Re: job screening question

[Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>]

On 7/8/12, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Randy <randy_94108 () yahoo com> wrote:
> > My response would be: Discontiguous subnet masks were allowed in the
> > pre-CIDR era. If you so desire, give me about 2 hours since I do not have

See, I would advocate using the filter questions for sorting the apps,
 and tell the applicants "We're expecting a  5 words or less answer,
not a history lesson or technical explanation.";   if  more than 25%
of applicants out of say 1000 get it correct, then the filter is
considered valid,  and the ones that pass the most filter questions
are the least likely  to not be a waste of time.


I'm not sure which era exactly in which you consider it legal and
kosher to assign to a network,  but even if you relax all the rules
that require contiguity, it is still an illegal network mask for end
hosts, just like 255.255.255.254 is;  if an applicant doesn't flag it
out as bad/invalid subnet mask in this era,  then they might fail the
filter,

even if they correctly observe that you can't fit that many hosts in.


> > a scientific calculator handy; and I will get back to you with the
> > complete-list.

A what?

> > Definitely not 5 words as required from the HR stand point. So I get
> > disqualified again!
> > ./Randy

> Oh, come on, 247 decimal is 0xf7... A single zero bit in the mask isn't
> enough for 12 hosts no matter where it is.

Correct... it's not even enough bits for 1 end host;  it's enough bits for
1 broadcast address.


> If you need a scientific calculator and 2 hours for that, HR is right.

> Matthew Kaufman
> Sent from my iPad


--
-JH