Any suggestions for Canada? I don't go often enough to find a better solution than using an ATM there, but I do go often enough to feel ripped off every time I do.
I spent a week in Quebec City a month ago and didn't use any local currency -- just charged everything. Hotel, restaurants, gas; they all take Visa/MC. I don't expect to travel there often, so I didn't want the hassle of withdrawing too much and then getting screwed on both sides of the currency conversion (USD->CAD->USD).
Same. When I was 15, I wrote a little script that used youtube-dl and then ran the resulting download through mencoder to strip out the audio. I don't see why teens today can't do the same :-)
Oh dear, the Wifi I was using when I posted that was terrible and - a trip to Venice later - I am unable to delete the repeat comments. I'm very sorry :-S
Hm, it may not have had it a number of years ago, I'm unsure. I would have looked at the man page though so I'm certain there was a reason for using mencoder in the end.
Well, remember that it is "Digital Rights Management". It's the time it's about our rights. I hope it means that any DRM will be obliged to include a resale functionality.
This is based on licenses. Even eBooks have licenses (see store's TOS). So if I buy an app from Apple's App Store and want to sell it, it seems to me Apple would be required by the Court to delete that app from my account and place it in the used buyer's account. Same for eBooks. Am I missing anything?
the ramifications of this judgement are interesting for many reasons, and this is one; it's hard to see Apple being compelled to take positive action each time you sell your copy of software, but on the other hand, if you did and the licence is assigned to the buyer, does a contact now exist between apple and buyer which Apple has to uphold or face breach of contract?
Strictly the DRM doesn't prevent resale it prevents use. From the little I've seen I think they've erred away from suggesting their is any onus on the creator to enable the resale or indeed the reuse.
Interesting but Section 296ZE(2) specifically excludes the prevention of access when it is by a "computer program" and sub-section (9) excludes works for access by private individuals at a time of their choosing. So it seems to be very narrow in scope of application - how do you know about it?
I only skimmed it but doesn't it merely allow you to complain; the SoS won't necessarily take any action.
Do you know what this section is directed towards? It appears to be something like forcing a company to hand over data necessary to allow a researcher to work with the companies copyright materials??
What should someone who's been fired tell potential employers why they're no longer with a previous employer?
There is virtually no answer to that question that makes you sound like a better candidate than you were before it was asked. I'd be strongly inclined to say some variant of "It's a tough economy.", which is non-specific, virtually guaranteed to be a contributing factor, and avoids faulting either party.
The canonical answer is some variant of "We weren't a good fit for each other." Then, again, refocus the conversation on how you'll be a great fit with interviewer's company.
"virtually no answer to that question that makes you sound like a better candidate "
My first reaction to this was to think that someone could somehow turn this into a positive if they could solve this dilemma as in "No! I was fired for (insert reason) but I overcame...and now I"m ..."
But then I realized that similar to breaking up in a relationship if you reveal the reason to your new partner and say that you learned from it, and aren't the same person, all that will do is alert the other party to be especially vigilant to the particular behavior, and in fact then you are automatically disadvantaged. Everything you do is magnified greatly. "Oh boy. Here we go again just like their old job"
About the only thing I can think of (and in fact recommend this when trying to get rid of a sales person) is to produce a reason that can't happen again. Such as "I was fired because I had to take care of my sick mother. But she died and I now live alone and don't have any other relatives". Etc.
Because a) that sounds like you have a problem and b) that sounds like you blame your problems on other people, including people that the decisionmaker empathizes with more than he empathizes with you. That sets him to thinking whether you're going to blame him for hiring you in 6 months after you're fired from his company.
There's just no percentage here for you. (An American idiom: basically, no outcome of this line of thinking is going to help you.) Just handwave towards the economy and start talking about happy subjects.
Keep in mind that they're going to go back to the company, and if your characterization of your parting is different than that of the company, it will reflect negatively on you. If (and only if), during your parting, your boss says something along those lines, then you're probably safe in repeating it.
If the person was let go due to cost cutting, general layoffs, etc - then they should be straight up with a new employer that that was the case. In other cases, describing it as not being a fit would be a good description IMHO. Obviously it wouldn't benefit anyone to say they were let go due to incompetence or anything like that - since it could often be that the job itself wasn't aware of the persons skill set.
The only recommendation is for the person not to give up, start looking right away - if this person is a developer, there are so many opportunities right now that it shouldn't be hard to find a position regardless of your work experience - though depending on your locality it might require moving. For example, New York is booming with tech jobs at the moment.
You might consider posting this as its own Ask HN thread. I'm sure the HN crowd will have a wealth of knowledge to share with you if your question gets the visibility it deserves.
A lot of people recommend you shouldn't badmouth your previous/current employers in a job interview. Which you can use as a reason not to say why you're not with a previous employer.
I was recently fired by the company that acquired the startup I co-founded. It took me about six weeks to collect my thoughts and recover.
Getting fired is kind of like having someone you care about die, in that you go through Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance.
I think the most difficult part for me was a loss of identity. I had associated myself so deeply with the product that we were working on that once I was asked to leave, I wasn't quite sure what to do with myself. It may have been particularly significant for me since I had built the product originally, but anyone who cares deeply about their work attaches some portion of their identity to their job.
The key thing to remember is that a job is not a career, and a career is not a life. You had a life and a career before your job, and you'll have a life and a career after. Spend the time off doing things that give you positive energy -- for me, it was reading and biking. Give yourself some time to recover, and you'll be better for it.
As far as what to tell prospective employers, I think transparency is always the best approach. Be honest about why it didn't work out, but don't spend your time talking negatively about the company that fired you. Unless you got fired for embezzling money or something, the root cause was some sort of incompatibility between you and the company you worked for. Just like breaking up with a significant other, there's nothing shameful about it -- if it didn't work out, it didn't work out.
For what it's worth, I personally wouldn't hesitate to hire someone who had been fired (unless it was a clear pattern of extremely negative behavior). A strong will is necessary to do great things, and strong-willed people are often difficult for companies to corral. :)
Also widespread on the Internet were photographs taken in
a Hubei Province classroom of students hooked up to
intravenous drips of amino acids while cramming.
September 28, 2005 was the FCC-mandated deadline for all interconnected VOIP providers (those that connect with the POTS, like Vonage, Comcast Digital Voice, FiOS) to provide E911 service to all customers.
My appologies. I still believe it's wrong to call it that way because it assumes too many things. Another way to word it is Force Majeure. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure
No, it isn't another way to word it. Force majeure includes acts of nature _and_ acts of man. Acts of God is only acts of nature.
It's somewhat important to the original spirit of the comment since Acts of God might indeed happen anywhere (1) whereas acts of man might not. For example, disruption caused by on going war in Syria wouldn't be covered by an Act of God clause.
(1) I think that's BS though...there are definitely some places where nature is considerably more stable than others.
