|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: "... and the shark, cruising deep, went very hungry that year."
The closing line from a short story I read, long ago.
Do you remember the title?
|
|
|
|
|
Jaws
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, no. The story was one of those nuclear armageddon aftermath bits that were popular during the Cold War. I don't remember the story itself, just the closing line.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how single lines will stick in your memory for years to come.
Memory is a strange thing. As I get older I have a hard time remembering what I had for lunch yesterday, but I can remember in fine detail things that happened a half century ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting use of the word defense though.
|
|
|
|
|
Fairly standard, the USA has had the largest "defence" budget for many years, and been involved in more "defences" than
every other country - either directly, or by funding terrorist organisations to do their dirty work.
From the rest of the world's perspective, this is aggression and terrorism (the definition of which is using violence as a form of coercion to achieve political ends).
It should be no surprise that the US has itself become a target of terrorism.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
sure, we went through the first two already so it must be the third one coming up ...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and it will also involve aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
In which case it won't be a World War, Shirley.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: In which case it won't be a World War, Shirley.
Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
urm, US spending like 800 billion a year on military
|
|
|
|
|
And the US is bankrupt....
Time for Europe to join with Russia and create a new defence force.
|
|
|
|
|
They're probably like the U.S., the defense is against its citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
$50 billion?? That's NOTHING in the U.S. defense budget. That gets you a couple of toilet seats and about a months supply of toilet paper.
The U.S. spends on the order of $650B plus every year on defense.
Oh, and China spends more than $50 billion, so I serisously question where you're getting your numbers from.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the easiest question to answer: YES.
We don't know when neither how, but it is coming little by little... 
|
|
|
|
|
Soon...
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Some Politician Somewhere: After speaking with military advisers... we've decided to skip the third world war and go right on into the fourth. This should save the tax payers billions.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. What was the name of the company and your title when you worked with him/her?
2. What was his / her job title?
3. In what capacity did you work with him / her?
4. How long did you know him / her?
5. How would you describe his / her character?
6. When he / she begins a task, would you say that he / she carries it through completion?
7. Did he / she ever show a propensity for violence or dishonesty in the work force?
8. What was the nature of his / her work?
9. What would you say is his / her greatest strength? Greatest weakness?
10. How does he / she get along with his / her associates?
Are any of these illegal to ask? I'm particularly curious about #7.
[edit]An associate of mine (who is one of my professional references) sent me the questions that the agency is asking him about me.  [/edit]
Marc
modified 7-Feb-14 21:51pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone expressed his/her concerns (violence) about somebody and they (HR) are trying to figure things out and do not want to confront that person without more proofs.
M.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
I would not answer any: let HR handle it.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I would not answer any: let HR handle it.
These are questions about me, being sent to my professional references. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I would say 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are going to get answers that could be very biased from the point of view of the person answering them.
I don't think 7 is very much different from 5, 6, 9 or 10 in that they all relate to the character of a person.
My understanding of UK law is that a negative reference for a job can possibly be a valid reason for legal action which is why many HR departments will only give observable facts rather than interpretive opinions that 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are aiming at.
[EDIT]I have included 6 as I think yes/no answers in this context carry a huge weight and what defines 'completion' is again so open for interpretation that it's not a very useful question when assessing a stranger.[/EDIT]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 8-Feb-14 0:48am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
