Presumably OP is interviewing for sysadmin positions maintaining LAMP installations, not developing LAMP based services. Either that or OP is just as clueless as his candidates
One cannot make non-trivial LAMP based service development without having at least an awareness of deployment and installation issues. Hell, that holds for any stack (RoR, JEE,
The only way that we have found for being able to assess a candidate's suitability for work at our company is to write tests that suit the job, and then ask the candidates to demonstrate their skills. We've had people with all sorts of qualifications relevant to the LAMP architecture not know the basics of regex, sql, bash, etc. Let alone what ARP is.
ARP as in ethernet ip-mac mapping ? How exactly is that relevant to a LAMP job ?
If you do LAMP jobs, chances are you will be doing some of the installation and configuration of infrastructure yourself. Meaning, some sysadmin work will be involved.
Meaning, there is an expectation of being aware of problems that can occur - by accident or stupidity (3rd party or yours) - with any non-trivial setup, including troubleshooting network problems that causes Apache to proxy among several PHP boxes (if you distribute horizontally) or why or database connections get truncated/closed prematurely (damned unknown firewall) or why your system is so slow (until you fire up snoop or something like that and you detect a shit-ton of re-transmitted packages because the NIC on your database server is running full duplex while the NIC on your PHP box is running half-duplex).
Developing is not just writing code. It is deployment. It is testing, and ZOMG, support of the shit we write and deploy.
I for one harbor suspicions of any person that claims web/enterprise development experience (Java,
Because if they do, then they are not the type of people one can rely on to make shit work when shit inevitably breaks.
Be very afraid of coding without deployment awareness.
AFAIK both Bill Gates and Steve Balmer don't control Microsoft anymore.
This is a new Microsoft with a new CEO, so we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
You are asking too much from the emo-hordes that inhabit the
I'm still trying to figure out what my comment about Joan -- white Joan -- had anything to do with Kelly. Yes, I walked on egg shells around Kelly from then on.
It's called solipsism. You can't really negotiate with a solipsistic person since even abstractions that obviously are intended to show them things about others invariably, in their minds, come back to them.
Word of advice, though, from experience in dealing with these types of people. The best defense is to make it clear you are a hard target. By hard I mean, you will defend yourself and make it costly even if they nominally win the fight. No one wants to suffer at best a pyrrhic victory.
Best advice ever.
"social justice" is based on the extremely faulty assertion that everybody is the same and that absolutely every trait or preference you may have is culturally constructed.
No, social justice is based on the premise that significant institutionalized injustice was committed until very recently whose consequences still linger. How effective (or just) remediation is, that is a related but different subject.
"While that's true"
*** citation needed
Diversity of things that matter, may be important, but diversity of eye, hair, and skin color may be unimportant.
They are not. We have recent history to prove otherwise.
I hope they are working on ANY AND ALL IMPORTANT drills (IN STRICT, OBJECTIVE ORDER OF PRIORITY AND LIKELIHOOD OF EVENT). That's what would have saved lives in 2011.
There. Fixed that for you.
Please remind me how their is no corruption in your country again.
^^^ The textbook definition of an ad hominem.
> This is not $70 millions in non-taxable charities, but an investment on a money machine in the sports/entertainment industry.
Yes, he bought a business, so he'll pay income tax on any income that is generated. If he buys T-shirts for $10 each and sells them for $25 each, that's a $15 profit he'll be taxed on.
If he buys hot dogs for $2 and sells them for $8, that's a $6 profit on which he'll pay taxes.
If he buys a team for a billion dollars and over 15 years he gets his billion back plus $500 million more, that's a $500 million profit he'll pay taxes on.
The billion he apent buying the team is money he ALREADY earned from Microsoft, so he ALREADY paid taxes on it. Of course he doesn't have to pay income taxes on the same money again when spends it on a team. It's INCOME tax, not SPENDING tax. The article is just clickbait for the uninformed and gullible, silently assuming he should have to pay income tax over and over on the same money. How many times he should be taxed on that money the author doesn't say.
Wait, what? $70 million per year for the next 15 years (future tense) is money he already made (past tense)?
*sighs*
A billion over FIFTEEN YEARS. Amounts to about $70 million a year.
Considering that Ballmer is worth north of twenty Billion, we're not actually talking about a huge tax break here.
What we are talking about is an article that combines fifteen years of tax deductions in order to put that magic "B" in the title to get people excited....
We shouldn't need a 'B' to get excited. A billion is a billion whether it gets paid in a year or 15. And $70 million in taxes is $70 million no matter how you cut it. Under what type of cynic logic can this be justified?
This is not $70 millions in non-taxable charities, but an investment on a money machine in the sports/entertainment industry.
That would be fair to say, if we (Americans) were free to emigrate to the countries that H1-Bs are being brought in from. We're not. The markets for labor and capital are both far from free (see 'capital controls' regarding the later).
There is some truth is that H1-B influx puts a damp in job hunting. But, from experience, if a programmer feels constantly threatened by that influx to the point of seeing his salary (or even employment opportunities) nosediving, I would question said's person's skills.
The real good engineers in India either come here already in scholarships or transition very quickly from H1-B to resident status. And these are not the majority. The bulk of H1-B are just average/below average (with a good chunk being just atrocious coders) with very little work experience (most of it limited to web development), facing cultural barriers in communication and delivery of work.
This is not a diss or intended as an insult to them. It is just a function of many things that affect their society (and I suspect that the quality of work will improve over the decades.)
If you (the generic "you") are threatened by that, by the current quality of work presented by offshore/H1-B teams, then you are replaceable and possibly not that great at software/IT. Don't blame them. Blame your skills.
If you know your shit well, you will have no shortage of $$$ and work. That is a fact. Do the type of work that cannot be easily offshored/replaced/commoditized, and you will be fine.
The guys getting 250k a year from Google are basically the SF version of high-end guys making 120-140 a year here in FL. Same take home and everything.
Bingo. This was my #1 reason I forego the idea of relocating from SoFla to the Valley. One thing that I would add is that said programmer in Tampa can buy a *real* house in a decent school district as a head-of -household with with a stay-at-home spouse. In San Francisco, forget it. The equivalent programmer could only afford a whole in a wall, or have to have his/her spouse work in the same field just to be able to buy a *real* house in a good school district.
Denver, Dallas or Seattle are much better options to relocate, money-wise.
Plenty of mentally and physically handicapped people hold down jobs of varying levels of sophistication.
On the other hand, if you can't fend for yourself then you should have fewer rights and probably should be treated as a child.
Barring voting and access to booze, smokes and pr0n, I didn't know that children had less rights than adults. Who knew?
That's how criminal negligence already works, when's the last time a corporation was tried in court for murder?
It shouldn't. The individuals along the chain of command and supervision that committed the murder should be tried in civil court, and the corporation should be tried for damages in civil court if the corporation is found to have fostered a system that permitted the crime to occur in the first place.
I'm talking about enforcing contracts. My company orders a million dollars of widgets from Acme and they're never delivered. Who's responsible?
Acme. You do not need corporate personhood to sue Acme.
I don't want to sue an individual,
If the "corporation" is a single-person entity that is not incorporated for limited liability, that's your option (and one would ask why you would order a million dollar of widgets from said commercial entity.)
I'm never seeing my money back if that's the only option available.
Any intelligent business entity would never entered into a contract under such conditions. Also, contracts spell out responsibilities (who pays what and how much when defaulting a contract), in a document enforced by the law.
And under some conditions, the individual can be sued in a criminal court of law if he/she is found to have not acted in good faith.
And if I did, some poor employee for Acme is going to lose their second car and probably have to sell their house.
If the company is a single-person entity, yeah, pretty much. If it is a LLC, then you go after the corp's asset. And if it is a corporation, you go after the corporation's assets.
You do not need corporate personhood. It is a stupid American legal aberration. How the hell do you think developed countries like Japan or Germany that do not have such a notion handle violation of contracts or trials against corporations?
Corporate personhood refers to the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes.
We were able to do that without that legal shenanigans (just like other countries do).
Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?
1. False dichotomy.
2. A better suggestion would be to sue individuals on whose behalf, by virtue of negligence or criminality, a corporation became liable for debts and crimes (specially crimes.)
But hey, you can ignore #2 and embrace #1 if that's your thing.
The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.
