July 29, 2015 at 2:53 pm
The U.S. Constitution is a contract that defines the scope of the Federal government's power relative to state's rights and individual rights. It can occasionally be amended by Congress and interpreted by Supreme Court (for the purpose of clarifying original intent). However, under no circumstances can be it be ignored or interpreted by the Executive branch, a State, or a branch of government like the Justice Department, Department of Defense, or the NSA.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 29, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Principles of individual freedom and liberty, cherished, pshaw!
Pshaw: Exclamation common to Southern North America, approximate meaning is bul**it.
July 29, 2015 at 3:15 pm
... under no circumstances can [the US Constitution] be ignored or interpreted by the Executive branch, a State, or a branch of government like the Justice Department, Department of Defense, or the NSA.
Actually, it gets ignored and interpreted all the time by all those governmental entitiies, by corporate entities, and by individuals as well.
That's why we have lawsuits and (ahem) lawyers.
July 29, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Principles of individual freedom and liberty, cherished, pshaw!
Pshaw: Exclamation common to Southern North America, approximate meaning is bul**it.
Erm ... not sure if you're offering a critique of the state of civil liberties in the US or the UK. But in both nations, sister democracies, there is always the opportunity to correct that which seems wrong.
July 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2015)
below86 (7/29/2015)
ZZartin (7/29/2015)
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2015)
below86 (7/29/2015)
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2015)
below86 (7/29/2015)
Not to be to political, but people 'hired' George W. Bush because 'He was someone I could see having a beer with'. That turned out to be a horrible 'hire'.Not to stay political, but Obama is better??? :sick:
Why yes it is. 🙂 Economy is a lot better, getting out of wars we shouldn't have been in. I could go on, 'Where are those weapons of mass destruction"? 😀
And the complete attack on our privacy, liberties, and way of life. No, I can't agree!
Wasn't the patriot act bush?
Why yes it was, seems the 'right' wing always forget that.
Yes, it was Bush era but the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have kept the bill from being passed, so don't put all the blame on the Republicans.
Also, I don't consider myself "right" wing but a Conservative Constitutional Republican that has been disenfranchised by the current Republican Party.
Corrections - employment is at an all time low. See the BLA for proof. We are about 8 percentage points below statistical norms.
While Bush pushed the Patriot act, it was crafted by Dems(Biden I believe) and both sides support it.
While neither party is doing anything positive, I can't see how anyone can claim Obama is better. Better than what, 100% erosion of our rights and 50% of people on welfare? Sure, we aren't that bad. Better on getting out of conflicts and wars? Ask our soldiers about that. The last good president was - um - a long, long time ago.
Dave
July 29, 2015 at 3:25 pm
below86 (7/29/2015)
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2015)
below86 (7/29/2015)
Not to be to political, but people 'hired' George W. Bush because 'He was someone I could see having a beer with'. That turned out to be a horrible 'hire'.Not to stay political, but Obama is better??? :sick:
Why yes it is. 🙂 Economy is a lot better, getting out of wars we shouldn't have been in. I could go on, 'Where are those weapons of mass destruction"? 😀
Might want to ask the Iranians and Kurds. Or how about the Libyan government, because they called up the UN and admitted Saddam shipped them there.
Dave
July 29, 2015 at 4:28 pm
GoofyGuy (7/29/2015)
Erm ... not sure if you're offering a critique of the state of civil liberties in the US or the UK. But in both nations, sister democracies, there is always the opportunity to correct that which seems wrong.
I admire your optimistic view but I do not share it. I focus on database development issues, that is how I stay sane. Everything else be blasted.
July 29, 2015 at 5:28 pm
I think most of you are missing the point. You all assume that a person working as a technology manager has the skills to know whether a person will "fit in" with the existing group based on a short conversation. While our emotions may tell us this is true, the reality is that this ability would make you the greatest social anthropologist in the history of mankind. You can't know and your guesses are meaningless.
Hire for the job, try to assess people's actual skills and level of professionalism. Hire people who are different from who you already have. This will cause conflict and, as a consequence, progress.
I've just spent two and a half years "looking for work". I haven't spoken to a single person in that time whom I didn't convince I could do the job they had on offer. I didn't get any of them. This was done purely on social issues, I'm a fifty odd year old bachelor who lives where he grew up, a somewhat economically depressed part of Australia. This is all people care about. "Hiring for culture" means disregarding experience and ability.
July 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm
Hire people who are different from who you already have. This will cause conflict and, as a consequence, progress.
A Hegelian dialectician, by any chance?
July 29, 2015 at 5:48 pm
GoofyGuy (7/29/2015)
... under no circumstances can [the US Constitution] be ignored or interpreted by the Executive branch, a State, or a branch of government like the Justice Department, Department of Defense, or the NSA.
Actually, it gets ignored and interpreted all the time by all those governmental entitiies, by corporate entities, and by individuals as well.
That's why we have lawsuits and (ahem) lawyers.
I think based on the 3 major branches of the government, the judicial branch chiefly engages in the interpretation of the constitution, the legislative can initiate the process of change, so that leaves the ignoring part for the branch that's left over!
July 29, 2015 at 7:58 pm
I think having people who get along is important. However, I think wanting people who fit in to the point you want to go out and socialize is taking it too far and unnecessary. I've been able to work with and accomplish a lot with people that I have little in common. We could make it through a lunch, but that's about it.
We wonder why there is a shortage of women in technology when this is the number one criteria. Again, I think people should be able to work together, but this and a lot of other articles and talk about corporate culture goes too far. There is no need to be buddies or have a need for a lot of socializing. Sure it is a nice to have, but is very far off in the list of requirements.
If a team can't find people who fit in, maybe they need to check their ability to get along with others. Technical skill and capacity is more important. Training people is not that easy and the shortage of good technologists is a testament to that. Or maybe more people are getting the training they need because they're not a good fit? Doubtful.
July 29, 2015 at 8:06 pm
If you act like a professional, and the people you work with act professionally, you can work with anyone. Needing to "like" someone to be able to work with them is almost a definition of unprofessional.
July 29, 2015 at 9:05 pm
jckfla (7/29/2015)
Certainly a person coming to work at a company that refuses to engage with others in any way outside of work can be a problem. We need to get along with each other as social creatures, and be able to hold a conversation with each other that might not involve work. However I'm not sure that anyone expects every other employee to have, discuss, and participate in the same interests as the manager or even a group of people.
Personally, I think requiring or expecting an employee to engage socially outside of the workplace at all as a part of employment is a bit...stepford.
Given, requiring an employee to become buddies/friends/pals/mates/co-dependent on their fellow co-workers and expecting them to "get along" are two very different things.
+1
Being a good fit does not mean I have to spend evenings in extra-curricular activities with you. But being able to get along is a must.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
July 29, 2015 at 9:15 pm
Iwas Bornready (7/29/2015)
Our interview process is to get technically qualified candidates down to 2 or 3. Then they are brought in to meet the IT team without the manager there. We all just talk, to see how the candidate "feels" to us as one we could and would work with. That reaction by IT is used heavily in the final decision.
I like this approach. Another option is to take the candidates somewhere away from work (like to lunch) and get them to relax. Just talk about something without the confinement of the walls at the workplace.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
July 30, 2015 at 6:59 am
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2015)
jckfla (7/29/2015)
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2015)
below86 (7/29/2015)
Not to be to political, but people 'hired' George W. Bush because 'He was someone I could see having a beer with'. That turned out to be a horrible 'hire'.Not to stay political, but Obama is better??? :sick:
Erm...
The latter of the two can properly pronounce the word "nuclear" :laugh:
Of course, I shouldn't pick. As an American, I am proud to say I know that the word for the stuff coke cans are made from is "aluminium".
The word "aluminum" was a way for greedy folks here in America to patent it back in the day without any issue.
AL-YOO-MIN-EE-UM...it really is the proper way to say it...learn it, my fellow Americans 😛 😎
My ex-mother-in-law pronounces WASH with an R sound. So what if Bush mispronounced "nuclear" since it was apparent everyone knew what he was talking about. At least Bush wasn't trying to destroy America and make it a Socialist country.
Lots of people around me pronounced wash that way too...but, they weren't an Ivy League educated President of the United States either...
And no, Bush didn't try to make it Socialist. He just handed out billions of no-bid contracts to a corporation for which his Vice President just happened to hold tons of shares of stock. Halliburton...corporate welfare...conflict of interest anyone?
Just keep in mind...very, VERY few in Washington are squeaky clean, and the ones who are... are usually the ones that can't anything done and last one term because they won't "play ball".
BTW, I have been a registered Republican from day one of registering to vote in 1988. But, I don't feel the Republican party has represented even its stated platform for 25 years now. So, you're not alone in feeling alienated by the party.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 87 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply