|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> If you want really messed up, try South Africa.
>
>> It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
>> on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
>> nationality.
>> It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
>> 50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
>> given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'
>
> It sounds a bit like the constitution of Finland: A lot of nice words
> which mean absolutely nothing in practice.
>
> (Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
> not an actual law. You can't "break" the constitution. Criminal law has
> no concept of "breaking the constitution", and no sentences are ever given
> for doing something unconstitutional. Unlike in the US, constitution is not
> really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
> anything like that here).
> In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, but in
> practice many laws go against the constitution. OTOH, the constitution
> doesn't prohibit that, as its wording is basically "this is allowed unless
> prohibited by a law". Of course this is an absolute null statement.)
>
No one 'breaks' the constitution of the USA.
All it sets out, initially, is what each part of the government is
allowed to do and how they can accomplish it. Congress is consisted of
these people and does this stuff in this manner, while the President is
this person who is elected somehow and can do this other stuff.
The first 10 amendments to the constitution actually went further, and
forbid certain kinds of laws from being created. Again, though, the
Congress and President do not 'break' the constitution by making laws
like that, because they simply lack the authority to. The law gets
enforced, someone appeals, the Supreme Court rules the law
unconstitutional, and the law goes away.*
The fun parts are the 10th amendment, that said any power not given to
the Federal government and not forbidden to the states are reserved to
the State, and the 14th amendment, which made everyone born in the USA a
citizen and guaranteed them the same rights. Why? Well, the 10th is
skirted by calling just about anything 'interstate commerce'. Grow grain
to feed your own farm animals? Congress can regulate that, because the
grain you might be buying could come from other states. The other way is
to remove federal funding from states that do not enact certain laws:
"Do this or your tax dollars go some place else." And while the 14th
says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."** it has
been used to push other laws on the States. Whether that's a good or bad
thing depends on if you see the country as the USA or at the United
States of America. It is far from clear, either way.
*that's the way it's supposed to work, anyways.
**"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:38:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
did spake, saying:
> 1. Describe a time when you worked with others to solve a complex
> problem.
"Would it be feasible to render an Iterated Function System image using a
GPU?" equals
'An international co-operative effort to do blah for blah to solve blah.'
> 2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality piece
> of work that you were proud of.
How about all the time spent in tracking down problems, doesn't ask that
you have to have solved them the report itself could be the high quality
piece of work.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:38:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> First, I don't have any references - and they want two of 'em. I *would*
> have put my boss, but he recently left the company. I would have put our
> site manager, but he recently left too. The new management team can't
> even remember my name. No point having them for references! I might also
> have said my uni lecturers - you know, if the uni hadn't shut down as
> soon as I graduated...
So why not use the old boss and site manager? They're not going to be
losing you now that they're gone. If you can get in touch with them, do
so and ask if you can use them as references?
As they have recently left, they are probably in a better position to
help you than anyone you currently work with.
> 1. Describe a time when you worked with others to solve a complex
> problem.
>
> Um... OK. What do you say to this one? I mean, if you happen to work for
> a company that designs complex products and you're on the design team,
> this should be a cakewalk. But otherwise? I mean, when was the last time
> YOU solved a complex problem? (Never mind with other people.)
>
> Suffice it to say, I can't think of a single example for this. I've
> never *met* anybody (apart from me) who knows the difference between a
> Fourier transform and a Laplace transform. Any remotely complex problems
> I might have solved have been solved by me and me alone.
They're asking about solving business problems (that's what they'll be
most interested in). Use the firewall example, include as much detail as
is reasonable, but if you don't feel that that's enough, you can also
take the opportunity to say that one of the reasons you're applying is
because you want to stretch a bit more to reach your potential, and you
feel your current job is keeping you from doing just that.
> 2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality piece
> of work that you were proud of.
>
> Hmm, this is hard. Usually when I deliver something, all I can think
> about is how badly it sucks and how I should have done much better...
> but maybe I can find something for this one.
Give yourself some credit for what you've done. We've talked about this
before.
> 3. Give an example of when you tacked an unfamiliar problem or task, and
> how you learned something new.
>
> Do I tell them about the time I spent 2 days writing out the binomial
> expansions of powers up to 9 by longhand algebra and thereby derived a
> special case of the binomial theorum from first principles? Or should I
> write something about the time when I tried to build a parser for my
> computer-aided algebra system, and ended up inventing Dijkstra's
> shunting algorithm? Either way, I highly doubt anybody will be
> impressed. After all, reinventing obscure mathematics hardly counts as
> "solving" a "problem"...
Well, write it up and see what it looks like. But also, as with the
first question, they're probably more interested in business problems.
Maybe talk about how you learned about the regulations having to do with
audits - you probably didn't come out of Uni having any experience with
formal government audits, but now you know the stuff pretty well. So the
unfamiliar task would be learning about what the audit consisted of and
what had to be done, and then describe how you learned about what the
requirements are.
> 4. Please describe a time when you took on a task that illustrates your
> active interest in this area of work and allowed you to develop new
> skills.
>
> Uuuhhhh... Well I can tell you all mannar of things I've learned out of
> pure curiosity. But things I learned because of attempting to perform a
> specific "task"?
>
> ...nope, I'm comming up blank here...
What is the area of work in question?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> > OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
> > dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
> > given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
> > board.
> Is there a process to over rule this groups opinion of the law, or is it
> absolute?
I don't really know. I suppose it's probable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:487### [at] hotmailcom...
> If such a policy is in place, it becomes relatively less easy for a
> white guy to find a job. So when it is in place for some time...
>
> Probably does not work that way.
It does. Highly skilled people of european descent have a very hard time
finding work here. It's not just males.
White females are not previously disadvantaged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The first 10 amendments to the constitution actually went further, and
> forbid certain kinds of laws from being created.
Technically, the constitution already says the government isn't allowed
to make certain kinds of laws, and the first ten amendments reiterated
some of them. Some of the arguments against passing them in the first
place (way back in the first years of the country's existence) were
exactly for that reason: If we say the government specifically can't do
ABC when we've already said they can't do anything we don't explicitly
allow, then people will forget that latter part and let them do XYZ.
It was a good first try, but it's still a republic, and falls apart when
nobody elected can be trusted.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jul-08 18:11, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:487### [at] hotmailcom...
>
>> If such a policy is in place, it becomes relatively less easy for a
>> white guy to find a job. So when it is in place for some time...
>>
>> Probably does not work that way.
>
> It does. Highly skilled people of european descent have a very hard time
> finding work here. It's not just males.
> White females are not previously disadvantaged.
>
I think I was not clear enough :(
ATM you and any guy with similar color has a disadvantage in finding a
job, hence soon you will be previously disadvantaged. And my guess was
that that would be logically correct, but highly unlikely to be
acknowledged.
BTW Gail, a couple of weeks ago I met three students from Witwatersrand
at a biomedical engineering conference. All non blacks, but that could
be a coincidence. I am also involved somewhat with a summerschool in the
hospital, of the 30 or attendants 10 or so come from SA, from the Cape
Town area this time. Also at the conference, a friend of mine
(Portuguese but born in Maputo) and me decided that it would be a good
idea if the big triannual conference would go to africa. So we asked
some friends in Cape Town if they would consider putting in a bid to
organize it. If that works out I will be going to SA in ... 2015! Anyway
there seems to be a disproportional lot of SA in my live recently.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> And my guess was
> that that would be logically correct, but highly unlikely to be
> acknowledged.
Ah, sorry, I misread. You aer correct.
The definition of "previously disadvantaged" is disadvantaged by the
government that was in power until 1994.
Logically, that means that no one born after 1994 can be considered
"previously disadvantaged".
> If that works out I will be going to SA in ... 2015! Anyway
> there seems to be a disproportional lot of SA in my live recently.
Awesome. We're mostly nice people.
If you do come down here, and I'm still in SA at the time, we can arrange
some get together somewhere..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jul-08 21:59, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
>> And my guess was
>> that that would be logically correct, but highly unlikely to be
>> acknowledged.
>
> Ah, sorry, I misread. You aer correct.
> The definition of "previously disadvantaged" is disadvantaged by the
> government that was in power until 1994.
> Logically, that means that no one born after 1994 can be considered
> "previously disadvantaged".
And, are they?
>
>> If that works out I will be going to SA in ... 2015! Anyway
>> there seems to be a disproportional lot of SA in my live recently.
>
> Awesome. We're mostly nice people.
The ones I meet, yes. People from Johannesburg have this strange habit
to tell how wonderful it is there and if you come there you'll have a
fantastic time. The they add something like: 'well, if you survive'. I
was saying goodbye to one of them. Next to us someone steps into his
(rather new) car. Comment: 'In Johannesburg he wouldn't have done that.
Two guys standing by your car? pretend it's not yours and wait until
they are gone' And so on, funny (the first time)
> If you do come down here, and I'm still in SA at the time, we can arrange
> some get together somewhere..
I'll do that. It'll probably be somewhere in August/September. Have any
plans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> > Ah, sorry, I misread. You aer correct.
> > The definition of "previously disadvantaged" is disadvantaged by the
> > government that was in power until 1994.
> > Logically, that means that no one born after 1994 can be considered
> > "previously disadvantaged".
>
> And, are they?
At the moment, yes. There's been some discussion about narrowing the scope
of the "previously disadvantaged" tag, but nothing's been done.
It would not be in the ruling party's favor to do that though, as many of
their strongest supporters are in the 'youth league'
> The ones I meet, yes. People from Johannesburg have this strange habit
> to tell how wonderful it is there and if you come there you'll have a
> fantastic time.
We feel obliged to counter the bad publicity the country gets
> I'll do that. It'll probably be somewhere in August/September. Have any
> plans?
For 2015? Not at the moment. <g>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|