Unless we jam transmissions so that you can't control your drones in the target area. At that point throwing more drones at the problem isn't going to fix it.
Unless the drones are preprogrammed with their targets, and no matter how much you jam them, you can't stop them. Program a couple drones to target sources of jamming and that can take care of the jamming problem.
Dead reckoning is pretty useless in an aircraft if you want any kind of accuracy. It's useful for ground-based navigation and that's about it. Airspeeds are much too variable to get any accuracy from that. The others can make up for it to a good extent, but again, accuracy is necessary if your goal is to drop a bomb on a particular building somewhere, and you're not going to get that kind of accuracy using primitive navigation techniques.
That's why you use it in addition to terrain/celestial mapping - inertial guidance tells you approximately where you are so you can more quickly match it to the map.
Having a piloted plane doesn't eliminate the risk of hacking. If someone can hack the control system for a drone, they can do the same thing to an F-35. The pilot has little (or no) control if the computer doesn't want him to.
The F-117 stealth fighter was said to be so aerodynamically unstable that it was unflyable without computer assistance.
Uh, no, you aren't understanding how this works at all. It is theoretically possible to remotely seize control of a drone by flooding out the authorized control signals and replacing them with your own "pirate" signals. But that still isn't actually hacking the control systems, it's just hijacking the remote commands. Which is completely irrelevant to a manned fighter as there isn't any remote control capability to begin with. With a manned fighter, even if you managed to jam GPS signals, the pilot can still rely on other instruments or simply look out the window.
Calling manned craft "obsolete" is more than a little premature.
I'm assuming that the US Military knows how to use a cryptographically secure control channel making it impossible to take over the drone without hacking the software (either on the drone itself, or the controller). If the drone's control signals are jammed, then it should pilot itself based on preprogrammed instructions (which could be to execute an attack, or fly itself away from jamming). A drone doesn't need to rely on real-time control to reach its target, so control-channel jamming is not necessarily going to keep it away from its target.
There's a big difference - even on a computerized plane, all the inputs come from somewhere aboard the plane. You can't log in and tell it to bomb somewhere else. Drones are remotely controlled by design.
Except that the outputs come from the computer, so if you can get your software onto the computer (don't forget that hackers already stole 1 TB of design plans for the F-35 - and that's just the known breach, who knows what else they may have), then you can make the plane fly anywhere you want, regardless of what the pilot wants.
What most folks don't understand is the "lag" time of the remotely piloted devices. Even with a pilot sitting in a chair somewhere the lag time between him moving the joystick to the drone moving is too great for air to air combat. Until that's overcome, pilot's in the airplane are here to stay.
You don't need to be able to control the drone in real-time, the drone can pilot itself and can evade (or attack) air defenses much better than a human operator thousands of miles away can. (if that's not true today, it will be true in a decade or less)
You need the human to review surveillance footage and to do target selection. Once the target is selected, the drone can find and attack it on its own. If it's supporting troops on the ground, the ground troops can do the target selection.
If the current drone craze takes off, the Navy aircraft carrier will be far from obsolete. Those drones need somewhere to refuel and reload, and an aircraft carrier is the easiest thing to keep in theatre.
When you have a 20 foot long drone that can withstand 20G's of stopping force and 20G's of takeoff force from a relatively short magnetic rail gun, you don't necessarily need a 1000 foot 100,000 ton aircraft carrier to service it.
I hope you're joking? GPS can be hacked just like anything else, or jammed. GPS controls like you propose would be about as secure as a sign on your house "BEWARE OF DOG".
--PM
A smart drone will use inertial reference and terrain/celestial mapping as a backup to GPS, as well as analyzing the signal strength of the incoming GPS signals to look for jamming/spoofing. You might be able to spoof GPS well enough to get the drone to think it's a few hundred feet from where it is, but I don't think you can make it think it's miles away.
Having a piloted plane doesn't eliminate the risk of hacking. If someone can hack the control system for a drone, they can do the same thing to an F-35. The pilot has little (or no) control if the computer doesn't want him to.
The F-117 stealth fighter was said to be so aerodynamically unstable that it was unflyable without computer assistance.
What I would like is a "photographic memory" (with all the other senses too!) and a magic device that upon my death, would record all of my memories and have those memories stores, un-viewed, until everyone alive when I die and their children and grandchildren had been dead for several hundred years.
Imagine the fun historians could have a millennium from now if they had access to 7 billion people's perfectly-recorded memories.
They analyze the data and say "Why does a society that has developed so many comfortable chairs do most of their reading while sitting on the toilet?"
Wouldn't a lot of the force of the explosion be absorbed by the bomber's body anyway? I guess he could... erm... remove the bomb in flight.
Yeah, I'm assuming he'd take it out in the lavatory for optimal placement against the side of the aircraft. (which could be done in the lavatory if it's along the outside wall).
It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".
It is a CLEAR sentence that CLEARLY says that removal of the machine would possibly result in more "enhanced pat-downs". It is *NOT* ambiguous at all.
The OP is clearly trolling.
Replace "removal" and "scanner" with nonsense words so you can't use your pre-conceived notion of what the sentence means and see if it still is perfectly clear:
who called the scheduled obfrentation of her airport's widgetygook 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"
So is it the scheduled obfrentation that removes the need for pat-downs, or the widgetygook?
Dude, if you think that enough (non-nuclear) explosives to bring down a passenger jet will fit up your asshole, then you fail chemistry forever. Same for in your shoes, for that matter.
Even if it can't take down a jet, a big gaping hole in the side of the plane is probably enough to meet the terrorists objectives.
I've seen enough internet porn to know that a cylinder 2" in diameter x 8" long could be hidden away, with training, a much larger cylinder could be hidden away. But even 2"x8" is 25 in^3, or 411 cm^3
At 1.63g/cm^3 density, that's 670g of explosive, or about one and a half pounds.
I think that much high explosive could easily punch a hole through the thin skin of a plane. Or blow a cockpit door off and possible disable the pilots.
Either you are a âoetrollâ or you have a reading comprehension problem. What he said was:
...called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down
It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".
Even if they know the list is "compromised", what are they supposed to do about it? It's already out there. Do you expect them to go after the spammers? Because that's essentially impossible. If they're not in the United States, it really *is* impossible.
That's why you haven't got a response. They know, but there's nothing they can do.
And frankly, if you had decent spam filters on your own personal domain, you probably wouldn't be seeing these emails anyway. I doubt anyone with a Gmail or Yahoo or Outlook.com address sees this stuff.
My suggestions? Quit worrying about it, and quit running your own mail server. You may think you know what you are doing, but you almost certainly don't.
Disclosing the data breach to everyone affected would be nice (and in some states is legally required), as well as letting customers know what data was breached..
Of course, this assumes that they actually know how the data leaked and which customers were affected and they probably don't.
Maybe they did fix the issue, but its difficult to take away the compromised list once someone else has it. Or were you expecting them to track down the virus senders and delete the lists from those servers?
If they don't acknowledge that there was even a problem, how would he know if it's "fixed"? Besides, if a customer list was stolen, it's likely more than just email addresses, and some states require public disclosure if personal data is stolen.
I built a house with a large home office in it so that I could run my Internet based company from home. The city threw a huge fit, and said it needed to be built to commercial standards. Submitted new plans and they said that you can't live in a commercial structure! The American Dream is all jacked up.
Why didn't you just call it a Den or extra bedroom? If they question the extra power outlets or data connections, tell them it's your home theater room.
what language do they speak? what industry are you in? fast food? If so, how can you do that job at home?
Given that he's in Silicon Valley, my first guess would be that he works in the tech industry. My first guess of language is Hindi, second guess is some form of Chinese (Mandarin?).
It can take 3 or 4 minutes to adequately read and score a resume - 3 minutes times 200 resumes times 5 open job reqs is 50 hours of work, when if I'm lucky, I've got about an hour a day to take care of it.
Is that not what hiring 'manager' in HR's JOB is? Sure you have some rough 'throw away' sort of items. But you should look at them all... If your HR dude is handing you a pile of 200 to look at then they are not doing their job and you need an open position...
It can take 3 or 4 minutes to adequately read and score a resume - 3 minutes times 200 resumes times 5 open job reqs is 50 hours of work, when if I'm lucky, I've got about an hour a day to take care of it.
Is that not what hiring 'manager' in HR's JOB is? Sure you have some rough 'throw away' sort of items. But you should look at them all... If your HR dude is handing you a pile of 200 to look at then they are not doing their job and you need an open position...
Yeah, sorry, that kind of got lost in the noise. Typically I'll let HR screen, but sometimes they are not moving fast enough so I do it - job applications go stale quickly, if it's someone good, he's not going to be available for long.
They usually give me 5 or 10 resumes on a short list, they are usually good enough that I'll at least phone screen them. Then they'll give me another 10 - 20 resumes on a long list, that I'll look at those and usually end up calling a few of them to talk on the phone.
You must hire only low skill code monkeys and web devs, if that.
I haven't hired any entry level positions in a long time - most of our hires have been for mid-senior level developers and software architects - the kind of people that can take corporate business requirements, and architect them into complete, well tested solutions. Nearly all of my recent hires have been $100K+ positions (which is mid - senior level in the SF Bay Area).
You seem pretty smug about routinely getting hundreds of resumes for a handful of positions.
I don't know where you live, but around here, getting hundreds of resumes is not really an achievement, especially when 80% of them are "resume spam" from job seekers applying to every open position in the hope of getting an interview despite not having any of the required skills.
With leverage like that, your company can push outrageous provisions in the employment contract and anyone who dares stand up to it doesn't get hired. It doesn't sound as if it has occurred to you that your company's employment contract could be too extreme, with unenforceable and illegal clauses. You sure aren't going to get any innovative people with hiring policies like that, and if you do, you'll squelch them. Anyone you hire who does happen to be creative and innovative will have their creative spirit beaten out of them by your organization. The rest of those sort get weeded out as "undesirables", and you actually like it that way!
Why do people keep complaining about our employment contract (that they've never seen)? We haven't had a candidate refuse to sign, and it's a pretty typical contract, more lenient than many. It even allows for inventions to be assigned to the employee with management approval even if it was developed on company time, I don't recall the exact wording but this provision was put into place specifically to allow employees to open source some of the tools they've written and to freely contribute to open source projects without the company owning all of their work. One of our employees is very active with an open source web framework and we regularly send him to conferences to give talks about his work.
At least I haven't seen you complain that it's hard to find skilled people.
We're in the SF Bay area, there are plenty of skilled people around, most of them already have good jobs and aren't interested in leaving, so it's not always easy to find them, but it is possible.
Look at what similar jobs in the area are offering. Then email someone (via linked-in, or a search of the org's website) who's not advertising a position, so they only have 1 resume in front of them. There's a 20% chance that there's a position opening up, but it hasn't gone to HR yet (ass-pull statistic), and it's quite likely that the manager will forego dealing with 200+ mostly useless applicants if they have one solid candidate so you'll get the job with not other competitors.
That's true - if you can get your resume to me through other means (a friend/colleague, linkedIn, etc), then I'll always look at it. And if you have a personal recommendation from someone I know and trust, you'll shoot to the top of the pile even if your skills aren't a perfect match for what I'm looking for.
But don't abuse it...if you're not a good match for the job but send me your resume and ask me to forward it on, If I do forward it, I'll add a note like "I don't really know who this guy is or why he thinks he is a good fit for the position since he doesn't have any of the skills you're looking for, but here's his resume if you want to look at it".
Who would want to work for that bureaucratic nightmare?
If it takes two weeks to get a contract fixed, everything is going to be red tape, politics and BS.
Welcome to corporate america where everything can turn into a lawsuit, so the company goes to great pains to make sure that every contract is airtight and everything you do is documented and retained for the appropriate amount of time (but promptly destroyed after that time is up).
This was a test drive in a specially prepared loaner car from the manufacturer, which the reporter got to drive for free. The reporter knew the deal he (or his employer) would have signed a stack of releases in order to drive it.
Even with an eye to the future where such logging is widespread, we don't need any kind of "do-not-track"; we do need courts to recognize that information stored on our devices is equivalent to the "papers and effects" in our homes, and thus cannot be searched or seized without due process.
If the new sensors and tracking spawn any kind of legislation, I'd rather that the legislation be geared toward ensuing open access -- make the manufacturers publish API's and data formats for the data that the car tracks so I can use the data as I want. Let me read the "black box" if I want to, don't tell me "Oh, you need this $20,000 diagnostic computer to read it, then you have to send the data to us for analysis".
So let me get this straight... you don't have time to read through 200+ resumes for each of the 5 open positions that you have, but you have time to read and post comments on slash dot?
Even if I work for a US company, they don't own all of my spare time. My workday is over, and I prefer to not spend it doing work.
5 positions with 200+ resumes and you can't look at each resume?
I can read a 1000 page hardcover in three days without pushing it. Granted, a page in a book requires less time than a resume needs but I'm pretty sure I could at least look at each resume within a reasonable time frame.
Sure, resumes are probably a lot more boring to read but that's why it's called work.
Reading a book is much different than reading a resume and picking out important details.
If I'm just going to scan the resume and look for keywords, I may as well just let the online candidate review system take care of it.
Resumes come in a wide variety of formats, fonts, etc, and candidates rarely put the information I'm looking for on the first page... If I'm really going to read it and see if he's a good fit for the job, then I need to read the whole thing, then go back and look over it again to pick out the parts I'm really interested in.
It can take 3 or 4 minutes to adequately read and score a resume - 3 minutes times 200 resumes times 5 open job reqs is 50 hours of work, when if I'm lucky, I've got about an hour a day to take care of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless we jam transmissions so that you can't control your drones in the target area. At that point throwing more drones at the problem isn't going to fix it.
Unless the drones are preprogrammed with their targets, and no matter how much you jam them, you can't stop them. Program a couple drones to target sources of jamming and that can take care of the jamming problem.
Dead reckoning is pretty useless in an aircraft if you want any kind of accuracy. It's useful for ground-based navigation and that's about it. Airspeeds are much too variable to get any accuracy from that. The others can make up for it to a good extent, but again, accuracy is necessary if your goal is to drop a bomb on a particular building somewhere, and you're not going to get that kind of accuracy using primitive navigation techniques.
That's why you use it in addition to terrain/celestial mapping - inertial guidance tells you approximately where you are so you can more quickly match it to the map.
Nah, no one could ever do that.
Having a piloted plane doesn't eliminate the risk of hacking. If someone can hack the control system for a drone, they can do the same thing to an F-35. The pilot has little (or no) control if the computer doesn't want him to.
The F-117 stealth fighter was said to be so aerodynamically unstable that it was unflyable without computer assistance.
Uh, no, you aren't understanding how this works at all. It is theoretically possible to remotely seize control of a drone by flooding out the authorized control signals and replacing them with your own "pirate" signals. But that still isn't actually hacking the control systems, it's just hijacking the remote commands. Which is completely irrelevant to a manned fighter as there isn't any remote control capability to begin with. With a manned fighter, even if you managed to jam GPS signals, the pilot can still rely on other instruments or simply look out the window.
Calling manned craft "obsolete" is more than a little premature.
I'm assuming that the US Military knows how to use a cryptographically secure control channel making it impossible to take over the drone without hacking the software (either on the drone itself, or the controller). If the drone's control signals are jammed, then it should pilot itself based on preprogrammed instructions (which could be to execute an attack, or fly itself away from jamming). A drone doesn't need to rely on real-time control to reach its target, so control-channel jamming is not necessarily going to keep it away from its target.
There's a big difference - even on a computerized plane, all the inputs come from somewhere aboard the plane. You can't log in and tell it to bomb somewhere else. Drones are remotely controlled by design.
Except that the outputs come from the computer, so if you can get your software onto the computer (don't forget that hackers already stole 1 TB of design plans for the F-35 - and that's just the known breach, who knows what else they may have), then you can make the plane fly anywhere you want, regardless of what the pilot wants.
What most folks don't understand is the "lag" time of the remotely piloted devices. Even with a pilot sitting in a chair somewhere the lag time between him moving the joystick to the drone moving is too great for air to air combat. Until that's overcome, pilot's in the airplane are here to stay.
You don't need to be able to control the drone in real-time, the drone can pilot itself and can evade (or attack) air defenses much better than a human operator thousands of miles away can. (if that's not true today, it will be true in a decade or less)
You need the human to review surveillance footage and to do target selection. Once the target is selected, the drone can find and attack it on its own. If it's supporting troops on the ground, the ground troops can do the target selection.
If the current drone craze takes off, the Navy aircraft carrier will be far from obsolete. Those drones need somewhere to refuel and reload, and an aircraft carrier is the easiest thing to keep in theatre.
When you have a 20 foot long drone that can withstand 20G's of stopping force and 20G's of takeoff force from a relatively short magnetic rail gun, you don't necessarily need a 1000 foot 100,000 ton aircraft carrier to service it.
I hope you're joking? GPS can be hacked just like anything else, or jammed. GPS controls like you propose would be about as secure as a sign on your house "BEWARE OF DOG".
--PM
A smart drone will use inertial reference and terrain/celestial mapping as a backup to GPS, as well as analyzing the signal strength of the incoming GPS signals to look for jamming/spoofing. You might be able to spoof GPS well enough to get the drone to think it's a few hundred feet from where it is, but I don't think you can make it think it's miles away.
Nah, no one could ever do that.
Having a piloted plane doesn't eliminate the risk of hacking. If someone can hack the control system for a drone, they can do the same thing to an F-35. The pilot has little (or no) control if the computer doesn't want him to.
The F-117 stealth fighter was said to be so aerodynamically unstable that it was unflyable without computer assistance.
What I would like is a "photographic memory" (with all the other senses too!) and a magic device that upon my death, would record all of my memories and have those memories stores, un-viewed, until everyone alive when I die and their children and grandchildren had been dead for several hundred years.
Imagine the fun historians could have a millennium from now if they had access to 7 billion people's perfectly-recorded memories.
They analyze the data and say "Why does a society that has developed so many comfortable chairs do most of their reading while sitting on the toilet?"
Wouldn't a lot of the force of the explosion be absorbed by the bomber's body anyway? I guess he could ... erm... remove the bomb in flight.
Yeah, I'm assuming he'd take it out in the lavatory for optimal placement against the side of the aircraft. (which could be done in the lavatory if it's along the outside wall).
It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".
It is a CLEAR sentence that CLEARLY says that removal of the machine would possibly result in more "enhanced pat-downs". It is *NOT* ambiguous at all.
The OP is clearly trolling.
Replace "removal" and "scanner" with nonsense words so you can't use your pre-conceived notion of what the sentence means and see if it still is perfectly clear:
who called the scheduled obfrentation of her airport's widgetygook 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"
So is it the scheduled obfrentation that removes the need for pat-downs, or the widgetygook?
Dude, if you think that enough (non-nuclear) explosives to bring down a passenger jet will fit up your asshole, then you fail chemistry forever. Same for in your shoes, for that matter.
Even if it can't take down a jet, a big gaping hole in the side of the plane is probably enough to meet the terrorists objectives.
I've seen enough internet porn to know that a cylinder 2" in diameter x 8" long could be hidden away, with training, a much larger cylinder could be hidden away. But even 2"x8" is 25 in^3, or 411 cm^3
At 1.63g/cm^3 density, that's 670g of explosive, or about one and a half pounds.
I think that much high explosive could easily punch a hole through the thin skin of a plane. Or blow a cockpit door off and possible disable the pilots.
Either you are a âoetrollâ or you have a reading comprehension problem. What he said was:
...called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down
It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".
Even if they know the list is "compromised", what are they supposed to do about it? It's already out there. Do you expect them to go after the spammers? Because that's essentially impossible. If they're not in the United States, it really *is* impossible.
That's why you haven't got a response. They know, but there's nothing they can do.
And frankly, if you had decent spam filters on your own personal domain, you probably wouldn't be seeing these emails anyway. I doubt anyone with a Gmail or Yahoo or Outlook.com address sees this stuff.
My suggestions? Quit worrying about it, and quit running your own mail server. You may think you know what you are doing, but you almost certainly don't.
Disclosing the data breach to everyone affected would be nice (and in some states is legally required), as well as letting customers know what data was breached..
Of course, this assumes that they actually know how the data leaked and which customers were affected and they probably don't.
Maybe they did fix the issue, but its difficult to take away the compromised list once someone else has it. Or were you expecting them to track down the virus senders and delete the lists from those servers?
If they don't acknowledge that there was even a problem, how would he know if it's "fixed"? Besides, if a customer list was stolen, it's likely more than just email addresses, and some states require public disclosure if personal data is stolen.
I built a house with a large home office in it so that I could run my Internet based company from home. The city threw a huge fit, and said it needed to be built to commercial standards. Submitted new plans and they said that you can't live in a commercial structure! The American Dream is all jacked up.
Why didn't you just call it a Den or extra bedroom? If they question the extra power outlets or data connections, tell them it's your home theater room.
what language do they speak? what industry are you in? fast food? If so, how can you do that job at home?
Given that he's in Silicon Valley, my first guess would be that he works in the tech industry. My first guess of language is Hindi, second guess is some form of Chinese (Mandarin?).
Tell us more about the special equipment that allows shared sketching.
MS Paint + any screen sharing software.
Or a tablet computer. Here's an Android app that will do it:
http://www.addictivetips.com/mobile/draw-n-chat-share-a-canvas-with-friends-over-wifi-or-3g-android/
I'm sure the iPad has a bunch of them too.
It can take 3 or 4 minutes to adequately read and score a resume - 3 minutes times 200 resumes times 5 open job reqs is 50 hours of work, when if I'm lucky, I've got about an hour a day to take care of it.
Is that not what hiring 'manager' in HR's JOB is? Sure you have some rough 'throw away' sort of items. But you should look at them all... If your HR dude is handing you a pile of 200 to look at then they are not doing their job and you need an open position...
It can take 3 or 4 minutes to adequately read and score a resume - 3 minutes times 200 resumes times 5 open job reqs is 50 hours of work, when if I'm lucky, I've got about an hour a day to take care of it.
Is that not what hiring 'manager' in HR's JOB is? Sure you have some rough 'throw away' sort of items. But you should look at them all... If your HR dude is handing you a pile of 200 to look at then they are not doing their job and you need an open position...
Yeah, sorry, that kind of got lost in the noise. Typically I'll let HR screen, but sometimes they are not moving fast enough so I do it - job applications go stale quickly, if it's someone good, he's not going to be available for long.
They usually give me 5 or 10 resumes on a short list, they are usually good enough that I'll at least phone screen them. Then they'll give me another 10 - 20 resumes on a long list, that I'll look at those and usually end up calling a few of them to talk on the phone.
You must hire only low skill code monkeys and web devs, if that.
I haven't hired any entry level positions in a long time - most of our hires have been for mid-senior level developers and software architects - the kind of people that can take corporate business requirements, and architect them into complete, well tested solutions. Nearly all of my recent hires have been $100K+ positions (which is mid - senior level in the SF Bay Area).
You seem pretty smug about routinely getting hundreds of resumes for a handful of positions.
I don't know where you live, but around here, getting hundreds of resumes is not really an achievement, especially when 80% of them are "resume spam" from job seekers applying to every open position in the hope of getting an interview despite not having any of the required skills.
With leverage like that, your company can push outrageous provisions in the employment contract and anyone who dares stand up to it doesn't get hired. It doesn't sound as if it has occurred to you that your company's employment contract could be too extreme, with unenforceable and illegal clauses. You sure aren't going to get any innovative people with hiring policies like that, and if you do, you'll squelch them. Anyone you hire who does happen to be creative and innovative will have their creative spirit beaten out of them by your organization. The rest of those sort get weeded out as "undesirables", and you actually like it that way!
Why do people keep complaining about our employment contract (that they've never seen)? We haven't had a candidate refuse to sign, and it's a pretty typical contract, more lenient than many. It even allows for inventions to be assigned to the employee with management approval even if it was developed on company time, I don't recall the exact wording but this provision was put into place specifically to allow employees to open source some of the tools they've written and to freely contribute to open source projects without the company owning all of their work. One of our employees is very active with an open source web framework and we regularly send him to conferences to give talks about his work.
At least I haven't seen you complain that it's hard to find skilled people.
We're in the SF Bay area, there are plenty of skilled people around, most of them already have good jobs and aren't interested in leaving, so it's not always easy to find them, but it is possible.
Look at what similar jobs in the area are offering. Then email someone (via linked-in, or a search of the org's website) who's not advertising a position, so they only have 1 resume in front of them. There's a 20% chance that there's a position opening up, but it hasn't gone to HR yet (ass-pull statistic), and it's quite likely that the manager will forego dealing with 200+ mostly useless applicants if they have one solid candidate so you'll get the job with not other competitors.
That's true - if you can get your resume to me through other means (a friend/colleague, linkedIn, etc), then I'll always look at it. And if you have a personal recommendation from someone I know and trust, you'll shoot to the top of the pile even if your skills aren't a perfect match for what I'm looking for.
But don't abuse it...if you're not a good match for the job but send me your resume and ask me to forward it on, If I do forward it, I'll add a note like "I don't really know who this guy is or why he thinks he is a good fit for the position since he doesn't have any of the skills you're looking for, but here's his resume if you want to look at it".
Who would want to work for that bureaucratic nightmare?
If it takes two weeks to get a contract fixed, everything is going to be red tape, politics and BS.
Welcome to corporate america where everything can turn into a lawsuit, so the company goes to great pains to make sure that every contract is airtight and everything you do is documented and retained for the appropriate amount of time (but promptly destroyed after that time is up).
No.
This was a test drive in a specially prepared loaner car from the manufacturer, which the reporter got to drive for free. The reporter knew the deal he (or his employer) would have signed a stack of releases in order to drive it.
Even with an eye to the future where such logging is widespread, we don't need any kind of "do-not-track"; we do need courts to recognize that information stored on our devices is equivalent to the "papers and effects" in our homes, and thus cannot be searched or seized without due process.
If the new sensors and tracking spawn any kind of legislation, I'd rather that the legislation be geared toward ensuing open access -- make the manufacturers publish API's and data formats for the data that the car tracks so I can use the data as I want. Let me read the "black box" if I want to, don't tell me "Oh, you need this $20,000 diagnostic computer to read it, then you have to send the data to us for analysis".
So let me get this straight... you don't have time to read through 200+ resumes for each of the 5 open positions that you have, but you have time to read and post comments on slash dot?
Even if I work for a US company, they don't own all of my spare time. My workday is over, and I prefer to not spend it doing work.
5 positions with 200+ resumes and you can't look at each resume?
I can read a 1000 page hardcover in three days without pushing it. Granted, a page in a book requires less time than a resume needs but I'm pretty sure I could at least look at each resume within a reasonable time frame.
Sure, resumes are probably a lot more boring to read but that's why it's called work.
Reading a book is much different than reading a resume and picking out important details.
If I'm just going to scan the resume and look for keywords, I may as well just let the online candidate review system take care of it.
Resumes come in a wide variety of formats, fonts, etc, and candidates rarely put the information I'm looking for on the first page... If I'm really going to read it and see if he's a good fit for the job, then I need to read the whole thing, then go back and look over it again to pick out the parts I'm really interested in.
It can take 3 or 4 minutes to adequately read and score a resume - 3 minutes times 200 resumes times 5 open job reqs is 50 hours of work, when if I'm lucky, I've got about an hour a day to take care of it.