>>> Now what the elephant is a "Go-Getter"? Sounds like "playing fetch" >>> A go getter is someone who is in a constant rush to get things done. Regardless the intent, I've come to the opinion that every one of these key words and key phrases is nothing more than an arrogant employer demanding to be the god of the employee. This may seem to be a very radical view, but just think about the overall attitude of employers in general. Employers require a two week notice if you are leaving but give only a minutes notice when terminating an employee. Employers expect to be able to abuse employees with their bad attitudes then demand that the employee have a good attitude about it. Employers expect employees to cancel vacations that they have planned months in advance and made non refundable deposits on, yet the employers get their vacations without ever being inconvenienced. I am sure that there are several others that people can list from their experiences.

:omg: Sounds like a collision waiting to happen. :omg:

Knowing my limitations, I always look for certain key words that tell me right off the bat, that a potential job is not a good fit. One of those key words is multitasking. Today, I just seen the most disturbing use of the term Multitasking. It was listed in a job posting for an Electrical Apprentice. Don't believe me? Here's the monster.com listing. jobview.monster.com/Electrical-Apprentice-Job-Pontiac-MI-118960101.aspx It's bad enough when someone speaks before thinking, we've all done that and have experienced the embarrassment of doing so. But to write, and then post, without thinking about what your words are saying, especially in a professional capacity, is just: unprofessional. The consequences of multitasking while working on electrical wiring should be obvious. But there are those who will refute the obviousness and criticize me for my angst regarding the improper use of the term; "multitasking" here is a link to an article discussing the health issues that can occur whilst people are multitasking. http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20505051,00.html

I just seen the most disturbing use of the term Multitasking. It was listed in a job posting for an Electrical Apprentice. Don't believe me? Here's the monster.com listing. jobview.monster.com/Electrical-Apprentice-Job-Pontiac-MI-118960101.aspx It's bad enough when someone speaks before thinking, we've all done that and have experienced the embarrassment of doing so. But to write, and then post, without thinking about what your words are saying, especially in a professional capacity, is just: unprofessional. The consequences of multitasking while working on electrical wiring should be obvious. But there are those who will refute the obviousness and criticize me for my angst regarding the improper use of the term; "multitasking" here is a link to an article discussing the health issues that can occur whilst people are multitasking. http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20505051,00.html

It is a bit psuedo. With properly declared variables and keywords it would compile and run. Unfortunately it has a bug and is therefore quite dangerous to anyone stepping on the trap door. I forgot two important parameters. A variable for a timer and a constant for maximum standing time allowed. The trap would trigger as soon as you got up to use the restroom. Now, if you really want to use the code, rather than applying it to a trap door, apply it to an arduino or raspi controlled supper soaker water gun sitting on the desk, pointed in the direction of the standing interloper. To be not so obvious and have some real fun, place a small hidden water device on the sealing above the spot and have it spew out just enough water to make it feel like a bird just pissed on the individual. For real effectiveness, make the device focus on any area behind the desk that's within the monitors viewing area. Hmmm; It appears that I have been reading way to many Instructables and Hackadays. And also watching to many YouTube videos utilizing arduino controlled devices. :laugh:

The solution to this problem is to install a trap door directly behind you where the supervisor always stands. You then set audio, motion, and location in their appropriate places. if( audio == null && motion == null && location == true) { trigger = true; }else{ trigger = false; } End result, no more supervisor standing behind you while you code. Heh, heh, I've lost more supervisors that way. Now, back to reality.

After taking a good look see, this class takes an array, converts it to strings and tests to see if the string is a callable object with a method inside. In PHP, you can assign a function or object name to a string and call it as though you you had hard coded the name in the code. This code, despite all the complaints is actually what you would have to do in order to avoid the exceptions that occur when you call a function or object that does not exist. The author is utilizing a class perhaps to keep all the related code in one place, but a simple function would have sufficed.

Several years back I was on a jury, the defendant was charged with the distribution of marijuana. Of the twelve jurors, 10 figured the defendant was guilty by reason of being charged, and were not moved by the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the charge. Such as the lack of audio video that demonstrated the defendant selling to a police officer. The only evidence to prove the case was marijuana paraphernalia, and a pound of uncleaned marijuana stored in the freezer which the defendant claimed to be for personal use. Based on his after trial statements, that pound of marijuana amounted to a months supply which is not entirely unreasonable. Smokers will store a carton of cigarettes in the freezer to maintain freshness. When the only of the two arresting officers that showed up for the trial was asked why an officer was not able to purchase marijuana from the defendant, the officer said "He was to good." In addition to this, the officer testified that; "Based on his professional opinion, no one would have that much marijuana unless they were distributing it." After the trial, the Prosecuting attorney and the officer came into the jury room to question the jury as to why the defendant was found guilty of the lesser charge of possession, a misdemeanor rather than the distribution charge which carried a mandatory life sentence. I made the following statement: "That could be a good party." The officer responded: "If you could assume that, you could have found him guilty." Not to many will miss the officers assertion, but in case you did: The officer expected a guilty verdict not because of evidence presented, but because of assumptions made. The other juror, which seen the same lack of evidence as I did happened to be an attorney. On the second day of deliberations, I told the jury straight out that I would not find the defendant guilty of distribution because there was no evidence to support the charge. Possession however, was obvious. This case should not have even gone to trial, it should have been plead out. So sad to tell you but, if you end up with a jury of 12 unthinking people who believe that only guilty people get charged with crimes, you are going to jail.

Due to Fridays events, I chose to wait until today to respond as I did not wish to state something that would be misconstrued in regards to all those families who lost children, and loved ones. The point of my use of man's relationship with women as an analogy was clearly missed. So I'll skip the analogies and state plain and simple. Unless a man works at it, he will never know the woman he spends his life with. Likewise, no one can know God if they are not willing to put some effort into it. And just as you cannot enter into a relationship with a woman without fulfilling some of the expectations she has regarding the relationship, a man cannot begin to know and understand God without doing so on His terms. Every so often I decide to look up a word just to make sure it means what I think it means and quite often, I find that what I think the word means is not included in the definition of the word. So I decided to looked up the word compassion. com·pas·sion a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. Please note that the definition says nothing about actually alleviating the suffering, just a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. In the Gospels, Jesus teaches a parable of a farmer who sows good seed in his field. At night, an enemy comes along and sows tares into his field(a noxious weed). Rather than going through and ripping out the tares and accidentally destroy good crop, the farmer chooses to wait until the harvest when both are easily distinguished and separated. The point here is that the farmer could easily remove the tares at the cost of some crop, but chooses to not loose any of the good crop. As illogical as it may sound, God could remove suffering, but the cost of doing so is to loose some of those who would otherwise be in good standing with Him. He deems such a cost to be to high. Having compassion is not the elimination of suffering, it's suffering with those who suffer.

jschell wrote:

Sounds like spiritual nonsensical rhetoric used to disguise an argument that is the same as a more clear philosophical one that has existed for thousands of years. Or worse rhetoric used to disguise that one doesn't understand how easy it is to explain the unknowable nature of a deity.

So, you let people get to know you when they are clearly being dishonest with you? Or do you separate yo

Here's several websites I used over the years learning PHP. While PHP has changed over the years, these sites remain a source of valuable information on PHP. www.zend.com => Developers of PHP www.phpbuilder.com php.net php.net/manual/en/index.php php.iis.net => I've not used this site, but I figure you may need iis info and stuck it in here. I use Xampp as a development environment myself. apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html => If you need a PHP development environment to test your PHP apps. www.planet-php.net/ www.phpclasses.org => Open source resource of free PHP classes

True story, told to me by a previous supervisor. A couple of computer techs were working on a computer in an office trying to figure out just why it would not turn on. A couple of hours went by and the chief secretary walked in to see how the progress was going. As she turned to leave she noticed something and asked: "Is this supposed to be plugged in?" The computer techs looked over where she was pointing and became angry at the sight of the computer's power cord laying on the floor. Plugged it in and turned the computer on. End of true story. :) Yes, I am suggesting that despite their years of experience and education, they may be fixated at finding a complex solution when in fact the answer is quite simple. It happens. I've done it many times. Why? Because experience tends to find the solution in the complex and so we become conditioned to look for the complex solution before we eliminate the simple solutions as the answer. I've sat and worked on code for hours trying to solve a particular problem with a particular set of steps until I got so frustrated I decided to walk down and get a soda. On the way to the machine I realized that the code I was using was never going to do what I was trying to get it to do. I had to rewrite the whole function. I call these little incidences. I.L.S => Infinite Loop Syndrome. How does this happen? When I'm absolutely sure that I'm doing something the correct way, I don't consider whether the code is appropriate for the task and not liking to be defeated by the tree I'm chopping down, I have a tendency to get focused on solving the problem that particular way. So what's wrong with that? What's wrong is that not even a senior master programmer would be able to get the code to solve the given problem. The code is just blatantly simply wrong. Scott A. Tovey

jschell wrote:

It is similar - not the same.

It sounds the same to me, but I'll give you that.

jschell wrote:

And it does not come from not understanding suffering but rather from not understanding the rationalization for suffering. The two are not the same.

Are you sure it not understanding the rationalization for suffering? Or perhaps it more along the lines of not understanding the rationalization for not helping those who are suffering?

jschell wrote:

Yes you have summerized one argument that attempts to explain suffering away under one specific type of deity where one is also claiming compassion (where compassion must equate to lack of suffering.)

How can one explain away what is clearly before their very eyes? How does one explain away suffering? To explain something away is to imply that it does not exist. I did not in any way attempt to explain away suffering or imply that it does not exist. Nor did I equate compassion to being the lack of suffering. If you reread my post, you will understand that I stated that suffering does in deed exist, and the lack of compassion is the lack of people who do not or have not suffered, refusing to help those who are suffering. Helping those who suffer does not negate the suffering, in many cases it only lightens the burdens. In some cases, such as unemployment and poverty, helping an individual find a job or giving the individual a job, will eliminate the suffering of unemployment. However, it will not necessarily eliminate the harm that the suffering has caused. Especially if the individual has gone through an extensive period of unemployment and has been discriminated against by lying employers claiming who claim the individual can no longer do what he or she once did. That is some major psychological warfare and is not remedied by simply providing employment. Then there are the ones who go hungry and suffer loss of health for no other reason than the fact that employers refuse to hire them. Again, an act of war. There may not be a combat unit laying siege to those people and preventing them from receiving food, these people however, are no less under siege. War is being waged against them as if they raised up arms against the government, even though they have broken no laws. Guilty by the declaration of guilt. No arrest, no crime committed. Ju

This is an argument that atheists give. It comes from a lack of understanding of suffering. Suffering sucks for anyone going through it, but unfortunately it is one of those necessary evils just as is war and poverty. Those who suffer are being tested (we've all heard that one) but what we have not been told is that the suffering is a test for those around the one suffering as well. The one suffering is tested as to whether they will maintain faith and compassion on others. That's the end of their test and the vast majority that suffer pass this test. Those who are not suffering, but are aware of the one suffering, whether that suffering is going through an illness, long term unemployment or life long poverty are also being tested. They are being tested on their compassion for those who suffer. Will they have mercy and help those suffering? Or will they harden their hearts towards those in need and help them out of their suffering? Unfortunately, the majority of those who have never suffered fail this test. The purpose of suffering is to remind us that we are not gods. We are not infinite. Nor do we have complete control over our lives and but for the grace of God, there go I. Sad to say, there are a whole lot of people who claim that a man can always help himself and therefore should never be given help. The worst of these lot are the ones that attend their religious institution week to week and not only teach otherwise, but are taught otherwise. Yes, as evil as suffering is, suffering has it's place in an imperfect world. Take care.

Scott A. Tovey

"But when you place sensors nearby to observe this curious phenomenon, the interference pattern STOPS, as if our simulation is providing more detail because we're looking at it." Or it could be that when the sensors are in place to observe the phenomenon, those sensors exert enough change in the environment to cause the phenomenon to stop. This can be inferred due to the trajectory of a bullet when shot. A bullet's trajectory will change depending on wind currents. More wind, verses less wind. The influence of the wind on the bullet would be comparable to the influence of the sensor's magnetism on the particle. Even if there is the most minimal amount, it remains substantial enough to affect the trajectory of the sub atomic particle. Are you suggesting that scientists with their years of education and experience have not considered this to be the cause of the difference in outcomes? Scott A. Tovey

If we are living in a computer simulation that is being run by our descendants, what am I doing here? Logic dictates that since I do not have children, I do not have descendants and therefore would not be in a simulation being run by descendants. It would be one thing for those who gave their life in war to defend their country to exist as they are remembered as heroes, but for someone like myself who has not made a significant contribution to this life, my existence would not have been recorded and therefore would be illogical to exist in such a simulation. My conclusion therefore is that we do not live in a simulation. Scott A. Tovey

The beginner Says: I've got to try this and see if I can do it. 2. The intermediate engineer Says: I can do all these complex tech things that makes others look stupid and makes me look so superior. 3. The senior engineer Says: K.I.S.S. -> Keep It Simple Stupid. 4. Wisdom says, if an expert can't understand it, it's illegal. That's my take on it.

Having taken several programming classes over the past few years, I can safely say that most of my knowledge of programming came from learning on my own. I'm not saying that there is nothing within the formal educational system that is not good, but I cannot see any value in focusing on programming theory in a course that is supposed to be teaching students how to code. I knew how to code before taking the classes and did not learn any of the theories like saying OOPs whenever the program erred out. The JavaScript programming class I took was so focused on the theory of programming, that some of the students were still unable to code by themselves despite passing the class. If you think those colleges are teaching a lot in the field, go ahead and sign up and actually take one of those classes. You might find that the tax dollars going to your local community college or University is quite a bad investment. I don't remember 99% of the theory that I studied in the various programming classes I took. Theory should be brought up as it is being applied in practice, not taught as a key word separately from coding that needs to be remembered. Then again, maybe my inability to remember all that theory is just me getting old. Speaking of theory, does anyone know any good spelling theory? Good thing Firefox tells me when I have a word misspelled.

Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy. -Warren Wiersbe Tough love is not love, it's an act of war. Scott A. Tovey

"If you've got a hammer - every problem looks like a nail!" I have read that statement many times and I think it is quite inaccurate. My point of view is due to the fact that if I have a hammer and I am frustrated, the hammer being readily at hand is what I am gong to use to smash the thing that is frustrating me. And that is regardless of whether it looks like a nail or not. On the other hand, if I have a baseball bat handy, I'm a gonna swing and hit whatever it is that is frustrating me. If I have a gun, I will shoot whatever is frustrating me. This is why I do not keep a hammer handy (meaning I generally forget where I last placed it), and own neither bat nor gun. To date: I have smashed anything with the hammer unless it is in fact a nail, and have not utilized a bat or gun to eliminate those things that frustrate me. I realize that constantly misplacing a hammer wastes time in finding it when one has nails to hammer, however, the time it takes to find the hammer tends to be enough time for me to settle down and decide that smashing the computer will not solve the problem. :-O Besides that, I don't do a lot of hammering these days so it's all good for me. :-D

Are you thinking of the usage definition of paradigm or the actual definition of paradigm? What's the difference? Usage definition is an implied definition based on how a word is used. A good example is the use of the word might: Might is actually the past tense of may, however, it is mostly used to imply possibility. "It might come to that." "May I enter?" - "You might." In this proper use permission is presumed to have already been given. What specifically do you not like about the word paradigm? Actual definition from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradigm?s=t[^] par·a·digm    [par-uh-dahym, -dim] Show IPA noun 1. Grammar . a. a set of forms all of which contain a particular element, especially the set of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme. b. a display in fixed arrangement of such a set, as boy, boy's, boys, boys'. 2. an example serving as a model; pattern.

"Humour is often called the sovereign remedy - but that doesn't mean that you can turn everything into a joke." Would you kindly inform the politicians in Washington of this? But then again, they think that what they are doing is not a joke. Unfortunately for us, it is an extremely bad and unfunny joke.