(no subject)

Reading Joel on Software some years ago, I was surprised to learn that it's actually illegal in the US to ask job candidates about many of the pieces of information I've always been told to put on my CV: age, nationality and so on. One thing that particularly struck me was "veteran status":

If their resume says they were in the Marines, you can’t ask them, even to make pleasant conversation, if they were in Iraq. It’s against the law to discriminate based on veteran status.

Thing is, though: which way would that go? Did they introduce that to protect those who were, or who weren't veterans? Does "veteran" imply cool under fire, or PTSD-addled liability, or even baby-killer in the mind of the average employer? So, here's a straw poll:

Suppose you were interviewing someone for a job; would you be more or less likely to hire them if they were a veteran?
	More likely
	Less likely
	It would depend crucially on the role I was trying to fill
	It would depend crucially on which conflict they'd fought in
	It would depend crucially on who they'd fought for
	It would depend crucially on what they'd done in the war.
	It wouldn't make any difference either way
pollcode.com free polls

In the not-unlikely event that your thinking can't be compressed to a single radio-button, please explain further in the comments.

(no subject)

From the Reddit user fakaff:

If you want to defend mathematics for its beauty, its elegance, how fun and rewarding an experience it can be, sometimes even a moving, almost spiritual, experience--for the same reasons you would defend music or sports or mountain climbing--I'm right behind you. But don't fool yourself into believing that your grasp of knot theory somehow elevates you into some transcendent state of zen-like understanding.

Link.

I'd amend that by saying that almost everyone (including me) could usefully learn more statistics. But other than that, spot on.