounds like our plan is gonna work just right

    It could be rough It could be easy It might be hell, might be heavenly How do you feel? How does it strike ya? Could you be happy with a woman like me?

    Why don't ya? Why don't ya Live close by, visit often That'll work, that'll work for me Live close by, visit often Save us both a lot of misery

  • Jonathan Wilson (unregistered) in reply to me

    The question is, why do IT companies bother with agencies in the first place. What do these recruitment firms do that the company with the available position is unable to do themselves?

  • Shinobu (unregistered)

    Ooh... I know how to solve the filler applicants thing! Just let the filling of all such vacancies be overseen by specially appointed 15-head strong committees from the Department of Administrative Affairs. What could possibly go wrong?

    On a different note... ‘Fallacious doesn't mean wrong.’ It means the reasoning behind it is wrong. Granted, sometimes people arrive at the right answer by accident, but most of the time they don't. Asiago Chow, you appear to have no relevant subject knowledge anyway, but even if you had, your disrespect for logical reasoning would still make your opinions as useless to me as the outcome of a diceroll.

  • dv (unregistered) in reply to Shinobu

    Come on... give the guy a standing chance and point the fallacies in his argument out for the dumber of us. Pretty please. The only (hardly invalidating) fallacy I can see in his argument is the non sequitur here and there, but the main argument is solid. Also please note that he didn't try to ad hominem you, or anyone else, for that matter;-)

  • asdfasf (unregistered) in reply to blunder
    blunder:
    Lumberjack:
    Experience in XML? It's tags, people! Tags! As in <tag></tag>. What kind of "experience" are we talking about here? Knowing where to find the angle bracket on a keyboard?

    I really hope that when the time comes for you to use XML, you actually take the time to learn about things like the DTD, rather than hard code some god-awful mess of angle brackets.

    Yes, because making a DTD requires a PHD. Or even more than, say, four brain cells.

  • akappa (unregistered) in reply to Michael

    It's sad that the only thing you retained is also wrong: "Mi piacciono le tue tette"!

  • Cookie (unregistered) in reply to Lumberjack
    Experience in XML? It's tags, people! Tags! As in <tag></tag>. What kind of "experience" are we talking about here? Knowing where to find the angle bracket on a keyboard?

    You haven't lived until you got stuck in a project creating an interface to a database using XML. Inside of base64. Inside SOAP. Inside XML (again). Then the usual http, tcp, ip, etc.

    Best thing? The "documentation" conveniently forgot to mention at least a layer and a half of that little stack of horrors --the base64 requirement showed up as an unexplained inner bit of example message painted green in a clarification pdf (at request, originally word), and I'm not even mentioning encoding failures like

    <items> <name>...</name><value>...</value> <name>...</name><value>...</value> [and so on] </items>

    XML is turd polish on top of general inability to design feasible protocols. Yes, you can make perfectly feasible protocols with it, but you can do as well and more efficiently so without. What it tries to do is shuffle the need for protocol design skills under the carpet. No, it's not working. Whodathot?

  • Cookie (unregistered)

    My experience with recruiters is that they don't have much ability to understand what's mentioned in the CV, including those who "specialise" in the IT field, and don't actually know what they're looking at beyond some vgreping. Doesn't help they see far too many CVs each day, many of which are chock full of buzzwords but with enough spelling errors and technical conflict to scream "fake" to anybody with a modicum of actual skill, of course.

    I've had one complain I have "not enough unix" on my CV. My explanation that FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and various flavours of linux should count just as much as hp-ux, AIX, and Solaris fell on deaf ears. The verdict remained "not enough unix" and that was that.

  • (cs) in reply to SysKoll
    So what you are saying is that you don't reward honesty in résumés. You just want another carefully weasel-worded, buzzword-compliant, boring résumé.

    That'd be TRWTF.

    Amen!

  • furlong (unregistered) in reply to Michael

    And it's not even right. In Italian you'd say "Mi piacciono le tue tette" (plural form of the verb).

  • furlong (unregistered) in reply to furlong
    furlong:
    And it's not even right. In Italian you'd say "Mi piacciono le tue tette" (plural form of the verb).

    And it's not even right. In Italian you'd say "Mi piacciono le tue tette" (plural form of the verb).

  • Will (unregistered) in reply to SysKoll

    As someone who's hired and fired before, I can say that honesty is appreciated; if I had time, I might hang out with the guy. But better to be honest that you shouldn't be given a job than pretend that you're qualified and fake it till you (don't) make it.

    Unqualified people will get fired eventually anyway.

  • Bel'moki (unregistered) in reply to furlong
    furlong:
    furlong:
    And it's not even right. In Italian you'd say "Mi piacciono le tue tette" (plural form of the verb).

    And it's not even right. In Italian you'd say "Mi piacciono le tue tette" (plural form of the verb).

    Hmm, shouldn't that be:

    "In Italia" or "An Italian"

  • anny (unregistered) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    then we have private jets

    Hmm... are you referring to the automaker CEO private jet "controversy" recently manufactured?

    Let's think about this... a CEO doesn't fly alone. He flies with a staff of 10+ people.

    These hearings were short notice. Last time I bought an airline ticket on short notice I paid about $650 for coach. When I was able to buy the same ticket on a month's notice it cost about $230. So let's say $6,500 to fly the CEO and his staff to DC.

    What does it cost to fly a private jet? I don't know exactly. I don't own a jet. However, I can tell you that it isn't going to be that much. It's less than an hour of flying time at maybe $4000 an hour wet with pilot. So, figure round trip at $8000, vs $6500 for coach... we're having a national debate over $1500????

    Oh, but it doesn't end there. It takes at least 3 hours to fly anywhere by commercial airline and much of that is spent in public areas where business discussions are not possible, so we have 30 hours of very high paid senior staff sitting on their thumbs and listening to ipods vs 10 hours of them actually working in a private conference area. That's a 40 hour difference, or maybe $5000 in lost wages. In fact you can bet the delta is higher because high profile people flying on airlines need more security and those security people need tickets too.

    So not only is the whole "controversy" silly on its face, but the alternative, using standard airlines, would likely cost GM or equivalent over $3500 MORE than using a private jet.

    THINK -- it's not just an IBM slogan

    Well - you're off by an order of magnitude (on the low side) in your estimate on how much it costs to fly on a private jet, but don't let that get in the way of your rant.

  • Intern (unregistered)

    Hey!

    That last resumé was mine! :'(

  • hoodaticus (unregistered) in reply to Jo Bob
    Jo Bob:
    How in the HELL is someone going to understand what an automated tool is doing, when they can't even learn to do the simple manual equivalent?

    Dude, it's just a clicky-little breakpoint-icon thingy and a few clicky-menu thingies in the IDE thingy.

  • Duke Ganote (unregistered) in reply to Jay

    "Make the solution as complicated as possible" You mean like those corporate "rock stars" at PEDANT? :)

  • Reginal Plinkman (unregistered)

    There is a special place in hell for academics that put poor smucks through this travesty. I recently has a similar experience, had to take two days off from work to go through this ridculously involved interview process, only to find that it was just a formatility so the director could hire someone they already wanted. Two days of sitting around with 7 or 8 degreed people looking at their watches, now I know why I am not giving any more money or support to university systems.

  • Prism (unregistered) in reply to Lumberjack
    Lumberjack:
    Buddy:
    [...] but if the applicant [...] has experience only in XML, [...]

    Ok, it's time for me to ask this question because it has been bugging me for the longest time...

    What. The. F*ck. does that mean?

    Experience in XML? It's tags, people! Tags! As in <tag></tag>. What kind of "experience" are we talking about here? Knowing where to find the angle bracket on a keyboard?

    "Its ones and zeros people! What kind of experience are we talking about here? Knowing how to tell the difference between a 1 and a 0??"

    First, there is the particular Xml library on your platform -- do you know it, or do you build all your xml with strings?

    Then, there is the DB end. Do you know how to interface with XML in T-SQL? Do you know how to query a T-SQL XML object? Know how to break it into RDB tables? (have fun with that)

    Then, there is the architectural matters, and XML performance limitations.

    Then, there is things like Xpath, and XQuery. Are you familiar and competent enough to compose statements in those syntaxs?

    Then there are namespaces, schema definition and validation.

    Do we need to get into applications, XSLT, and all the tools out there to help you deal with XML?

    I smell a troll.

  • Prism (unregistered) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    Anon:
    Asiago Chow:
    The real kicker, though, is found in the annals modern medical research. A growing body of evidence shows that humans, social creatures that we are, are less happy, and less healty, when we live alone or in very small social groups. People living alone are more depressed, more likely to suffer health issues, less happy, and more likely to die early, than their cohabitating and more social peers. This brings into stark relief the true cost of so-called "living wages"... far from living, they enable lifestyles which science shows correlate directly with early mortality and reduced happiness in life. The so-called living wage kills, kills in large numbers, by alowing people to live self-destructively solo lifestyles.

    What in the holy hell kind of pseudoscientific garbage have you been getting your hands on? A living wage "kills in large numbers"? Do you even read what you wrote before posting?

    There are many studies. Look up Berkman and Syme 1979, Lonergan 1991, and do your own googling for many more.

    The very thought that people _must_ make less than the minimum amount to survive to protect them from the horrors of being single is sickening. In any other context, for example saying that ugly people are more likely to be single and therefore live self-destructive lives, you would be vilified and ousted from the community.

    I voluntarily choose to be childless and single, and I make a decent living. It is no business of yours to make moral judgements about my "self-destructive solo lifestyle" since I harm precisely no one.

    I hear the same thing from smokers. "It's no business of yours if I am willing to accept lung cancer." Same thing from people who don't wear seatbelts. "It's no busienss of yours if I'm willing to be launched trough my car windshield and die on the road." Same thing from people who visit prostitutes, "It's no business of yours if I get HPV or HIV." Same thing from pot smokers, "It's no business of yours if I whoa that's a cool shirt it has buttons can I press them?!" Same thing from alcohol drinkers, "It's no business of yours if I want to damage my liver."

    Living alone is just another vice. It has known mortality implications. You can deny those risks. A smoker can deny her risk of lung cancer. Denial does not reduce risks.

    As a society we have clearly decided that it IS our business. We tax alcohol and cigarettes prohibitively. We criminalzie drugs. We ticket drivers who don't wear seatbelts. We criminalize or severly restrict prostitution. We penalize people who engage in vice.

    The US income tax code charges higher rates for singles than for heads of household or married groups. It would make no sense for one arm of government to penalize a particular vice while another encourages the same behavior. That's what living wage regulations would do.

    There is only one US political party that supports the idea that you have a right to engage in vice so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That's the Libertarian Party. They are a bunch of losers. If they are lucky they get 2% of the vote. Unless you are willing to join the Libertarian Party and actually vote Libertarian you are nothing but a hypocrite for thinking that your particular vice is OK and should be supported while allowing your politicians to penalize other vices.

    Gotta love how we Americans believe in freedom right up until the moment comes to gang up and tell other people what to do. Just watch our chests puff out all filled with pride as we exercise our "democratic rights".

    One big self-delusional fuckin joke.

    At least admit you don't actually believe in freedom, it's the least you can do.

  • Tobias (unregistered)

    ในตอนนี้ มั่นใจว่าทุกคนนั้นจะต้องประสบพบเจอปัญหาว่างงานหรือมีปัญหาเรื่องที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเงินอย่างแน่นอน เพราะว่าไม่ว่าจะเป็นเศรษฐกิจที่ตกต่ำ ไม่สามารถทำงานหาเงิน วันนี้ทางเว็บตรงสล็อตมีวิธีการหาเงินง่ายๆกับการเล่นslotonlineที่เป็นเกมออนไลน์หารายได้ได้จริง สามารถหารายได้ออนไลน์ได้ทุกที่ตลอดทั้งวัน 24 ชั่วโมง ซึ่ง g2gbk8 เป็นเว็บตรงไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์เปิดใหม่มีมั่นคงถูกตามกฎหมายคาสิโนสากล รับรองจากผู้เล่นจริงทั้งประเทศ ทุกท่านสามารถหาเงินกล้วยๆ โดยทาง g2gbk8 นั้นมีค่ายเกมสล็อตโจ๊กเกอร์เว็บตรงไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์,เว็บตรง pg slot,xoslot เว็บตรง,สล็อตซุปเปอร์ แค่เพียงสมัครสล็อต joker เว็บตรงไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์กับทาง g2gbk8 ที่เป็นเกมสล็อตเว็บตรง ซึ่งไม่ผ่านตัวแทนหรือตัวกลางใดๆเล่นเกมสล็อตได้โดยตรงกับค่ายเกม มีเกมslot machineให้เลือกเล่นมากกว่า 100

  • Felipa (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Vernon Flood (unregistered)

    Fortunately, there is a new AI bot that can write the content fo website, and it's fully optimized to increase your ranking as well. You can see the magic of AI in a video here =>> https://zeep.ly/zePEY

  • Jerald Butterfield (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “The Mandatory Three, The Easy Road to Success, and Relevant Inexperience”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article