• (cs) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    That actually sounds more accurate.

    He doesn't have multiple personalities. He doesn't suddenly become a wine enthusiast, then decide he'll be a bum, and is aware of this at all times.

    It's two identities not aware of each other.

    thedailybmp.com?

    (b-movie plot)

  • Vinit (unregistered)

    My wife wrote this comment for me...

  • xaade (unregistered) in reply to Vinit
    Vinit:
    My wife wrote this comment for me...

    But then it would say,

    "I am Vinit's wife, and I wrote this comment for Vinit."

    Otherwise you have a recursive paradox.

  • (cs) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Anyhow, being that I have no love for Microsoft crap, and especially all the obscure flavors of .doc files that change with every major release, I submit in .rtf format saved from OS X's TextEdit. It lets them get their fingers in it without me having to use a proprietary binary format for text. "I can't believe it's not rancid butter!"
    So how often have you had them call you back with "I can't open your document; it's corrupted or something."

    (Haven't checked lately, but last time I tried there was no default application to open an rtf file. Plenty of software will do it if you start from there, but that doesn't help if they save it to desktop and then double-click to look at it.)

  • Heavy Zed (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    hank:
    Nexzus:
    I live in Vancouver ... I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country.
    Oh, so you're living in abject poverty on a desolate reserve set aside for you by a conquering, imperialist nation? Well, I guess your rage is at least understandable then, even if somewhat misguided.

    If you say a worse issue makes previous issues non-existent, then we need to compare to the Africans in Chad.

    You could be living in abject poverty under constant threat of death by the Muslim countries surrounding you.

    So yeah, no need to get in a fuss about civil rights.

    You're missing the point. Someone is claiming that Canada is "their own country" on the basis of their ancestors being there first, which means either:

    They are of native origin, in which case maybe they should be more upset with the descendants of white colonists who took the country from the poster's people in the first place and not the immigrants they have more recently welcomed.

    Or, they're a descendent of said white colonists with a surprising lack of awareness of history or just an inability to empathize with people they see as "different".

    I'll leave it up to you to guess which one is more likely.

  • Hannes (unregistered) in reply to Sunil Sdlavrot
    Sunil Sdlavrot:
    Huge discussion about sexism coming up in 3... 2... 1...

    Right or wrong, this... oh, wait. Too late. :(

  • BillR (unregistered)

    Weeks and weeks go by and you can't find one single developer?

    The problem is you, RJ, not them.

  • Friedrice The Great (unregistered) in reply to Klimax
    Klimax:
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Doppleganger:
    (Generally the worst I had personally seen was rewritten resumes that outright lied. Hint, it's a bad sign when you ask the candidate about something on their resume and they ask to see the resume that was sent to you.)
    This is why conslutting agencies have such a hard-on for wanting your resume "in Word format". It's so they can tinker with it. Some just want to slap their own branding on top of it, but some want to, shall we say, "zoom and enhance" it.

    Always bring at least three paper copies of the original version of your resume to the interview, if for no reason other than to cover your ass when they ask you about something that got stuffed into the resume without your knowledge.

    Anyhow, being that I have no love for Microsoft crap, and especially all the obscure flavors of .doc files that change with every major release, I submit in .rtf format saved from OS X's TextEdit. It lets them get their fingers in it without me having to use a proprietary binary format for text. "I can't believe it's not rancid butter!"

    You might want to check who created RTF...

    Which one - Rich Text Format (Microsoft) OR Revisable Text Format? (IBM)

  • ParisHilton (unregistered)

    All that stuff is a waste of time. Take every candidate out for JD and rails of blow and if the candidate meshes, regardles off the applicants qualifications, the applicant will eventually make a good fit for the job. Just give it time and the applicant lots of blow.

    p.s. I export all my resumes from vi to pps and then perm my hair!

  • Milko (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    MightyM:
    Um, MS Office hasn't been using a "proprietary binary format" since 2007.
    Word has been around since... 1983? (That long, really?) 2007 is four years ago. So 4/30 is what... 13%? I call that 'experimental error'. And they basically had to be shamed into making that change.

    I blame it all on that commie tabs bar thingy.

    And there I was thinking I get things about 1/2 a day late because I'm on thewrong side of the globe. Didn't realise we were a couple of years behind

  • huasg (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Always bring at least three paper copies of the original version of your resume to the interview, if for no reason other than to cover your ass when they ask you about something that got stuffed into the resume without your knowledge.

    I usually bring five. It's always fun to compare and contrast.

    Why do you need more than one? To prove they're all the same? I expect the company to have a copy, but bring my own in case they don't (and to make sure the copy they have is untampered). If they want to turn that 1 copy into 3,5,7, or 83 then I'm sure they have a photocopier (?xerox machine?) hanging around somewhere...

  • FWE (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Nexzus:
    I live in Vancouver ...snip... my family's been here for 20 generations.

    Is your family native American, or from European settlers?

    Because the first Europeans set foot in the Vancouver area around 1790, so if you're European, the women in your family will have had to had their children at an average age of 11 or 12 to be able to squeeze 20 generations into the time that has elapsed since then.

    Does your family have a rich tradition of child abuse?

    What if it was young male ancestors who like the Cougar?

  • (cs) in reply to huasg
    huasg:
    chubertdev:
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Always bring at least three paper copies of the original version of your resume to the interview, if for no reason other than to cover your ass when they ask you about something that got stuffed into the resume without your knowledge.

    I usually bring five. It's always fun to compare and contrast.

    Why do you need more than one? To prove they're all the same? I expect the company to have a copy, but bring my own in case they don't (and to make sure the copy they have is untampered). If they want to turn that 1 copy into 3,5,7, or 83 then I'm sure they have a photocopier (?xerox machine?) hanging around somewhere...

    For the position I'm currently in, I was interviewed by five people. Most of them took notes on the copy that I handed them. It's very thoughtful to give each interviewer their own, fresh copy of your resume.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to ceiswyn
    ceiswyn:
    Chose Binouche:
    13%? I call that 'experimental error'
    You are a lousy scientist.
    Probably an a̶s̶t̶r̶o̶n̶o̶m̶e̶r̶ programmer. Anything within an order of magnitude is close enough :)
    FTFY.
  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Nexzus
    Nexzus:
    gramie:
    I can't figure out how she passed the exams.
    *Precursor: I live in Vancouver

    When I was in school, exam proctors were allowed to check for ID if there was any case of possible fraudulent identity. The fact that it was a policy made me think if it was ever a real big problem at some point.

    When I was a proctor, sometimes it was required (not just allowed) to check identity.

    For comparison, the US needs voter ID.

    Nexzus:
    /Yes, I'm an admitted racist. You try spending time around these people. I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country, and my family's been here for 20 generations.
    How about the first nations, who're a fucking minority in their own country, because your family invaded and in the space of just 20 generations you've mostly wiped out those who were there for 10,000 generations?
  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    article:
    The recruiter drone told RJ this was standard procedure: they got a substantially higher commission for placing a female candidate.
    So fraud is standard procedure? I hope they have blackballed this recruiter/firm!

    I don't think I'd blackball them for this; at least not at first. My first sally would be, "Well, since you sent as a know-nothing hoping to sneak a big fee, how about you pay us for the time we wasted interviewing her?"

  • Just some guy (unregistered) in reply to hank

    Why does being somewhere for 20 Generations entitle YOU to anything? The world changes get used to it.

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle

    I guess they're the ones to go to if you don't like your affirmative-action regs.

  • (cs) in reply to ParisHilton
    ParisHilton:
    I export all my resumes from vi to pps and then perm my hair!
    Yes, but can you bring home the bacon *and* fry it up in a pan?
  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to Heavy Zed
    Heavy Zed:
    xaade:
    hank:
    Nexzus:
    I live in Vancouver ... I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country.
    Oh, so you're living in abject poverty on a desolate reserve set aside for you by a conquering, imperialist nation? Well, I guess your rage is at least understandable then, even if somewhat misguided.

    If you say a worse issue makes previous issues non-existent, then we need to compare to the Africans in Chad.

    You could be living in abject poverty under constant threat of death by the Muslim countries surrounding you.

    So yeah, no need to get in a fuss about civil rights.

    You're missing the point. Someone is claiming that Canada is "their own country" on the basis of their ancestors being there first, which means either:

    They are of native origin, in which case maybe they should be more upset with the descendants of white colonists who took the country from the poster's people in the first place and not the immigrants they have more recently welcomed.

    Or, they're a descendent of said white colonists with a surprising lack of awareness of history or just an inability to empathize with people they see as "different".

    I'll leave it up to you to guess which one is more likely.

    If you live in a place, that's your place. Just because someone has been in that place for longer than you should not mean that person has privileges over you. And it most certainly does not mean that a person who has lived longer in a place is better than a person who has not lived there for as long.

    Goes both ways, of course. When you move into a place, it's good manners to adopt the customs, laws and language(s) of the place you moved into (at least in public). After all, presumably you move to a place because you like that place (customs, laws and language(s) all).

    The real WTF is restricting access to a place based on where a person was born. This person can come here because he/she was born in that place, but that person can't come here because he/she was born in that other place.

  • Spencer (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    He doesn't have multiple personalities. He doesn't suddenly become a wine enthusiast, then decide he'll be a bum, and is aware of this at all times.

    Wine enthusiasts and bums aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, some wine enthusiasts even become bums

  • (cs) in reply to Coyne
    Coyne:
    My first sally would be, "Well, since you sent as a know-nothing hoping to sneak a big fee, how about you pay us for the time we wasted interviewing her?"

    We've sent invoices out at work for stuff like that before (we never actually expect a payment). Most are ignored as we expect, but sometimes the offending supplier will call and ask what it's about... These usually turn into payments when you explain that it cost a few hundreds dollars in staff time, or in some cases, had to supply extra products or discounts to keep a customer happy after a huge delay.

  • (cs) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    How about the first nations, who're a fucking minority in their own country, because your family invaded and in the space of just 20 generations you've mostly wiped out those who were there for 10,000 generations?
    If we use the usual definition of “generation” (around 25 years) then you're talking about a quarter of a million years then. I think there's good evidence that people haven't been in the Americas nearly that long, whoever they are. (There's a matter of academic debate as to when homo sapiens sapiens first arose and where, but there's absolutely no evidence at all for anyone in the Americas as far back as 100k years back; it wasn't until quite a bit later that human beings arrived…)
  • CA (unregistered) in reply to Nexzus
    Nexzus:
    /Yes, I'm an admitted racist. You try spending time around these people. I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country, and my family's been here for 20 generations.

    20 generations you say? Quite interesting my little racist friend. Quoting from Wikipedia: "The original settlement, named Gastown, grew around the Hastings Mill logging sawmill and a nearby tavern, both established in 1867. Enlarging to become the townsite of Granville, with the announcement that the railhead would reach the site it was renamed "Vancouver" and incorporated as a city in 1886."

    So Vancouver has been a city for around 130 years. That is much, much less than 20 generations. There are Chinese in Vancouver whose families have been there almost as long as yours, which I assume has been there for no more than 3-4 generations. Actually, YOU are the immigrant that went and took over land that belonged to others.

    I am now racist against you, you don't deserve to live in Vancouver, please leave, go back to France or the UK or whatever European country you came from.

  • Herr Otto Flick (unregistered) in reply to Heavy Zed
    Heavy Zed:
    You're missing the point. Someone is claiming that Canada is "their own country" on the basis of their ancestors being there first, which means either:

    They are of native origin, in which case maybe they should be more upset with the descendants of white colonists who took the country from the poster's people in the first place and not the immigrants they have more recently welcomed.

    Or, they're a descendent of said white colonists with a surprising lack of awareness of history or just an inability to empathize with people they see as "different".

    I'll leave it up to you to guess which one is more likely.

    "Native origin", definitely not Asiatics crossing the Bering land bridge 10,000 years ago. The only native inhabitants of America are rodents (slight exaggeration).

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to CA
    CA:
    Nexzus:
    /Yes, I'm an admitted racist. You try spending time around these people. I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country, and my family's been here for 20 generations.

    20 generations you say? Quite interesting my little racist friend. Quoting from Wikipedia: "The original settlement, named Gastown, grew around the Hastings Mill logging sawmill and a nearby tavern, both established in 1867. Enlarging to become the townsite of Granville, with the announcement that the railhead would reach the site it was renamed "Vancouver" and incorporated as a city in 1886."

    So Vancouver has been a city for around 130 years. That is much, much less than 20 generations. There are Chinese in Vancouver whose families have been there almost as long as yours, which I assume has been there for no more than 3-4 generations. Actually, YOU are the immigrant that went and took over land that belonged to others.

    I am now racist against you, you don't deserve to live in Vancouver, please leave, go back to France or the UK or whatever European country you came from.

    Oh, puh-lease. We don't want him back. Send him to Saudi Arabia, whose inhabitants can teach the world plenty about racism.

    Unless he was somehow trying to say that he's one of the people who dwelt in that area before the Europeans arrived, and now there are more people in that area of Euro ancestry than those of his own ethnic group. Although 20 generations, as has been calculated, equates to something of the order of 500 years, which doesn't quite tally with that hypothesis either.

    Maybe your OP is functionally innumerate, and all numbers over 3 are a confusing lotsness to him. Or her, come to that, although to suggest a female can't count may, right or wrong, be construed as offensive.

  • Hannes (unregistered) in reply to Nexzus
    Nexzus:
    /Yes, I'm an admitted racist.

    You know, you could've just said "But then, I'm a frakking moron" and save us all a lot of time.

  • Nobody (unregistered) in reply to Heavy Zed
    Heavy Zed:

    You're missing the point. Someone is claiming that Canada is "their own country" on the basis of their ancestors being there first, which means either:

    They are of native origin, in which case maybe they should be more upset with the descendants of white colonists who took the country from the poster's people in the first place and not the immigrants they have more recently welcomed.

    Or, they're a descendent of said white colonists with a surprising lack of awareness of history or just an inability to empathize with people they see as "different".

    I'll leave it up to you to guess which one is more likely.

    because your world view, which includes belief in inherited guilt, is the only possible world view.

  • Paul Neumann (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    If you live in a place, that's your place. Just because someone has been in that place for longer than you should not mean that person has privileges over you. And it most certainly does not mean that a person who has lived longer in a place is better than a person who has not lived there for as long.
    So, you're saying that if, when I go home tonight, someone who did not live there this morning is sitting on my couch watching my TV and eating my cream cheese Danishes than it's okay because I have no more or less privileges where I live than that person?
  • Paul Neumann (unregistered) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    the usual definition of “generation” (around 25 years)
    Please, oh please give me a source that pins an average generation span at or around 25 years. It doesn't even have to be valid going back "a quarter of a million years," I posit that a 25 year generation span would be a significant overshoot over even a 500 year period, much less 5,000 years.
  • Hannes (unregistered) in reply to Paul Neumann
    Paul Neumann:
    dkf:
    the usual definition of “generation” (around 25 years)
    Please, oh please give me a source that pins an average generation span at or around 25 years.

    "In developed nations the average familial generation length is in the high 20s and has even reached 30 years in some nations"

    Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation

    Also, see source links on wiki page.

    You're welcome.

  • Al H. (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion

    The little Iranian weasel was prone to brag about being Iranian with each and every breath. Nice one on the species though :).

  • John Jiang (unregistered) in reply to John Jiang

    John Jiang Jingleheimer Schmidt, His name is my name, too. Whenever we go out, The people always shout, "There goes John Jiang Jingleheimer two!" Da da da da da da da da

  • Birdman3131 (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood

    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/protect-a-document-from-unauthorized-changes-HP001044674.aspx#_Toc280362682 give them a passworded word doc.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Nexzus:
    I live in Vancouver ...snip... my family's been here for 20 generations.

    Is your family native American, or from European settlers?

    Because the first Europeans set foot in the Vancouver area around 1790, so if you're European, the women in your family will have had to had their children at an average age of 11 or 12 to be able to squeeze 20 generations into the time that has elapsed since then.

    Does your family have a rich tradition of child abuse?

    In fairness, he didn't say that his family has been in VANCOUVER for 20 generations. The relevant in which he made the comment about generations was, "I'm a f---- minority in my own country, and my family's been here for 20 generations." I think the plain reading is that his family has been in Canada for 20 generations, not necessarily specifically in Vancouver.

    I don't know when the poster's ancestors arrived here or where they came from, but there were European settlers in Canada the 1500s, so it's not implausible.

    Of course all of this is assuming that he meant the number literally and not as a poetic exaggeration. Life if someone says, "Man, this program takes a MILLION YEARS to run", I don't suppose that that time is literal.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    How about the first nations, who're a fucking minority in their own country, because your family invaded and in the space of just 20 generations you've mostly wiped out those who were there for 10,000 generations?

    This is a highly racist idea. To say that the "white people" invaded and kicked out the "native Americans", and that the "native Americans" rightly owned the place because they were here first, only makes sense if you take it for granted that the only thing that matters about a person is the color of his skin.

    I was born in New York State. When the British came to New York, they ultimately forced out the previous inhabitants, the Iroquois Indians.

    But the Iroquois certainly had NOT been there for 10,000 generations or anything remotely approaching that. They conquered the land from the Algonquins. I frankly don't know when the Algonquins arrived or who they supplanted, but the Hopewell were there before them, maybe others in between.

    To say that the Iroquois have some sacred right to the land just because they have the same color skin as people who were there before them, but that white people have no right to the land because they have a different color skin, is to see the world in totally racist terms. I sincerely doubt that as the Iroquois were killing the Algonquins, that the Algonquins said to themselves, "It would be really terrible if we were killed by white people, but as the people killing us are fellow native Americans, why then it's ok. Whether we win or lose, in the end the land will still be owned by native Americans, and that's what really matters."

    It is difficult to see why the fact that the Iroquois drove out the Algonquins gives them a sacred, unalienable right to own the land for all time to come, while the fact that white people drove out the Iroquois means that white people can never be said to be truly "native" no matter how many generations they live there.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to huasg
    huasg:
    Why do you need more than one [resume]? To prove they're all the same?

    Now that you mention it, that's a cool idea. I think the next time I go on a job interview, I'm going to bring along five resumes, all radically different, and give one to each person who interviews me. Then let the company get all confused when they talk about the applicants and one says, "Yes, this fellow has a lot of C# experience, I think we really need that," and then another says, "What? I didn't see anything on his resume about C#", etc.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    Vinit:
    My wife wrote this comment for me...

    But then it would say,

    "I am Vinit's wife, and I wrote this comment for Vinit."

    Otherwise you have a recursive paradox.

    "I'm sorry, Billy won't be able to come to school today. He's very sick. I'm taking him to the doctor. This is my mother speaking."

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to hank
    hank:
    Nexzus:
    I live in Vancouver ... I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country.
    Oh, so you're living in abject poverty on a desolate reserve set aside for you by a conquering, imperialist nation? Well, I guess your rage is at least understandable then, even if somewhat misguided.

    I don't live in poverty, but sometimes I get the feeling that my nation has been conquered by imperialist foreigners. Our government and our media regularly tell us that the great threats to our nation are immigrants, religious zealots, and gun owners. Which I find strange, as this country was founded by a group of immigrant religious zealots with guns.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Just because someone's experience is different from what you need doesn't make them a loser.

    Maybe not, but if someone says he wants to work here, that must mean that he was unable to get a job with a real company. He's a loser.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to DrPepper
    DrPepper:
    Well, what do you expect? These people make money when the candidate gets hired, period. Their only interest is in getting that person placed; they don't care about the needs of the candidate or the needs of the company.

    Chances are that the candidate will never use that agency again in any case. Odds are, with the number of agencies out there, that the agency will never do business with the company again. And, I'm guessing that the actual agent moves around from place to place every six months.

    All that comes down to -- the agent is perfectly willing to commit fraud, screw over the candidate and the company, because it just doesn't matter to him.

    Contrast that to where I work now -- I'm a full time employee of the consulting firm; and the reputation of the company is built on the quality of the consultants that work for the firm. When we send a consultant out on an interview, the company and the consultant are already certain that consultant has all the skills required for the job.

    Actually, this is where the whole business confuses me.

    It's true that an agency is unlikely to do business with the same employee again. I've only once gone back to an employment agency that I had used before, and that was many years and several jobs later.

    Still, if they do a particularly good or particularly bad job for you, you're likely to tell your friends. Just because a company rarely does repeat business with the same person doesn't mean they don't have to worry about reputation.

    But on the other side, I've known employers who routinely use the same agency. I think most companies are hiring new people pretty regularly -- even if they're not growing, there are always people quitting who need to be replaced. You'd think the agency would have a big incentive to keep the employer-client happy.

    But curiously, I do regularly seem them fake out resumes. They DON'T seem to care that much about maintaining a good reputation.

    Maybe we're all exaggerating the problem. Maybe we just remember a relatively small number of times that agencies have played games with employers, and not all the times that they've done a good job. I don't have any statistics. But even if that was true, it would be double reason why agencies SHOULD have to be squeaky clean.

  • Anomaly (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    hank:
    Nexzus:
    I live in Vancouver ... I'm a fuckin' minority in my own country.
    Oh, so you're living in abject poverty on a desolate reserve set aside for you by a conquering, imperialist nation? Well, I guess your rage is at least understandable then, even if somewhat misguided.

    I don't live in poverty, but sometimes I get the feeling that my nation has been conquered by imperialist foreigners. Our government and our media regularly tell us that the great threats to our nation are immigrants, religious zealots, and gun owners. Which I find strange, as this country was founded by a group of immigrant religious zealots with guns.

    Which is precisely why they are dangerous. They conquered this nation once they can conquer this nation again.

  • Paul Neumann (unregistered) in reply to Hannes
    Hannes:
    Paul Neumann:
    Please, oh please give me a source that pins an average generation span at or around 25 years. It doesn't even have to be valid going back "a quarter of a million years," I posit that a 25 year generation span would be a significant overshoot [b]over even a 500 year period[b], much less 5,000 years.
    Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation
    Now if you could just learn to comprehend what you read...
  • urza9814 (unregistered) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    Nexzus:
    gramie:
    I can't figure out how she passed the exams.
    *Precursor: I live in Vancouver

    When I was in school, exam proctors were allowed to check for ID if there was any case of possible fraudulent identity. The fact that it was a policy made me think if it was ever a real big problem at some point.

    When I was a proctor, sometimes it was required (not just allowed) to check identity.

    For comparison, the US needs voter ID.

    Not entirely. Some states require this, but plenty don't. I don't think I've ever had to show any ID at all to vote...

  • urza9814 (unregistered) in reply to Hannes
    Hannes:
    Paul Neumann:
    dkf:
    the usual definition of “generation” (around 25 years)
    Please, oh please give me a source that pins an average generation span at or around 25 years.

    "In developed nations the average familial generation length is in the high 20s and has even reached 30 years in some nations"

    Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation

    Also, see source links on wiki page.

    You're welcome.

    ..and you think numbers that are valid for modern, developed nations are still valid for a hundred years ago? five hundred? TEN THOUSAND???

    It wasn't all that long ago that people would get married as young as 13; I highly doubt they were waiting until 25 to have kids.

  • (cs) in reply to urza9814
    urza9814:
    Not entirely. Some states require this, but plenty don't. I don't think I've ever had to show any ID at all to vote...

    Bingo. Dems are fighting hard against ID laws, since they "champion" for the poor, who often don't have an ID.

  • (cs) in reply to Paul Neumann
    Paul Neumann:
    QJo:
    If you live in a place, that's your place. Just because someone has been in that place for longer than you should not mean that person has privileges over you. And it most certainly does not mean that a person who has lived longer in a place is better than a person who has not lived there for as long.
    So, you're saying that if, when I go home tonight, someone who did not live there this morning is sitting on my couch watching my TV and eating my cream cheese Danishes than it's okay because I have no more or less privileges where I live than that person?

    Here, have a cigarette. Want a light? There you go. Oops, I've set fire to your head. Oh dear, you seem to have completely burned up, with a godawful amount of smoke. Why didn't you tell me you were made of straw?

  • (cs) in reply to urza9814
    urza9814:
    Norman Diamond:
    Nexzus:
    gramie:
    I can't figure out how she passed the exams.
    *Precursor: I live in Vancouver

    When I was in school, exam proctors were allowed to check for ID if there was any case of possible fraudulent identity. The fact that it was a policy made me think if it was ever a real big problem at some point.

    When I was a proctor, sometimes it was required (not just allowed) to check identity.

    For comparison, the US needs voter ID.

    Not entirely. Some states require this, but plenty don't. I don't think I've ever had to show any ID at all to vote...

    Where I live, they post you a little card with the details of where you are invited to go to vote. You turn up at the location. You hand your card to the person at the desk. They note you have arrived and neatly cross your name off the list of the people they are expecting. They give you a piece of paper with a number on it. You then go into the booth and make a mark on that piece of paper. You fold it over twice and pass it through the slot at the top of a big box.

    At the end of the day, the boxes are opened and the marks that people have made on the pieces of paper are examined, and those pieces of paper are sorted into categories appopriately. Then they count up the number of pieces of paper in each category and the category with the highest number of pieces of paper in it wins.

    I asked once what was the purpose of the numbers on the paper. I was told by the officiating person that they were so they could correlate the number with the voter, and work out what they had voted. Thus if any voter wrote something on the piece of paper that the authorities did not like, they could pay that person a visit and give them a strict talking to, or in extreme cases, deprive them of their liberty. I protested about that, and declared that this was therefore not a secret ballot. She agreed, and told me that it was not supposed to be, and that the authorities had the right to demand to know exactly what each person had voted, in order to be able to take appropriate action against people who voted contrary to the way in which they would have preferred. At that point I ripped up the piece of paper and threw the pieces up into the air, thereby risking having action taken against me for littering.

    It was not until several years later that I learned that I had been given incorrect information by that official. In fact, the numbers are on the pieces of paper in order that there be a safeguard against ballot fraud.

  • Hannes (unregistered) in reply to urza9814
    Paul Neumann:
    Hannes:
    Paul Neumann:
    Please, oh please give me a source that pins an average generation span at or around 25 years. It doesn't even have to be valid going back "a quarter of a million years," I posit that a 25 year generation span would be a significant overshoot [b]over even a 500 year period[b], much less 5,000 years.
    Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation
    Now if you could just learn to comprehend what you read...

    I will do that as soon as you learn how to user BBCode properly.

    Anyway: I highly doubt that you will find any valid sources for "500 years ago", since no one bothered to do statistics back then. So, we have to go with what we have now, right? And if you had actually bothered to "read and comprehend" the link I gave you, you could've found this: "Conversely, generation length has changed little and remains in the low 20s in less developed nations." And by "changed little" they mean "changed little from the late 18th century".

    urza9814:
    Hannes:
    Paul Neumann:
    dkf:
    the usual definition of “generation” (around 25 years)
    Please, oh please give me a source that pins an average generation span at or around 25 years.

    "In developed nations the average familial generation length is in the high 20s and has even reached 30 years in some nations"

    Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation

    Also, see source links on wiki page.

    You're welcome.

    ..and you think numbers that are valid for modern, developed nations are still valid for a hundred years ago? five hundred? TEN THOUSAND???

    See above. Where do we get a reliable source for "a generation" from ten thousand years ago?

    It wasn't all that long ago that people would get married as young as 13; I highly doubt they were waiting until 25 to have kids.

    Again, if you had actually bothered to read the link, you could've found this: "Conversely, generation length has changed little and remains in the low 20s in less developed nations."

  • Captain Oblivious (unregistered) in reply to Hannes
    Hannes:
    Anyway: I highly doubt that you will find any valid sources for "500 years ago", since no one bothered to do statistics back then.

    Yeah, because the Romans weren't taking censuses since at least 475BCE, for taxation purposes.

    And of course the French and British weren't doing it 500 years ago. Or the Germans. Or the Chinese or Indians, for that matter.

Leave a comment on “The Old Switch n' Bait”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #414186:

« Return to Article