Comment Re:Job Hopping (Score 2) 282
He didn't say that he has a problem with hoppers. That may be because he's careful not to employ them.
There's a difference between people growing out of their role and moving on, and people job hopping.
He didn't say that he has a problem with hoppers. That may be because he's careful not to employ them.
There's a difference between people growing out of their role and moving on, and people job hopping.
It depends what I'm looking for.
If I'm recruiting someone to deliver a single project, with a skillset we don't have in-house, then I'll look for a contractor and I'll focus on skills, delivery and availability.
If I'm recruiting someone to help progress the company, suggest and lead strategic work, fit into and enhance the culture and cope with multiple complex pieces of work at the same time, I'm going to want someone with a track record of working with a large corporation, that understands how they work and how to work effectively within them, and that has the length of service that suggests that at a minimum they could work the system well enough not to get sacked.
It's destructive and expensive employing people that can't fit into a team, or that wont be happy at the company.
Speak for yourself. My emails are finely crafted works of art. They are culturally significant and future archaeologists will travel the world seeking the remnants of discarded storage drives containing encrypted backups of my Sent Items folder in the hopes of completing their collection.
No-IP domains are used 93 percent of the time for Bladabindi-Jenxcus infections,
If I set up malware on my home PC and use DynDNS then DynDNS domains are used 100% of the time to serve my malware.
So maybe Microsoft are saying that 93% of infections come via No-IP domains. That might be a tiny fraction of the overall No-IP domains.
What's next, a RICO prosecution for the owners of No-IP?
Or for Microsoft?
Most people are however merely stating that the evidence doesn't support the claims, and that it is only sensible to treat this as a scam without further evidence.
That's a very supportable and legally defensible statement, particularly when there is no attempt to refute it.
Flashbacks to Lady Vengeance.
the law of war
Which fucking law?
Geneva Convention? No.
International law? No.
UN mandates? No.
US Constitution? No.
The US is assassinating people in a foreign country. It is killing innocent people, and it is not obeying anything fucking remotely close to a law.
Who the fuck are you calling an effeminate pansy, while hiding behind anonymity.
Shit, I could be wearing lacy pink panties with a fuckhole in the rear and still be more of a man than you.
Do not forget that ObamaCare was rammed through without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate.
It's the unfortunate case that Republicans don't generally support Democratic bills. Witness the recent student loan bill. There is not much question that a better educated populance means a better economy and a stronger nation. It's a truism that we could just pay for college education in a number of fields and reap economic benefits of many times the spending. Indeed, we used to do more of that and the country was stronger when we did.
You meant "you wouldn't approve" rather than "you wouldn't understand".
Positioned correctly, it isn't all that socially reprehensible to state the sentiment that you don't believe you should pay for people who drive their motorcycle without helmets, people who self-administer addictive and destructive drugs, people who engage in unprotected sex with prostitutes or unprotected casual sex with strangers, and people who go climbing without using all of the safety equipment they could.
You don't really even need to get into whether you hold human life sacred, etc., to get that argument across. It's mostly just an economic argument, you believe yourself to be sensible and don't want to pay for people who aren't.
The ironic thing about this is that it translates to "I don't want to pay for the self-inflicted downfall of the people who exercise the libertarian rights I deeply believe they should have."
OK, not a bad position as far as it goes. Now, tell me how we should judge each case, once these people present themselves for medical care, and what we should do if they don't meet the standard.
Citation needed.
I just looked for a minute and found This NIMH study. If you look at the percentages per year they are astonishingly high. 9% of people in any particular year just for mood disorders, and that's just the first on the list. Then they go down the list of other disorders. The implication is that everyone suffers some incident of mental illness in their lives. And given the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and lay practitioners in practice, it seems like much of the population try to get help at times, if only from their priest or school guidance counselor.
You are not a rock. Can you honestly tell me that you haven't ever suffeed a moment of irrationality?
I'm curious what his stance is on most martial arts practitioners.
I've never heard of one invading a school and karate-chopping a dozen young kids to death. Have you?
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.