Thanks. Of course young people with a clue but little experience feel they have to work above and beyond the call of duty to make an impression to management and get ahead. But that's the apprenticeship and not the real job. When you're good enough that your skills and knowledge make you competitive in the marketplace, then you're in the position of providing a contractual service. For the first few years in IT the balance is heavily in favour of the employee who gets to learn lots of stuff while being paid. Apprentices (an unofficial title, of course) are in no position to complain about getting opportunities to learn for money. The rewards come later, when you know what you're doing.
Don't think so. And like others have said, not news. I used Test Drive four months ago, and others have clearly used it a lot longer ago. Slashdot article quality control? Priceless. Nothing changes!
No it's not like that at all. It's like saying it's not the Network Administrator's responsibility to resource the work required in light of support being dropped for Token Ring. It is his responsibility to provide advice to management and to provide technical resource in any projects which are initiated off the back of the event. It his not his place to protect the business from the effects of an external influence beyond his contractual duties. In IT we are not gods and cannot work magic, only long hours, and if we're not getting paid for them, why should we? And if we are, why are we complaining? And if we feel the balance between work hours and non-work hours is wrong, why did we accept our contract of employment which allows such abuse of employees? And if it isn't in the contract, we don't have to.
At least that is how it works in civilised countries.
Don't get so personal about your work. If the timescales can't be met because of external factors, tell your management. If you need more people on board because of external factors, tell your management. If goalposts need to be moved because of blah blah, blah blah. This is not your problem!
Re:Meaning, for those who are curious.
on
Beginning Ubuntu Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
the idea that every bad event must be blamed on a named individual.
That's not the idea. The idea is that in an organised effort to achieve an objective (run a restaurant for a night, put a man in space, create a piece of software), there should be responsibility allocated for the different kinds of risks which might derail the effort. When the effort is in fact derailed in an uncontrolled manner, either the individual with responsibility for mitigating the causative risk is to blame, or the person with responsibility for identifying risks and allocating responsibilities is to blame.
We don't blame weathermen for bad weather. We do blame them if they predict good weather and it turns out to be bad, because their job is to provide the information we need to mitigate against bad weather.
Have you looked at phpGroupware or it's prettier offshoot eGroupware? They come with one, maybe two forum modules. The one I used was Fudforum, bad name but it works. Works with either PostgreSQL or MySQL, at least on Debian you get the choice at install time.
Seeing as you've posted on the topic I don't think you're in a position to moderate, unless you have a separate moderation account, which would not be cricket.
Personally my answer to the opening question is "No". I think that example depends on the surveyee having no real opinion of their own in the first place, rather than a skillful surveyor who can somehow introduce cognitive dissonance where previously there was none. It's good for a laugh once, though.
Actually, I said it is the fault of the search engine (designer)! It would be wonderful if you'd reread my original post in order to verify this!
Anyway it was great to hear from you, I love hearing from you and I hope you are doing well. how are things? I hear the weather is kinda tough in your area just now but Oh Well! We grin and bear it!
Look forward to meeting up soon you fucking idiot!
Thanks for that, I downloaded and read the document. It was interesting but I don't understand, if it is of value, why this is freely available on their web site to download. Yes, it's an advert for their Gopher software, but some of the stuff in their only works if it is kept secret, like their Single Bullet story... I registered as John Smith, name@company.com...
What you say is true but is not what I'm talking about. I wasn't annoyed at being asked simple questions, I was annoyed at being asked:
- How long did you spend in your last job? - How many "years experience" of such-and-such skill do you have? - Is your experience more "administration" or "support"? - What products do you have experience with? - Where are you working now? - How much notice do you need to give? - Where do you live?
and so on.
I spend time and care preparing and updating my CV so it presents all this information in a clear and concise manner. I don't need to be quizzed on this information by a recruitment agency. It's right in fucking front of them. This particular case struck me as someone who either wasn't fit for work that day, or doesn't understand the market for which they are recruiting and has contempt for their candidates. How else can I explain the fact that they obviously didn't read the first few lines of my CV?
And she tried to make me feel that I might not be up to scratch for the job. She didn't even know what was involved in doing the job! That makes me angry.
Well, here in the UK the only document I've ever heard people talking about (in my 33 years) is the CV and it doesn't have to be long or detailed. Americans are the only people I have heard talking or writing about resumes.
Don't be ridiculous, it is the fault of the search engine (designer). Specifically, why are people still relying on free text search? It indicates a lack of knowledge of the marketplace. A long time ago people invented relational database systems, which let you have tables with fields. Fields can hold different values and you can put validation on those values. Hmm, how about a table called prog_lang with an row for each programming language in demand in the market place? Let's have a couple of columns, lang_id and lang_text. My bet is that if you added a row with lang_id 1 and lang_text c, then you added another row with lang_id 2 and lang_text c++, you might just be able to distinguish between C and C++. Hey, then you might be able to populate a web search form with check boxes and radio buttons rather than an empty text input box expecting stupid C AND NOT (VB OR C++) strings.... and if a job comes in requiring a programming language which isn't listed, ADD A ROW!
FFS.
Of course the reason no-one does this is because it seems like too much effort. It's much easier, apparently, just to leave the skills matching to the initial phone call. For instance, I was called by a recruiter this morning who spent 30 minutes asking stupid questions 99% of which were covered in the CV (resume for yanks) I sent last night and to which she was responding. I had to bite my lip from saying "Did you even READ my CV? Do you actually know anything about the skills required in this job?" because she hadn't and she didn't. Yet she is in a position of power over my next pay cheque!! And she tried to make me feel that I might not be up to scratch for the job. She didn't even know what was involved in doing the job! That makes me angry.
Or you could just take the position that the price will rise as different uses compete for the dwindiling supply, and that people will naturaly react by scaling back their uses in the way that optimizes their happiness, given their means, with no government action required. In my view, the second postion is exactly the right one.
Well, this just makes me think of single occupant SUVs being driven on trivial errands. It is wrong, because it causes needless suffering. Excessive consumption of a critical finite resource is an offence to those with whom we share the world. I don't know how to change this, though, other than an appeal to conscience, another scarce resource.
Irrelevant. You claimed it was a tautology -- necessarily true. It's not.
It is necessarily true, in the real world, just not in your abstract world where fractions of a cup of oil are evidence of continued availability.
And there are things they will be capable of even though you predicted they won't be. One small difference: people who actually invest their own money predicated on these beliefs tend to disagree with you. If they're so obviously wrong, why not steal their profits?
You can't let go of this idea that I'm making some claim about oil. I'm not saying these people are wrong. I'm saying they could well be wrong. I don't care what they do with their money and I don't see the significance. To them it's a gamble and they gamble what they can afford. Maybe they all think like you. Markets are not rational.
Go get a math book. Find the sum of 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... It's finite.
Of course that's true, but it's also absurd to say that consumption of oil follows an infinite series. When we have a cupful of oil left, shall we only extract half a cup? Where is the remaining 1/4096th of a dodo?
I have a "preference" for giving you a meaningful understanding of what's going on.
I appreciate that.
They know there's money to be made finding energy, or copper, or diamonds. You'll never be able to predict what they'll be capable of, or else you would have done it yourself already.
Exactly, you'll never be able to predict what they're capable of, and there are things they won't be capable of even though you predicted they would be.
Don't insult my intelligence. You said "Oil running out is a concrete and inevitable (given continued consumption) event with no precedent." You're making a particular claim about oil.
This is not a claim, it's a tautology. Finite resources, continually consumed. In other words, eventual depletion.
You do have a preference for the abstract because I had to bleed you like a stone to get concrete examples in place of your exposition of economic theory.
Copper and diamonds: guess what, they'll run out too given continued consumption. I have no idea when this will happen. Fortunately, in both cases, there are non-fringe alternatives. Copper can be recycled, too. Diamonds are not that important.
Incorrect predicitions of the depletion of the world's copper reserves were based on an incorrect appreciation of the size of those reserves. I am making no prediction as to when the oil reserves will dry up. As I said, I make no claims. I do however reiterate the fact that oil, given continued consumption, will run out.
Thanks for providing these concrete examples. I've wasted some time discussing this with another fellow who seems to be blind to these words.
However I do have a hard time with these examples. I have to disregard the dye, although I was interested to read about it, for the obvious reason of its being dye. Rubber is certainly important, but I am sure it's not as important as oil is today. Almost every westerner consumes oil or oil-derived products daily, and when I say consumes, I mean burns. The same cannot and could not ever be said for rubber, or dye. Thus the availability of a non-fringe alternative becomes critical. Economic theory has explained situations where alternatives were available, or became available. You seem to be betting on an alternative to oil. This is pure speculation. That is my point.
You're essentially claiming that you know more than all of the people actually acting in the market.
Uh... no I'm not. What I said was So all I'm saying is don't be so sure that the world will behave like economic "theory" suggests. Implicit in that statement is I'm not making any particular claim about oil.
Actually, you're not responding to my posts. You're just responding to your idea of my posts, which may be symptomatic of your preference for the abstract over the concrete!
Now, I hesitate to say this in case you ignore my previous paragraph. But here goes. Diamond and copper are not the same as oil - we don't all depend on them and there are non-fringe alternatives. If copper runs out, my peecee still works even though it depends on copper. Yes, they are important commodities, but they are not the same.
I didn't provide the empirical observations, partly because there aren't any*
Precisely my original point. I'm not being flippant although it may seem that way, but your original post shrugged off a rather serious real-world concern with appeal to an untested hypothesis.
Do you demand empirical evidence of the Pythagorean Theorem?
No, because I can test it myself, and because it is part of an abstract construct (mathematics) within whose rules it is provable. Oil running out is a concrete and inevitable (given continued consumption) event with no precedent. Your economic "theory" is a pretty useless theory because it can only be tested in the midst of disaster. All we can do is make conjecture. So all I'm saying is don't be so sure that the world will behave like economic "theory" suggests.
As you know economic theory is a model of reality; so what is the basis in reality of your economist's claim? What examples of depletion of finite resources do we have to lend your statement credibility? No doubt they exist but I would like to know what they are, for the comfort factor. Of course, a key attribute of such an exemplary resource would be that everyone relies on it and there's no clear alternative (although there may be several fringe alternatives).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. Of course young people with a clue but little experience feel they have to work above and beyond the call of duty to make an impression to management and get ahead. But that's the apprenticeship and not the real job. When you're good enough that your skills and knowledge make you competitive in the marketplace, then you're in the position of providing a contractual service. For the first few years in IT the balance is heavily in favour of the employee who gets to learn lots of stuff while being paid. Apprentices (an unofficial title, of course) are in no position to complain about getting opportunities to learn for money. The rewards come later, when you know what you're doing.
Don't think so. And like others have said, not news. I used Test Drive four months ago, and others have clearly used it a lot longer ago. Slashdot article quality control? Priceless. Nothing changes!
No it's not like that at all. It's like saying it's not the Network Administrator's responsibility to resource the work required in light of support being dropped for Token Ring. It is his responsibility to provide advice to management and to provide technical resource in any projects which are initiated off the back of the event. It his not his place to protect the business from the effects of an external influence beyond his contractual duties. In IT we are not gods and cannot work magic, only long hours, and if we're not getting paid for them, why should we? And if we are, why are we complaining? And if we feel the balance between work hours and non-work hours is wrong, why did we accept our contract of employment which allows such abuse of employees? And if it isn't in the contract, we don't have to.
At least that is how it works in civilised countries.
Don't get so personal about your work. If the timescales can't be met because of external factors, tell your management. If you need more people on board because of external factors, tell your management. If goalposts need to be moved because of blah blah, blah blah. This is not your problem!
the idea that every bad event must be blamed on a named individual.
That's not the idea. The idea is that in an organised effort to achieve an objective (run a restaurant for a night, put a man in space, create a piece of software), there should be responsibility allocated for the different kinds of risks which might derail the effort. When the effort is in fact derailed in an uncontrolled manner, either the individual with responsibility for mitigating the causative risk is to blame, or the person with responsibility for identifying risks and allocating responsibilities is to blame.
We don't blame weathermen for bad weather. We do blame them if they predict good weather and it turns out to be bad, because their job is to provide the information we need to mitigate against bad weather.
the first window of Dreamweaver - where it asks you what you want to create
Silly question - dreams of course!
Have you looked at phpGroupware or it's prettier offshoot eGroupware? They come with one, maybe two forum modules. The one I used was Fudforum, bad name but it works. Works with either PostgreSQL or MySQL, at least on Debian you get the choice at install time.
Seeing as you've posted on the topic I don't think you're in a position to moderate, unless you have a separate moderation account, which would not be cricket.
Personally my answer to the opening question is "No". I think that example depends on the surveyee having no real opinion of their own in the first place, rather than a skillful surveyor who can somehow introduce cognitive dissonance where previously there was none. It's good for a laugh once, though.
Hya!
Actually, I said it is the fault of the search engine (designer)! It would be wonderful if you'd reread my original post in order to verify this!
Anyway it was great to hear from you, I love hearing from you and I hope you are doing well. how are things? I hear the weather is kinda tough in your area just now but Oh Well! We grin and bear it!
Look forward to meeting up soon you fucking idiot!
Yours Sincerely,
Joe Pasquale.
Thanks for that, I downloaded and read the document. It was interesting but I don't understand, if it is of value, why this is freely available on their web site to download. Yes, it's an advert for their Gopher software, but some of the stuff in their only works if it is kept secret, like their Single Bullet story... I registered as John Smith, name@company.com...
What you say is true but is not what I'm talking about. I wasn't annoyed at being asked simple questions, I was annoyed at being asked:
- How long did you spend in your last job?
- How many "years experience" of such-and-such skill do you have?
- Is your experience more "administration" or "support"?
- What products do you have experience with?
- Where are you working now?
- How much notice do you need to give?
- Where do you live?
and so on.
I spend time and care preparing and updating my CV so it presents all this information in a clear and concise manner. I don't need to be quizzed on this information by a recruitment agency. It's right in fucking front of them. This particular case struck me as someone who either wasn't fit for work that day, or doesn't understand the market for which they are recruiting and has contempt for their candidates. How else can I explain the fact that they obviously didn't read the first few lines of my CV?
I think the reference is to this:
And she tried to make me feel that I might not be up to scratch for the job. She didn't even know what was involved in doing the job! That makes me angry.
Well, here in the UK the only document I've ever heard people talking about (in my 33 years) is the CV and it doesn't have to be long or detailed. Americans are the only people I have heard talking or writing about resumes.
Don't be ridiculous, it is the fault of the search engine (designer). Specifically, why are people still relying on free text search? It indicates a lack of knowledge of the marketplace. A long time ago people invented relational database systems, which let you have tables with fields. Fields can hold different values and you can put validation on those values. Hmm, how about a table called prog_lang with an row for each programming language in demand in the market place? Let's have a couple of columns, lang_id and lang_text. My bet is that if you added a row with lang_id 1 and lang_text c, then you added another row with lang_id 2 and lang_text c++, you might just be able to distinguish between C and C++. Hey, then you might be able to populate a web search form with check boxes and radio buttons rather than an empty text input box expecting stupid C AND NOT (VB OR C++) strings.... and if a job comes in requiring a programming language which isn't listed, ADD A ROW!
FFS.
Of course the reason no-one does this is because it seems like too much effort. It's much easier, apparently, just to leave the skills matching to the initial phone call. For instance, I was called by a recruiter this morning who spent 30 minutes asking stupid questions 99% of which were covered in the CV (resume for yanks) I sent last night and to which she was responding. I had to bite my lip from saying "Did you even READ my CV? Do you actually know anything about the skills required in this job?" because she hadn't and she didn't. Yet she is in a position of power over my next pay cheque!! And she tried to make me feel that I might not be up to scratch for the job. She didn't even know what was involved in doing the job! That makes me angry.
Or you could just take the position that the price will rise as different uses compete for the dwindiling supply, and that people will naturaly react by scaling back their uses in the way that optimizes their happiness, given their means, with no government action required. In my view, the second postion is exactly the right one.
Well, this just makes me think of single occupant SUVs being driven on trivial errands. It is wrong, because it causes needless suffering. Excessive consumption of a critical finite resource is an offence to those with whom we share the world. I don't know how to change this, though, other than an appeal to conscience, another scarce resource.
Irrelevant. You claimed it was a tautology -- necessarily true. It's not.
It is necessarily true, in the real world, just not in your abstract world where fractions of a cup of oil are evidence of continued availability.
And there are things they will be capable of even though you predicted they won't be. One small difference: people who actually invest their own money predicated on these beliefs tend to disagree with you. If they're so obviously wrong, why not steal their profits?
You can't let go of this idea that I'm making some claim about oil. I'm not saying these people are wrong. I'm saying they could well be wrong. I don't care what they do with their money and I don't see the significance. To them it's a gamble and they gamble what they can afford. Maybe they all think like you. Markets are not rational.
Go get a math book. Find the sum of 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... It's finite.
Of course that's true, but it's also absurd to say that consumption of oil follows an infinite series. When we have a cupful of oil left, shall we only extract half a cup? Where is the remaining 1/4096th of a dodo?
I have a "preference" for giving you a meaningful understanding of what's going on.
I appreciate that.
They know there's money to be made finding energy, or copper, or diamonds. You'll never be able to predict what they'll be capable of, or else you would have done it yourself already.
Exactly, you'll never be able to predict what they're capable of, and there are things they won't be capable of even though you predicted they would be.
Don't insult my intelligence. You said "Oil running out is a concrete and inevitable (given continued consumption) event with no precedent." You're making a particular claim about oil.
This is not a claim, it's a tautology. Finite resources, continually consumed. In other words, eventual depletion.
You do have a preference for the abstract because I had to bleed you like a stone to get concrete examples in place of your exposition of economic theory.
Copper and diamonds: guess what, they'll run out too given continued consumption. I have no idea when this will happen. Fortunately, in both cases, there are non-fringe alternatives. Copper can be recycled, too. Diamonds are not that important.
Incorrect predicitions of the depletion of the world's copper reserves were based on an incorrect appreciation of the size of those reserves. I am making no prediction as to when the oil reserves will dry up. As I said, I make no claims. I do however reiterate the fact that oil, given continued consumption, will run out.
Thanks for providing these concrete examples. I've wasted some time discussing this with another fellow who seems to be blind to these words.
However I do have a hard time with these examples. I have to disregard the dye, although I was interested to read about it, for the obvious reason of its being dye. Rubber is certainly important, but I am sure it's not as important as oil is today. Almost every westerner consumes oil or oil-derived products daily, and when I say consumes, I mean burns. The same cannot and could not ever be said for rubber, or dye. Thus the availability of a non-fringe alternative becomes critical. Economic theory has explained situations where alternatives were available, or became available. You seem to be betting on an alternative to oil. This is pure speculation. That is my point.
You're essentially claiming that you know more than all of the people actually acting in the market.
Uh... no I'm not. What I said was So all I'm saying is don't be so sure that the world will behave like economic "theory" suggests. Implicit in that statement is I'm not making any particular claim about oil.
Actually, you're not responding to my posts. You're just responding to your idea of my posts, which may be symptomatic of your preference for the abstract over the concrete!
Now, I hesitate to say this in case you ignore my previous paragraph. But here goes. Diamond and copper are not the same as oil - we don't all depend on them and there are non-fringe alternatives. If copper runs out, my peecee still works even though it depends on copper. Yes, they are important commodities, but they are not the same.
I didn't provide the empirical observations, partly because there aren't any*
Precisely my original point. I'm not being flippant although it may seem that way, but your original post shrugged off a rather serious real-world concern with appeal to an untested hypothesis.
Do you demand empirical evidence of the Pythagorean Theorem?
No, because I can test it myself, and because it is part of an abstract construct (mathematics) within whose rules it is provable. Oil running out is a concrete and inevitable (given continued consumption) event with no precedent. Your economic "theory" is a pretty useless theory because it can only be tested in the midst of disaster. All we can do is make conjecture. So all I'm saying is don't be so sure that the world will behave like economic "theory" suggests.
Thanks for the lesson but you rather ignorantly avoided my question completely. Well done!
As you know economic theory is a model of reality; so what is the basis in reality of your economist's claim? What examples of depletion of finite resources do we have to lend your statement credibility? No doubt they exist but I would like to know what they are, for the comfort factor. Of course, a key attribute of such an exemplary resource would be that everyone relies on it and there's no clear alternative (although there may be several fringe alternatives).
Quick, everyone in their pigeon holes, Spiderman has spoken!