 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> isn't you, you needn't even apply.)
You know, I've never heard anyone work so hard to justify staying miserable.
> Currently my employer loses around four million USD per year.
Then it's definitely time to find a new job, wouldn't you say?
> Right. Well then I guess it's just that everybody I've met happens to be
> fairly poor then.
If you rarely leave MK then that's probably true, yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:53:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> somebody wrote:
>>
>>> You are wasting time looking at these IT jobs. Your true calling is as
>>> a PCCC (Professional Critic and Chronic Complainer).
>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining about
>> things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
>
> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2010-02-01/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential
That's usually more a per-company kind of thing. But most companies want it
that way, so they put it in the rules. It's not any sort of law or anything.
And some salaries at the top are required to be disclosed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:40:22 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> And I'm not supposed to hold *you* to the same standards because...?
>>
>> Because you're the one looking for the job.
>
> Seems there's an echo in here...
>
> (But does it comply with RFC 862?)
That it might. :-)
>> The quality of some
>> recruiter's writing skills isn't necessarily representative of the
>> entire company, but the quality of your writing skills is
>> representative of you. :-)
>
> Ha! Well, we'll see... ;-)
That's the spirit! :-)
Indeed, we shall. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:06:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:53:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> somebody wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are wasting time looking at these IT jobs. Your true calling is
>>>> as a PCCC (Professional Critic and Chronic Complainer).
>>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining
>>> about things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
>>
>> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)
>
> http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2010-02-01/
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:40:51 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining
>>> about things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
>>
>> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)
>
> FILM CRITIC! :-D
There's another one. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:07:08 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential
>
> That's usually more a per-company kind of thing. But most companies want
> it that way, so they put it in the rules. It's not any sort of law or
> anything. And some salaries at the top are required to be disclosed.
True, especially in public companies.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:34:08 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Linux *is* Unix
>>
>> No, it isn't. Linux is at best a derivative of Minix. It's UNIX-like,
>> perhaps, but it's not Unix.
>
> Care to explain that one?
http://stason.org/TULARC/os/linux-faq/007-Is-Linux-Unix.html
Short version, to be UNIX it has to be "blessed" by "The Open Group" and
Linux hasn't been.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:42:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> >> Linux *is* Unix
>> >
>> > No, it isn't. Linux is at best a derivative of Minix. It's
>> > UNIX-like, perhaps, but it's not Unix.
>
>> Care to explain that one?
>
> By that definition there is no Unix OS in existence today.
Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that
are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.
Linux isn't on that list.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:44:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Here's the thing I don't get: On one of these sites, when you fill out a
> search form, you're required to specify the minimum AND MAXIMUM salary
> you will accept.
>
> Why the **** would you have a *maximum* salary? WTF?
I don't really get that either. Unless it's for tax purposes - for
example, if I move to the UK and get a job, if I make more than $80,000
per year (I think it is), then as a US citizen, I owe the US government
income taxes, even if I'm not living in the US. So I might want to cap
my income below that so I don't have to mess with hiring an accountant to
figure out how much tax I owe to whom.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> http://stason.org/TULARC/os/linux-faq/007-Is-Linux-Unix.html
Somehow I don't consider "we shouldn't call Linux Unix because nobody has
paid money to some organization in order to get the right to use that name"
as a very relevant argument on the question of whether Linux *is* a Unix
operating system. Just because it cannot *legally* be called that doesn't
mean it isn't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that
> are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.
So it's mainly a question of money?
I don't think money is a good argument on the question of whether Linux
is Unix or not.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that
>> are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.
>
> So it's mainly a question of money?
>
> I don't think money is a good argument on the question of whether Linux
> is Unix or not.
Given the ones that *are* on the list, I would think it's more along the
lines that none of the code in Linux was ever in UNIX. It's a completely new
codebase that happens to do the same thing. I.e., Linux isn't UNIX just
like DR-DOS isn't MS-DOS and OS/2 isn't Windows.
It's the color of the bits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Why the **** would you have a *maximum* salary? WTF?
They do the same with selling houses here. "Accepting offers between $350K
and $369K." I asked a real estate agent about it once and asked if they'd
ever gotten an offer above the minimum. "No."
I think it's more that if you say "I'll settle for $30K but I'll take up to
$50K", they'll know how you value yourself better. I.e., it's a negotiating
strategy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:30:36 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> http://stason.org/TULARC/os/linux-faq/007-Is-Linux-Unix.html
>
> Somehow I don't consider "we shouldn't call Linux Unix because nobody
> has
> paid money to some organization in order to get the right to use that
> name" as a very relevant argument on the question of whether Linux *is*
> a Unix operating system. Just because it cannot *legally* be called that
> doesn't mean it isn't.
Well, The Open Group disagrees with you, and since they own the name, it
seems that they get to make that decision. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:33:19 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that
>> are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.
>
> So it's mainly a question of money?
>
> I don't think money is a good argument on the question of whether
> Linux
> is Unix or not.
The Open Group disagrees, and since they own the trademark, they get to
set the rules.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Linux *is* Unix
>>
>> No, it isn't. Linux is at best a derivative of Minix. It's UNIX-like,
>> perhaps, but it's not Unix.
>
> Care to explain that one?
Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU
*stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU
> *stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)
"This name was chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from
Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code."
Well, I suppose you *could* define "a Unix operating system" as
"proprietary operating system containing code from the original OS
named 'Unix'". However, that's not what the vast majority of people
*mean* when they use the term "unix". Being free or proprietary has
nothing to do with it, and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
"has code from the original Unix".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU
> *stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)
Oh snap!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> "has code from the original Unix".
Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
>> "has code from the original Unix".
>
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
There's some interesting info about GNU's POSIX compliance.
By default, a few GNU tools deviate from POSIX, leaving a way to enable
POSIX compliance. There was an environment variable called POSIX_ME_HARDER
to make several GNU things follow the POSIX specification more closely. It
was then renamed to POSIXLY_CORRECT.
"POSIXLY_CORRECT exists so we have an excuse to say that we still support
the spec, if you define the environment variable. POSIX_ME_HARDER was the
original way. Then a slightly prudish board member convinced me to change it
to POSIXLY_CORRECT which I now think was a mistake. I should have left it as
POSIX_ME_HARDER."
-- Richard Stallman
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> > "has code from the original Unix".
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
Well, given that POSIX is defined as a family of standards which define
the API and command-line utilities for software compatible with Unix, I'd
say it's more or less the whole point (ie. that a POSIX-compliant OS could
be considered a Unix variant).
(After all, the acronym itself contains the word "unix".)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
>
> Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?
That was my next question, yes. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
> >
> > Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?
> That was my next question, yes. ;-)
Partially POSIX-compliant is not the same as fully POSIX-compliant.
POSIX doesn't define only system calls.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-2-2010 17:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:33:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Doesn't it vary depending on how many hours you work?
>>> sure, that is full time. 38 or 40 hours per week. Are you working
>>> full-time?
>> I am. I was just clarifying the point that there's a dependence there.
>>
>>>> Well, everybody else in this city seems to not have a problem finding
>>>> a job, so...
>>>>
>>> Sorry, what *city*?
>> ...?
>
> He's asking what city you're in.
Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a
real city.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/1/2010 9:44 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:07:32 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how
>> much more money they earn than you do...
>
> At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential
> and isn't supposed to be discussed with anyone other than your boss, HR,
> and payroll.
>
> Jim
The rule ostensibly being to prevent people griping to the boss about
someone else getting a raise. In reality, one suspects its so that the
person working 25 hours a week at $7.25 an hour, and taking food stamps,
doesn't found out that the guy two levels over him works 40 hours at $20
an hour, and the guy at the very top probably makes the equivalent of
$500 an hour, plus gets million dollar bonuses every year, even while
his incompetence just erased your job and that of 2,000 other people
that where in your same situation.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:23:41 +0100, andrel wrote:
> Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a
> real city.
Population is about 228,000 people. I think that counts; it may not be
Manhattan, but it is a reasonably heavily populated area.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:41:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The rule ostensibly being to prevent people griping to the boss about
> someone else getting a raise.
Well, yeah, and some people get really touchy about it. I worked with a
guy several years ago who found out the department's administrative
assistant made more than he did; he asked me how I felt about it (never
mind the fact that I probably made more than both of them anyways, but if
I didn't, I really didn't care), and I said "good for her!" - which
caught him quite off-guard.
I don't see salaries as a competition; never have. There's a difference,
though, between being paid competitively and being paid unfairly, so I
look to the industry averages for a point of comparison, never my co-
workers (as if I could anyways).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> He's asking what city you're in.
>
> Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a
> real city.
WTF?
It's a major urban center. Of *course* it counts as a city!
(It even has its own "cathedral" - although IMHO it's not really worthy
of the title.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You know, I've never heard anyone work so hard to justify staying
> miserable.
You haven't met my mother, have you?
>> Currently my employer loses around four million USD per year.
>
> Then it's definitely time to find a new job, wouldn't you say?
At what point have I ever suggested that now is not, in fact, the time
to find a new job? :-P
>> Right. Well then I guess it's just that everybody I've met happens to
>> be fairly poor then.
>
> If you rarely leave MK then that's probably true, yes.
You're right. I should go live in London, where everybody is still poor,
but everything costs 80x as much. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Most of the "graduate jobs" I can find say something like £18,000 or
>> maybe even £20,000 if you have a 1st degree [which I don't].
>
> You're looking in the wrong place.
I had concluded that this was probably the case, yes. (But this just
raises the question of "where should I look then?")
> I made something like $35k *after*
> taxes upon graduating from college, at a company no better off than
> yours. In 1985. And this wasn't in a big bustling city either.
Don't wages vary depending on which country you work in though?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You're looking in the wrong place. I made something like $35k *after*
> taxes upon graduating from college, at a company no better off than yours.
> In 1985. And this wasn't in a big bustling city either.
You're on the other side of the world, you can't really compare. For
example Andrew gets free healthcare and probably a lot more paid vacation
than you did there, not to mention the cost of living, taxes etc. Even
between Germany and UK it is very different (eg Engineers get paid about 50%
more in Germany).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Even between Germany and UK it is very different (eg Engineers get
> paid about 50% more in Germany).
Is this why Germany is legendary for having some of the best engineering
in the world?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even between Germany and UK it is very different (eg Engineers get paid
>> about 50% more in Germany).
>
> Is this why Germany is legendary for having some of the best engineering
> in the world?
I don't think so, most Germans don't realise that they are getting paid more
than people in the UK (and vice-versa I would imagine). I think it's more
to do with culture here, in that it seems (with my very limited sample
size!) that more people are willing to pay for things to be done properly,
and won't choose a cheaper alternative that is of lower quality. This
results in some products simply not being available because there is no
demand for them, and probably contributes to the way things are designed in
the first place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I think
> it's more to do with culture here, in that it seems (with my very
> limited sample size!) that more people are willing to pay for things to
> be done properly, and won't choose a cheaper alternative that is of
> lower quality. This results in some products simply not being available
> because there is no demand for them, and probably contributes to the way
> things are designed in the first place.
Ah, I see.
Most people I've met see only the price tag. Yes it's nice to have a
better product, but look at the price tag...
I think I mentioned at some point the horrifyingly low levels of
customer service that most companies provide. Most people wouldn't
switch to another provider to get better service, only to get a lower
price. Three guesses where that lower price comes from.
Personally, I'm one of those people who doesn't mind paying more money
if I actually get a better product. Then again, I shop at John Lewis, so
apparently I'm crazy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b64af7c@news.povray.org...
>
> Well.. that one's more debatable. "I'm used to large
infrastructure" is
I wouldn't say "used to," it's slang. I would say,
"accustomed to."
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"DungBeatle" <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote in message
news:4b6860ab$1@news.povray.org...
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4b64af7c@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Well.. that one's more debatable. "I'm used to large
> infrastructure" is
>
> I wouldn't say "used to," it's slang. I would say,
> "accustomed to."
>
> ~db
And of course, the proper way is, "to which I am
accustomed."
But that might sound snobbish...
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle wrote:
> I wouldn't say "used to," it's slang. I would say,
> "accustomed to."
Huh. I wouldn't have said that. "Accustomed" is more formal, but "used to"
is just fine I think. Sometimes one can go too far in being formal, to the
point where one starts saying "utilize" instead of "use" even when it means
the wrong thing, etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle wrote:
> And of course, the proper way is, "to which I am
> accustomed."
Not really. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Don't wages vary depending on which country you work in though?
Yes, but the euro isn't *that* different from the dollar.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Andrew gets free healthcare and probably a lot more paid
> vacation than you did there, not to mention the cost of living, taxes
Sure. But to be paid 20 years later (after several years of experience) at a
wholesale rate lower than I was taking home?
(Plus, we do have health care here. It's just not through the government.)
And I suspect his taxes are higher than mine were, too. I.e., many of those
considerations are in the wrong direction. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> POSIX doesn't define only system calls.
But once you're posix-compliant enough to compile all the utilities, what
else is there? I.e., if all my APIs are posix compliant and all my #include
files are posix-compliant, what am I missing?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b686df2@news.povray.org...
> DungBeatle wrote:
> > I wouldn't say "used to," it's slang. I would say,
> > "accustomed to."
>
> Huh. I wouldn't have said that. "Accustomed" is more
formal, but "used to"
> is just fine I think. Sometimes one can go too far in
being formal, to the
> point where one starts saying "utilize" instead of "use"
even when it means
> the wrong thing, etc.
21 years at a university, just habits... :)
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle wrote:
> 21 years at a university, just habits... :)
Sure. As I said, it's much more formal. That doesn't mean "used to" is
slang. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-2-2010 10:10, Invisible wrote:
>>> He's asking what city you're in.
>>
>> Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a
>> real city.
>
> WTF?
>
> It's a major urban center. Of *course* it counts as a city!
>
> (It even has its own "cathedral" - although IMHO it's not really worthy
> of the title.)
Perhaps city is used in a slightly different meaning in English than
here. Actually I would be surprised if we meant the same thing. For me a
city needs at least an identifiable center with an active cultural scene
and a general feeling of being more part of the world than of the county
it happens to be in.
Where I live has a name that suggest that it is a city , 'Zaanstad'
where 'stad' means city (and 'Zaan' is the name of our river). Everybody
understands that that is a joke or at best something we would wish to
be, though perhaps there are a few people paid to try to suggest to the
world at large that we are a real city. This is simply a collection of
small towns and villages.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:15:42 +0100, andrel wrote:
> Perhaps city is used in a slightly different meaning in English than
> here.
It does have different meanings in English - but in general, a city is
nothing more than a population centre with a name.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Strike a light - I enquired about a vacancy on the Haskell mailing list,
and actually got a response for the first time ever! o_O
Currently in discussions with a friendly guy who's looking to hire a
programmer. We'll see if this leads anywhere...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:19:55 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Currently in discussions with a friendly guy who's looking to hire a
> programmer. We'll see if this leads anywhere...
Could be just the thing you were looking for. Good luck!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure. But to be paid 20 years later (after several years of experience) at
> a wholesale rate lower than I was taking home?
A new graduate in the UK will be getting 20-30K pounds, that equates to
$25-$35k take home pay.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
