Personally, I would only rely on a certification to get you the interview. After that, it is entirely up to you to sell your value to the organization and articulate that you are not merely a paper-tiger who tests well. So, your certs are valuable, if only to get you that interview.
Now to be sure, there are those orgs that will get tunnel vision on the resume and presume you actually have the real-life skills to back up your certs without doing their due-diligence when hiring. There are risks working for those orgs that usually become glaringly apparent when your team/group is under pressure on a difficult project.
Not only do they need to look at inventory, I think they will also need to address employees. Without someone who can approach the role of an "Elmer" in the shop -- or someone who can at least knowledgeably field *general* electronics questions -- good luck attracting enthusiasts and growing the market
I couldn't pass a Radio-Shack back in the day; back when they had a fair selection of DIY stuff where you could browse around for project ideas. They've certainly lost that "ham-shack" luster over the years and I doubt they can return because it would appear they've been outflanked by the internet.
My sense of nostalgia wishes them well, but I just don't hold out much hope for them. Sadly, I think they might be better off losing the expense of their brick & mortar storefronts and moving strictly to the web.
So basically what you are telling all of us is that instead of substance, you reply with dick jokes because you are so intellectually dishonest, you can't even acknowledge the obvious point amiga3D was making? That "green" vehicles will quite likely always lose when they collide with nearly anything that has more mass like a normal sized car, an SUV, a guard-rail or perhaps even a dog-house? Whatever -- at least you probably feel smugly good about yourself, and that's what's important, right?
Or how about: Hundreds die from accidental electrocution each year. And yet you knowingly & willingly accept those deaths rather than give up your little porn box (and your TV, blu-ray, lava-lamp, etc...)
What? Same logic, right? Anyone who uses electricity is complicit in the "massive number" of accidental electrocutions every year, right?
And if I grab a street corner in a nearby village and start announcing that the radiation has been contained and the plant is hiring laborers for clean-up efforts at $attractive/hour and applications will only be accepted in person at the plant by noon next Wednesday?
Though not all will take the bait, some might rush to the plant and contaminate themselves. Do I shoulder any responsibility for what may occur beyond their stupidity & gullibility? Could I (should I) get away with claiming freedom of speech?
I know plenty of federal workers, and believe me, most of them are not like your local DMV stereotype. You may disagree about the government doing certain kinds of work, but the majority of federal workers I know seem to work at least as hard as their private industry counterparts.
I also know plenty of federal workers. And considering the massive, ever growing head-count in the federal workforce, the 800,000 figure might be *low* for the "DMV Stereo-Types". Now, to be fair, I work with (or try to get them working, as the case may be) federal employees on a weekly basis. I know full well there are great people working for Uncle-Sugar. But there are also a *SIGNIFICANT* number of dead-weight, unionized, ass-hats that are wastes of tax-payer money, as well as wastes of DNA. Folks who should absolutely be given the axe, but can't be fired - seemingly because they've somehow been fortunate not to have been caught committing a felony in the workplace (or whatever it takes to actually fire them). I would even go as far as estimating the ratio of producers to leechers is worse in the fed sector than in the commercial sector. Likely because the fed sector does not have to produce anything, nor turn a profit. All they *HAVE* to do is be polite, and even that's too much of a challenge for some of them.
But yes, it is absolutely true there are some good folks working for the govt.
Bah! All you young whipper-snappers and your fancy-pants centimeter-band radios makes my shingles act up! Real men don't need anything north of 30 MHz! That's where you find the radios made of iron and glowing tubes! Not these sickly, plastic-fantastic micro-circuited gizmos!
I imagine if you replaced all those dots & symbols with a single image of a guy riding a bike, that morphs into a giraffe riding a bike, I would think you would be able to easily detect the change as it happens, whether moving or not. It just seems to me that the "busy-ness" of the image with the closely packed dots & symbols creates clutter that the brain resorts to simplifying what the eyes are viewing -- just another optical illusion. If the image were simplified and not so crowded & busy, would the illusion still occur?
To me it's not much different than watching wheel spokes appear to turn backwards when they reach a certain speed. This doesn't seem too terribly significant to me. Meh...
Firearm misuse has nothing to do with the point I was making. Also, certainly you *can* live your whole life enjoying "art" without illegally copying digital media. You just have to choose whether you will abide by the DRM protections or become a scofflaw and evade DRM to copy protected media (presuming you can't enjoy "art" without copying it, DRM'd or not).
The point still stands. Over-bearing DRM is as misguided and fraught with unintended consequences as over-bearing gun-control and mainly serves to either provide advantages to scofflaws and/or create criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
"...Another point. Most people aren't pirates, and most of the people "content protection" screws with are the paying customers...
And to further the gun analogy, DRM is to media as gun-control laws are to firearm ownership.
Any attempt to implement either law and the you are sure to accomplish two things:
1. Scofflaws will ignore the law and continue relatively unabated.
2. Law-abiders will suffer the inevitable unintended consequences and/or become scofflaws at the stroke of a legislators pen.
Lethality arguments aside, the intent and results of the respective regulatory efforts are similar.
Religions are man-made, though purportedly divinely inspired. Regardless, they still come with plenty of man's inherent biases. Religions cause folks to imaqine "God" as the old wrinkly dude with the flowing robes, aura of light and a magical staff (or whatever).
I've always thought that most "Bibles" (or whatever writings a given religion is based on is called) were written looooong ago when peoples understanding of the world & universe were quite limited. Perhaps parables & metaphors were the best way to impart some semblance of understanding, order and morals to mud-hut dwelling, hunter-gatherer, very simple people. Our typical understanding of "God" come from those same "Bibles"
In all the time since, not even the most well established religions has defined "God" adequately enough to settle any related arguments. Neither can Hawking nor even the most enlightened slashdotter, regardless of how low their user ID is.
Perhaps "God" is merely an inadequate label that can be used to describe the [entity/substance/energy/??] that caused the creation of what we call gravity and everything else. Perhaps gravity is part and parcel of "God". Who knows? I sure don't know, but I don't feel all that bad about it since Hawking doesn't know either... And he's a tad bit smarter than I am.
It certainly won't be decided either way in a/. thread. If the atheists are correct, then the christians are laughably gullible rubes. If the christians are right, the athiests are doomed for eternity. Neither side can prove squat and your physical being has to die to find out (depending on the flavor of faith).
But, my ain't it fun to argue ad-nauseum about it in/. ?
Personally, I'm inclined to believe #4 or #5 are most likely.
If the charges are subsequently withdrawn, that might indicate either the investigation revealed #4 -or- it's #5, but there is insufficient evidence to support the charge(s). Maybe something along the lines of #1, but that's stretching it.
I would rather doubt #2 or #3 in any eventuality, simply because real life *rarely* imitates Hollywood.
1. The girls are attention whores or pissed-off at Assange for some reason and made it all up themselves. They picked Assange because he was in the news and an acquaintance they had recently been alone with.
2. The US Govt masterminded the entire drama and the girls are going along with it because they were convincingly threatened or paid-off by "men-in-black" or had some other incentive (they are actually CIA spies following orders?? fanatically patriotic towards the US? Hate Assange's guts for some reason and were recruited by CIA? Other?).
3. Assange *HIMSELF* masterminded the entire drama with the willing cooperation of the girls (becasue they love him, or he's paying them, or they love a good gag, or whatever) which will later evolve into the girls recanting everything and claiming they were coerced by unidentified secret agents of the CIA who only contacted them in person when no other witnesses were around. US govt can't prove anything and can only deny it's involvement. In fact neither side can prove anything, but Assange doesn't *have* to prove anything -- no-one would expect him to be able to prove secret CIA agents were involved. Assange and the girls claim they are all victims of the CIA (rogue or otherwise) and they milk it for all the publicity and the public sympathy it's worth. The US Intelligence agencies look more bumbling and inept than they already do, even though they didn't do squat. Assange comes away with a more credible foundation to deny any actual frame-ups later attempted by the US.
4. The girls are blowing the situation out of proportion (either intentionally or unintentionally).
How often are the officers re-certified?
Who keeps the officers accountable?
I can't recall the re-cert period, but if it is like the vast majority of LEO training, I would think it's an annual re-cert.
As for who keeps the officers accountable in such situations? No one & nothing I can think of. Unless the ticketing LEO rediscovers his personal integrity and/or the abuse is otherwise revealed, there is no accountability. You won't get any argument from me on that point.
Back in the mid 80's, MP's at Ft Drum NY were sent through the state radar cert course. The first half of the course was classroom; the rest was spent estimating vehicle speeds while the instructors made their own estimate & held the radar gun. You could not be certified unless you could accurately guess vehicle speeds within one mph (multiple vehicle types in different busy speed zones; two tests while stationary and driving). Your turn in the hot-seat for the actual test was about two hours total, *constantly* estimating vehicle speeds within 1 mph. I can't recall how often you had to re-test to maintain your cert, but most MP's were only there for a year back then and no-one had to re-test while I was there.
It was surprisingly easy to accurately guess vehicle speeds with just a little practice and training, no math involved. Like most any learned skill, the more you do it, the easier it gets. But learned skills are also perishable, so you have to use it or lose it. There is no "trick" to it. Just take in the scene and observe the vehicle of interest moving compared to landmarks, road markings, etc.
Tickets were written based primarily upon our "visual speed estimate", which in turn was supported by radar. Actually, once certified, your visual speed estimate alone was sufficient to support the ticket. As I recall, there was no speeding fine until you were at least 7mph over and the PMO at Ft Drum set policy to warn until 10mph over, unless it was a hazard zone (school, construction, etc). So, FWIW...
All the idiots at greenpeace and/or Algore wants is for everyone else (not themselves of course) to live like the Old-Order Amish, but without the horses, cows, sheep and chickens. Then they'll finally shut up... Maybe... (I doubt it.)
I have found that the following old maxim holds true in the real world:
Pick Two: Fast, Accurate, Cheap.
I've found that clients understand that very well and will quite often toss not only thorough code commenting, but in-depth documentation overboard if it will save money/time. But, that's their choice.
If they want to include the extra time, I'll comment thoroughly and provide reams of documentation if desired. Other times, the client is only interested in rolling-out ASAP and I'm specifically told to minimize any and everything that could delay roll-out or exceed budget -- including comments and documentation. They are fully aware of the downside and accept it.
It has been my experience that you have to be flexible. Excepting the laws of nature, there are no absolutes...
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I would only rely on a certification to get you the interview. After that, it is entirely up to you to sell your value to the organization and articulate that you are not merely a paper-tiger who tests well. So, your certs are valuable, if only to get you that interview.
Now to be sure, there are those orgs that will get tunnel vision on the resume and presume you actually have the real-life skills to back up your certs without doing their due-diligence when hiring. There are risks working for those orgs that usually become glaringly apparent when your team/group is under pressure on a difficult project.
I haven't seen skies like this since my teenaged years, camping in the Big Bend NP under a cloudless, new moon.
The sensation you get when seeing more stars than sky is something that must be experienced fist hand. Pictures rarely seem to do it justice.
I can't wait to see their faces when my children get to experience it!
Not only do they need to look at inventory, I think they will also need to address employees. Without someone who can approach the role of an "Elmer" in the shop -- or someone who can at least knowledgeably field *general* electronics questions -- good luck attracting enthusiasts and growing the market
I couldn't pass a Radio-Shack back in the day; back when they had a fair selection of DIY stuff where you could browse around for project ideas. They've certainly lost that "ham-shack" luster over the years and I doubt they can return because it would appear they've been outflanked by the internet.
My sense of nostalgia wishes them well, but I just don't hold out much hope for them. Sadly, I think they might be better off losing the expense of their brick & mortar storefronts and moving strictly to the web.
Like the "demotivational" poster says: If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.
So basically what you are telling all of us is that instead of substance, you reply with dick jokes because you are so intellectually dishonest, you can't even acknowledge the obvious point amiga3D was making? That "green" vehicles will quite likely always lose when they collide with nearly anything that has more mass like a normal sized car, an SUV, a guard-rail or perhaps even a dog-house? Whatever -- at least you probably feel smugly good about yourself, and that's what's important, right?
Or how about: Hundreds die from accidental electrocution each year. And yet you knowingly & willingly accept those deaths rather than give up your little porn box (and your TV, blu-ray, lava-lamp, etc...)
What? Same logic, right? Anyone who uses electricity is complicit in the "massive number" of accidental electrocutions every year, right?
Could he (fly/drive/hitch-hike) down to Bolivia (or some such) and start over in I.T. & beyond the reach of the US's wage-garnishment jurisduiction?
And if I grab a street corner in a nearby village and start announcing that the radiation has been contained and the plant is hiring laborers for clean-up efforts at $attractive/hour and applications will only be accepted in person at the plant by noon next Wednesday?
Though not all will take the bait, some might rush to the plant and contaminate themselves. Do I shoulder any responsibility for what may occur beyond their stupidity & gullibility? Could I (should I) get away with claiming freedom of speech?
Cool! If that little thing can produce 25kw, then I hope the vehicle it powers has a connection to power your house when the storm takes out the grid!
I know plenty of federal workers, and believe me, most of them are not like your local DMV stereotype. You may disagree about the government doing certain kinds of work, but the majority of federal workers I know seem to work at least as hard as their private industry counterparts.
I also know plenty of federal workers. And considering the massive, ever growing head-count in the federal workforce, the 800,000 figure might be *low* for the "DMV Stereo-Types". Now, to be fair, I work with (or try to get them working, as the case may be) federal employees on a weekly basis. I know full well there are great people working for Uncle-Sugar. But there are also a *SIGNIFICANT* number of dead-weight, unionized, ass-hats that are wastes of tax-payer money, as well as wastes of DNA. Folks who should absolutely be given the axe, but can't be fired - seemingly because they've somehow been fortunate not to have been caught committing a felony in the workplace (or whatever it takes to actually fire them). I would even go as far as estimating the ratio of producers to leechers is worse in the fed sector than in the commercial sector. Likely because the fed sector does not have to produce anything, nor turn a profit. All they *HAVE* to do is be polite, and even that's too much of a challenge for some of them.
But yes, it is absolutely true there are some good folks working for the govt.
800,000 people in the US suddenly not working and not getting paychecks isn't a serious issue to you?
Actually? No, it is not a serious issue. 800,000 GOVT employees *not working* is status quo, is it not?
Bah! All you young whipper-snappers and your fancy-pants centimeter-band radios makes my shingles act up!
Real men don't need anything north of 30 MHz! That's where you find the radios made of iron and glowing tubes!
Not these sickly, plastic-fantastic micro-circuited gizmos!
Now get off my yard!!
I imagine if you replaced all those dots & symbols with a single image of a guy riding a bike, that morphs into a giraffe riding a bike, I would think you would be able to easily detect the change as it happens, whether moving or not. It just seems to me that the "busy-ness" of the image with the closely packed dots & symbols creates clutter that the brain resorts to simplifying what the eyes are viewing -- just another optical illusion. If the image were simplified and not so crowded & busy, would the illusion still occur?
To me it's not much different than watching wheel spokes appear to turn backwards when they reach a certain speed. This doesn't seem too terribly significant to me. Meh...
Firearm misuse has nothing to do with the point I was making. Also, certainly you *can* live your whole life enjoying "art" without illegally copying digital media. You just have to choose whether you will abide by the DRM protections or become a scofflaw and evade DRM to copy protected media (presuming you can't enjoy "art" without copying it, DRM'd or not).
The point still stands. Over-bearing DRM is as misguided and fraught with unintended consequences as over-bearing gun-control and mainly serves to either provide advantages to scofflaws and/or create criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
And to further the gun analogy, DRM is to media as gun-control laws are to firearm ownership.
Any attempt to implement either law and the you are sure to accomplish two things:
1. Scofflaws will ignore the law and continue relatively unabated.
2. Law-abiders will suffer the inevitable unintended consequences and/or become scofflaws at the stroke of a legislators pen.
Lethality arguments aside, the intent and results of the respective regulatory efforts are similar.
Depends on your definition of "God".
/. thread. If the atheists are correct, then the christians are laughably gullible rubes. If the christians are right, the athiests are doomed for eternity. Neither side can prove squat and your physical being has to die to find out (depending on the flavor of faith).
/. ?
Religions are man-made, though purportedly divinely inspired. Regardless, they still come with plenty of man's inherent biases. Religions cause folks to imaqine "God" as the old wrinkly dude with the flowing robes, aura of light and a magical staff (or whatever).
I've always thought that most "Bibles" (or whatever writings a given religion is based on is called) were written looooong ago when peoples understanding of the world & universe were quite limited. Perhaps parables & metaphors were the best way to impart some semblance of understanding, order and morals to mud-hut dwelling, hunter-gatherer, very simple people. Our typical understanding of "God" come from those same "Bibles"
In all the time since, not even the most well established religions has defined "God" adequately enough to settle any related arguments. Neither can Hawking nor even the most enlightened slashdotter, regardless of how low their user ID is.
Perhaps "God" is merely an inadequate label that can be used to describe the [entity/substance/energy/??] that caused the creation of what we call gravity and everything else. Perhaps gravity is part and parcel of "God". Who knows? I sure don't know, but I don't feel all that bad about it since Hawking doesn't know either... And he's a tad bit smarter than I am.
It certainly won't be decided either way in a
But, my ain't it fun to argue ad-nauseum about it in
Ding! Ding! Ding! Best answer yet!
Personally, I'm inclined to believe #4 or #5 are most likely.
If the charges are subsequently withdrawn, that might indicate either the investigation revealed #4 -or- it's #5, but there is insufficient evidence to support the charge(s). Maybe something along the lines of #1, but that's stretching it.
I would rather doubt #2 or #3 in any eventuality, simply because real life *rarely* imitates Hollywood.
To be sure, opinions will likely vary...
And I should add: Or maybe Occam's Razor is just what the CIA wants us to think...
Possibilities vary...
1. The girls are attention whores or pissed-off at Assange for some reason and made it all up themselves. They picked Assange because he was in the news and an acquaintance they had recently been alone with.
2. The US Govt masterminded the entire drama and the girls are going along with it because they were convincingly threatened or paid-off by "men-in-black" or had some other incentive (they are actually CIA spies following orders?? fanatically patriotic towards the US? Hate Assange's guts for some reason and were recruited by CIA? Other?).
3. Assange *HIMSELF* masterminded the entire drama with the willing cooperation of the girls (becasue they love him, or he's paying them, or they love a good gag, or whatever) which will later evolve into the girls recanting everything and claiming they were coerced by unidentified secret agents of the CIA who only contacted them in person when no other witnesses were around. US govt can't prove anything and can only deny it's involvement. In fact neither side can prove anything, but Assange doesn't *have* to prove anything -- no-one would expect him to be able to prove secret CIA agents were involved. Assange and the girls claim they are all victims of the CIA (rogue or otherwise) and they milk it for all the publicity and the public sympathy it's worth. The US Intelligence agencies look more bumbling and inept than they already do, even though they didn't do squat. Assange comes away with a more credible foundation to deny any actual frame-ups later attempted by the US.
4. The girls are blowing the situation out of proportion (either intentionally or unintentionally).
5. Assange is a creep and is guilty as charged.
Occam's Razor, anyone?
I can't recall the re-cert period, but if it is like the vast majority of LEO training, I would think it's an annual re-cert.
As for who keeps the officers accountable in such situations? No one & nothing I can think of. Unless the ticketing LEO rediscovers his personal integrity and/or the abuse is otherwise revealed, there is no accountability. You won't get any argument from me on that point.
Back in the mid 80's, MP's at Ft Drum NY were sent through the state radar cert course. The first half of the course was classroom; the rest was spent estimating vehicle speeds while the instructors made their own estimate & held the radar gun. You could not be certified unless you could accurately guess vehicle speeds within one mph (multiple vehicle types in different busy speed zones; two tests while stationary and driving). Your turn in the hot-seat for the actual test was about two hours total, *constantly* estimating vehicle speeds within 1 mph. I can't recall how often you had to re-test to maintain your cert, but most MP's were only there for a year back then and no-one had to re-test while I was there.
It was surprisingly easy to accurately guess vehicle speeds with just a little practice and training, no math involved. Like most any learned skill, the more you do it, the easier it gets. But learned skills are also perishable, so you have to use it or lose it. There is no "trick" to it. Just take in the scene and observe the vehicle of interest moving compared to landmarks, road markings, etc.
Tickets were written based primarily upon our "visual speed estimate", which in turn was supported by radar. Actually, once certified, your visual speed estimate alone was sufficient to support the ticket. As I recall, there was no speeding fine until you were at least 7mph over and the PMO at Ft Drum set policy to warn until 10mph over, unless it was a hazard zone (school, construction, etc). So, FWIW...
All the idiots at greenpeace and/or Algore wants is for everyone else (not themselves of course) to live like the Old-Order Amish, but without the horses, cows, sheep and chickens. Then they'll finally shut up... Maybe... (I doubt it.)
I'm of the opinion that the farther away from "Hollywood" it is, the better. Leave it be. And stay off my lawn you damned, dirty hippies!!
I have found that the following old maxim holds true in the real world:
Pick Two: Fast, Accurate, Cheap.
I've found that clients understand that very well and will quite often toss not only thorough code commenting, but in-depth documentation overboard if it will save money/time. But, that's their choice.
If they want to include the extra time, I'll comment thoroughly and provide reams of documentation if desired. Other times, the client is only interested in rolling-out ASAP and I'm specifically told to minimize any and everything that could delay roll-out or exceed budget -- including comments and documentation. They are fully aware of the downside and accept it.
It has been my experience that you have to be flexible. Excepting the laws of nature, there are no absolutes...