The problems and irritations with finding a new job...

[Zaphod]

The one thing I've discovered from being both a job applicant and a job interviewer is that feeling as if you don't actually need a new job is the best way to make sure to get offered one.

People tend to be too "eager to please" and do some weird oversell, and as the one deciding to hire or not you're unable to get a feel for whether they really want this job or just a job. Also, the uneven power dynamic often causes the interviewers to focus on the "wrong things" about the applicant, so (aside from formal qualifications) you never really learn whether they'd actually be suitable or not.

 

[Frank]

I agree. I did respond to a lot of job offers I didn't really want, although I could have done them pretty well. Mostly anything ASP.NET, the main bulk.

I also think that (at least in my case), the first batch all thought I was overselling myself badly, and the current ones are inclined to believe me.

And, of course, I was quite relaxed.

 

[Frank]

Damn, I'm going to dream about that.

I cannot come up with the mindset needed to put kittens in bottles. It's just as disgusting as self-mutilation and other horrors against happy and trusting pets. (I'll hate you if you link something like that here.) And I like kittens!

When I was in the military, my co-workers loved the "Series of Death": all real deaths and mutilations, recorded and edited for your viewing pleasure! They watched them for months, every evening, in the pub I ran. It made me sick, literally. And hard to look them in the eye.


Ok, I'm a softie. I'm too soft for my own good. I don't have the killing instinct required to become big and powerful. And I'm happy about that.

 

[Davros]

you can put people in bottles....

 

[Frank]

Hmmmm. Yes, how about making a list of people who did the worst crimes against humanity, collecting them, putting them in bottles with no escape, and showing them to the people.

Then again, if you were to put, for example, Bush Jr. on that list, for all the people killed and mutilated in Iraq, the whole of the US wouldn't rest before you were torn apart, painfully. And they would kill your family and bomb your country, just "to show them! Don't fuck with us!"

Bread and games. There has to be blood! Seeing other people suffer has been entertainment nr. 1 for all of history.

And I don't get it.


Edit: changed "Iran" to "Iraq".

 

[Frank]

Anyway...



Today my first day at ASML, and it was very nice. About 90% of my co-workers also have a broad experience in electronics and IT, they're all nerdy engineers. And my boss is great.

I learned a lot about wafer steppers as well, which was very interesting. And the general level of complexity, product innovation and support is great (CMM4).

I already feel at home there.

 

[Ty]

Then again, if you were to put, for example, Bush Jr. on that list, for all the people killed and mutilated in Iran, the whole of the US wouldn't rest before you were torn apart, painfully. And they would kill your family and bomb your country, just "to show them! Don't fuck with us!"

Bread and games. There has to be blood! Seeing other people suffer has been entertainment nr. 1 for all of history.

And I don't get it.

You have such an irritating way of painting the US in binary strokes even though you've been reprimanded over and over on it.

I don't get it.

 

[Frank]

You have such an irritating way of painting the US in binary strokes even though you've been reprimanded over and over on it.

I don't get it.

Ok, I'm sorry. That was uncalled for.

Most of the time, it isn't even because the US is so bad (because it isn't, in general, and I like the Americans on this board), but more to give an example that is close to home for most of the audience around here.

I can be just as "negative" about Europe or the Netherlands as well, if required.

But I'll try to find other examples.

 

[Ty]

I can be just as "negative" about Europe or the Netherlands as well, if required.

It's not about any sort of balance of negativity towards others, it's about sweeping statements in general.

The various posts/arguments on this board amongst Americans clearly illustrates that we're far from homogeneous.

 

[Grall]

The various posts/arguments on this board amongst Americans clearly illustrates that we're far from homogeneous.

Then there's no reason to become upset by it, right? I mean, if what he said doesn't apply to you...?

If you were an italian-american from Jersey like JvD - oops, sorry, Eastmen... Would "The Sopranos" make you upset because it's a show about psychotic mafiosos who rob and murder people?

 

[Mize]

Hell, I'm an American (as in US citizen) and love my country - but I bash it more than most of the rest of the world because I expect more, want more and am more disappointed in it for my desire to see it grow and become more than it has been. IMHO that's the definition of a true patriot.

 

[Grall]

Speaking of "The Sopranos", I bought the full box set on DVD the other day and have been watching it basically every non-stop every free minute I've not been playing TF2. What a masterful TV show.

I don't expect it to accurately portray actual people, but the scripts and the acting is so incredible. I pirated the first five or so seasons years and years ago after I'd missed too many episodes when it still ran on TV over here, but that's all deleted long ago. Besides, I prefer watching on my TV, rather than the PC screen.

 

[Frank]

It's not about any sort of balance of negativity towards others, it's about sweeping statements in general.

The various posts/arguments on this board amongst Americans clearly illustrates that we're far from homogeneous.

Well, the example is based on fact: Bush Jr. promised publicly to invade the Netherlands by military force and punish the government which dares to sentence US citizens in the International Court of Justice for war crimes committed in Iraq, while releasing those and taking them back home if needed. If we were to do so.

There is some extrapolation on how they would react to someone capturing and sentencing a former president.

 

[Ty]

Well, the example is based on fact: Bush Jr. promised publicly to invade the Netherlands by military force and punish the government which dares to sentence US citizens in the International Court of Justice for war crimes committed in Iraq, while releasing those and taking them back home if needed. If we were to do so.

There is some extrapolation on how they would react to someone capturing and sentencing a former president.

I don't know what Bush Jr. quote you're referring to but there you go again. You mistakenly believe that <Insert Head of Government> speaks unilaterally for the entire populace, as if he's some sort of Borg Queen who decides the group think.

Absolutely bizarre.

I assume you think that all of Iran and North Korea is completely bonkers because their leaders are.

Do you hate Germans? Because that's one of those things folks in your country are famous for. So it must apply to you too I presume?

 

[Frank]

I don't know what Bush Jr. quote you're referring to but there you go again. You mistakenly believe that <Insert Head of Government> speaks unilaterally for the entire populace, as if he's some sort of Borg Queen who decides the group think.

Absolutely bizarre.

I assume you think that all of Iran and North Korea is completely bonkers because their leaders are.

Do you hate Germans? Because that's one of those things folks in your country are famous for. So it must apply to you too I presume?

Well, that's democracy for you: the elected president speaks and acts for all. There's even a similar case to make for most totalitarian states, as the people living under that dictator would do the same if they were in power. As history shows us.

And, as far as I know, the US isn't an anarchy, where everyone speaks and acts solely for themselves. Although many right-wing people (often incorrectly labelled "conservatives", mostly by themselves), think a totally free market economy (ie. an anarchy, as it's the same thing) is the only way to run a country. Thereby disregarding the point, that in an anarchy, nobody is running the country, let alone speaking for all of them.


But, I do get what you're saying: be politically correct, and don't say anything that anyone can be offended by. Which would require me to not say anything whatsoever. Keep my mouth tightly shut.

And, on the other hand, as Grall said: it only hurts if it spot on. Who the shoe fits...

So, you want me not to say anything based on fact or truth? Because if I do, people will get hurt?

Bah, grow up. If it hits you, think and learn about it. See it as a service, so you can grow.

 

[I.S.T.]

Well, that's democracy for you: the elected president speaks and acts for all. There's even a similar case to make for most totalitarian states, as the people living under that dictator would do the same if they were in power. As history shows us.

You are failing logic. For one, it's impossible for an elected president to speak and act for every single person, and pretty much no president nowadays even says as much beyond shit like "The american people extend our sympathies towards X". The president has to constantly battle political opposition from within their own country. People actively try to prevent the president from acting in certain ways that would not speak for them.

 

[Frank]

You are failing logic. For one, it's impossible for an elected president to speak and act for every single person, and pretty much no president nowadays even says as much beyond shit like "The american people extend our sympathies towards X". The president has to constantly battle political opposition from within their own country. People actively try to prevent the president from acting in certain ways that would not speak for them.

Ok. So, any sentence including: "the US" would be illogical? Because you and Ty are telling me it doesn't exist in any form? There's only people, living mostly and roughly on the Northern part of the Americas?

And, of course, they're all unique, and no two are alike.


It's like bookkeeping. Give me a moment to explain.

When you're born, there's only "everything". After a while, you make a division between "me" and "everything else". And then you learn to name things, like "hand", "belly" and "mouth", which are parts of "me", and "mom", "dad", "food" and "poo", which are part of "everything else". And it continues from there.

Learning is like dividing and naming things, and finding out how they interact and transform. And which ones are alike others.

If you are communicating with other people, you try and pick the division that is the most useful. Simply because you don't know and don't have the time to live to sum up all of the possible parts. In short: if you didn't do that, you couldn't communicate whatsoever, at all.


Bookkeeping is like that (as is mathematics and most everything else, of course): at the end, you get 0 (zero). That means, the books are balanced. While you might have divided the total in many thousand distinct parts. Which is what bookkeeping is all about. That they add up, means you got it right.


Which is a valuable lesson in real life: everything has an opposite. And you need to understand it before you can make a choice. Otherwise, it's just something someone told you, or something "everyone knows" (which mostly amounts to the same thing). Or something you do because the person(s) you respect say so. Or, in other words: powergames and politics (which also amount to the same thing, and even equal "truth" for most people, but in that case it's more like religion).

 

[Ty]

But, I do get what you're saying: be politically correct, and don't say anything that anyone can be offended by. Which would require me to not say anything whatsoever. Keep my mouth tightly shut.

And, on the other hand, as Grall said: it only hurts if it spot on. Who the shoe fits...

So, you want me not to say anything based on fact or truth? Because if I do, people will get hurt?

Bah, grow up. If it hits you, think and learn about it. See it as a service, so you can grow.

What? That's not at all what I said. You don't even have the brains to remember what you wrote. "...the whole of the US...". You CLEARLY were painting the ENTIRE country with an already BIZARRE portrait of what you concocted in some odd fantasy.

You're the one that needs to grow (up) instead of acting as if you are the sole vessel of enlightened thought.

Ok. So, any sentence including: "the US" would be illogical? Because you and Ty are telling me it doesn't exist in any form? There's only people, living mostly and roughly on the Northern part of the Americas?

No, see above. WHOLE of the US. For someone who openly boasts how 'intelligent' or how open-minded they are, it is exceptionally hypocritical to view 300 million folks as acting or believing as one.

Have you not seen *ANY* of the arguments many of us have had with the so-called US Conservatives?

 

[I.S.T.]

Exactly. He seems to be under the impression we all think the same, which makes no logical sense whatsoever. No one large group thinks exactly the same about everything. It's just simple logic.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And, as far as I know, the US isn't an anarchy, where everyone speaks and acts solely for themselves. Although many right-wing people (often incorrectly labelled "conservatives", mostly by themselves), think a totally free market economy (ie. an anarchy, as it's the same thing) is the only way to run a country. Thereby disregarding the point, that in an anarchy, nobody is running the country, let alone speaking for all of them.

You really are a bit ill informed and yet feel the need to make comments about a country's government for which it appears you have very little understanding.

There's a difference between limiting the scope of the Federal Goverment to those powers vested in it by the Constituion and Anarchy. Power is supposed to rest in the hands of the various States with the Federal Government having relatively little power with all powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government being wielded by the States. After all it is the United States of America.

Over time that has been perverted with Federal Government taking more and more power away from the States and centralizing it such that it applies broad laws and legislation that is often at odds with what the people of certain states (both liberal and conservative) want.

If you want to complain about presidents, Obama is just as bad if not worse than Bush. He's decided unilaterally that we no longer need the Supreme Court and that HE and HE alone gets to decide what is constitutional and thus can choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce. A dangerous precident even if you agree with his intentions.

Anyway, back to your comments about fringe groups wanting Anarchy, that exists both on the extreme left and the extreme right. But even there with rare exceptions none of them advocate having NO government. And yes most conservatives believe in a free market economy which has absolutely nothing to do with a state of anarchy.

And isn't this whole thread moving into RPSC territory for the past few posts?

Regards,
SB