I realize the OP was about working with recruiters specifically, but I can tell you from both personal experience and also from anecdotal evidence based on conversations with *many* small business employers, this behavior is reaching epidemic proportions. And I know I risk being torched by saying this, but the problem is the WORST among twenty-somethings.
We run a small business. We don't use a recruiter, we place local ads and use word-of-mouth to find candidates. We schedule interviews, not by emailing and "telling" them when to show up, but by speaking directly with the candidates by phone, and having the candidates agree to interview at a specific day and time. Our no-show rate is approximately 67%. For SCHEDULED interviews, where the candidate has volunteered and agreed to come at that time.
Now, our industry is probably a bit higher than average for this behavior, but I am on several boards and in several business organizations which provide the opportunity to take straw-polls of other employers in other industries, locales, etc. I hear the same thing from every one of them. This behavior has become commonplace, and particularly among those under 30.
There are countless good-paying jobs going un-filled or slowly-filled, partly because there simply are not enough candidates bothering to investigate the opportunities. I see it every single day. To boot, I work in a small-ish market, and YES, these people are pouring red ink all over their CV and future employability. This is one of those towns where almost everyone knows everyone. Honestly, it is a real head-shaker.
I have tried these drugs twice, and each time never made it through the two weeks. They triggered severe, daily migraines, with extreme halo effects. It literally felt like they messed with my brain. I will never take them again.
This is completely ignorant. A fully-reusable multi-stage system (which is essentially the goal of SpaceX) expends nothing but fuel and oxidizer... and your SSTO is better than that HOW?
Functional SSTO will probably eventually happen, but for anyone who knows anything, the most likely scenario is that improvements in engineering and materials science will render most use cases for SSTO moot. With better (lighter, stronger) materials, efficiency and lift capabilities for reusable multi-stage vehicles skyrocket (pun intended)... and cost-per-pound drops to close to consumer levels. At that time, the only use cases for SSTO that will make economic sense will be high-end military and specialized commercial applications... a good analogy would be the requirement for a supersonic jet versus the everyday application of a 757 (for things like freight transport).
Another analogy... we still transport by truck and rail... WHY? I mean, when we have fighter jets that can do Mach 2, why not deliver my packet of coffee creamers from Amazon Prime using those F-22's?
First of all, in spite of some scientific & other issues, I really liked the movie, and I especially thought the several bits of 'homage' were well-handled.
HOWEVER -
If you are going to nitpick the science, you really don't need to get into the quantum physics at all. They clearly have the technology (and had it developed quite a few years before the time in which the film is set) to make use of re-usable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) space craft. I don't understand why the initial launch required a large booster rocket, either... because mater the Ranger craft is able to achieve orbit from a planet with 90% Earth-gravity without any such assist.
So - if you have a fast, obviously re-usable SSTO craft that can hurl a bunch of mass into orbit over & over, you really don't need the dang wormhole. As anyone who really understands these things can tell you, if you have affordable, reliable, RE-USABLE SSTO craft, you can do all kinds of neat-o things which involve getting lots of mass off this rock (including starting a colony in space, on the moon, or even Mars).
With decades in which to work, and a presumably well-motivated civilization, they would never have reached this point of desperation in the first place. If you can throw enough mass (materials, fuel, equipment, people) into low-earth orbit with a fleet of re-usable SSTO craft (the Rangers)... and do it thousands of times over perhaps decades of time, you will have no problem expanding the reach of your civilization beyond a single planet.
Not only do they have a long track record of reasonable, methodical engineering & development, Urban Aero has the *ONLY* design with promising practical characteristics, coupled with no showstopping requirements for "maybe in ten years" technologies.
THIS will be the first practical "flying car", if you must call it that.
Do a little actual historical research... visit a library. Ever hear of the Wright B Flyer??
1910. Their FIFTH practical design. (Flyers I, II, and III, Model A, Model B) Landing gear, elevator at the rear, capable of carrying a PASSENGER, and produced in quantity, not a "one-off" experiment. Sold under contract to various branches of the U.S. military. And you can take a ride on one anytime you like at the Wright Brothers airport in south Dayton, Ohio.
Furthermore, in the years between 1903 & 1910, the Wrights flew ALL THE TIME around the Huffman Prairie fields, just a couple of miles outside of the Dayton city limits. ANYONE could lean against the fence & watch them go. (Again, do some light reading on the subject.)
Call it "political will"... "moral fortitude"... whatever. Once the tech is available, the only thing preventing any group from making a large project like this happen is the will to do it. Which is precisely why we probably WILL have a Mars mission (manned) by 2033... but it WILL NOT be the government doing it.
Private enterprise has the will, the stated goal, is gathering the money, and refining the tech. Elon Musk is not the only one, either.
People routinely OVERestimate how difficult this will be once the will is in-place.
(Note: having the will to "do it" includes the acceptance of the RISK involved. Kinda like Everest climbers and cave divers.)
I get tired of pointing these guys out... but if you do your homework you will realize they are the real deal... and they are not rushing anything just to get some cheap PR. Eventually, I am confident they will succeed:
These guys have it just about there. Won't be the vehicle for "everyman"... but (a la Blade Runner) the military, police, fire & rescue, diplomats, etc, etc.
As far as adding value (and therefore commanding a better hourly rate) the "cert du jour" is arguably the PMP (Project Management Professional) from the Project Management Institute.
"... we are long, long years away from any sort of "cruise ship in space" experience."
Well... depending on how you define that phrase, perhaps not as long as you imply.
Just a bit of Googling illustrates the fact that an orbital "hotel" (okay, perhaps more like a rented office space available on a month-to-month lease) capable of hosting a dozen people at a time is at most five years away. (Bigelow Aerospace)
Once there is a commercial capsule available for transport (SpaceX, three years), and a habitable destination available for stays of weeks at a time for mere millions of dollars per person, then the phrase "cruise ship in space" starts to sound less and less ridiculous.
Based on current projections from SpaceX and Bigelow, some cocktail napkin figures would probably place a week in space at an "orbiting hotel" in the range of about $15M per visitor.
Definitely in the realm of "billionaire tourist", but already being regularly snapped-up at a higher price than that via Space Adventures, Inc. In fact, it is widely known there is more demand than capacity for such trips NOW, due to the limited access at the ISS.
However, this calculation ignores the fact that with potentially hundreds of launches per year, costs will be reduced significantly. There indeed will be economies of scale in the commercial space industry.
In just one example, such a destination could easily spur development of a large passenger module for the Falcon Heavy rocket, which could potentially transport dozens of people per launch (estimated at $120M). In addition, larger Bigelow stations to host more people are not simply a possibility, they are already in the plan.
It is not a stretch to imagine costs for a week in space coming down into the range of "several million dollars" within a decade, in which case the market opens to quite a large number of people.
I, for one, welcome our new commercial space overlords.
"You see, to be quite frank, Kevin, the fabric of the universe is far from perfect. It was a bit of botched job, you see. We only had seven days to make it."
As mentioned, the sci-fi, the science, the palpable sensuality of it's envisioned future... it was the death of OMNI which led me to seek solace in the emergent WIRED. For a time, it was a suitable heir.
And the death of WIRED (just try and argue that it ain't) has led me... nowhere.
I'd gladly pay $36 a year for a worthy successor to either one.
What do ten year-olds typically do on their birthdays? I think mine had a make-over party with her friends from school. This party may take a bit of thought...
Slashdot Mirror
I realize the OP was about working with recruiters specifically, but I can tell you from both personal experience and also from anecdotal evidence based on conversations with *many* small business employers, this behavior is reaching epidemic proportions. And I know I risk being torched by saying this, but the problem is the WORST among twenty-somethings.
We run a small business. We don't use a recruiter, we place local ads and use word-of-mouth to find candidates. We schedule interviews, not by emailing and "telling" them when to show up, but by speaking directly with the candidates by phone, and having the candidates agree to interview at a specific day and time. Our no-show rate is approximately 67%. For SCHEDULED interviews, where the candidate has volunteered and agreed to come at that time.
Now, our industry is probably a bit higher than average for this behavior, but I am on several boards and in several business organizations which provide the opportunity to take straw-polls of other employers in other industries, locales, etc. I hear the same thing from every one of them. This behavior has become commonplace, and particularly among those under 30.
There are countless good-paying jobs going un-filled or slowly-filled, partly because there simply are not enough candidates bothering to investigate the opportunities. I see it every single day. To boot, I work in a small-ish market, and YES, these people are pouring red ink all over their CV and future employability. This is one of those towns where almost everyone knows everyone. Honestly, it is a real head-shaker.
I have tried these drugs twice, and each time never made it through the two weeks. They triggered severe, daily migraines, with extreme halo effects. It literally felt like they messed with my brain. I will never take them again.
YES. "Progressive" lenses are NOT bi-focals, as the OP suggests. They are completely different, and - yes - harder to adapt to.
Oh, FFS! If you think von Braun or Einstein were "immigrants" in any comparable sense of the word, there is absolutely no hope for you.
I can't believe how many times I have had to reference this old film in the past six months:
... lighten up and enjoy it.
The Kingdom of Mocha
Caveats:
1) It isn't a perfect illustration, but it helps provide a foundation for understanding that too many contemporary posters sorely lack.
2) It is filled with politically incorrect (but hilarious) stereotyping
Having at least this entry-level understanding of how a basic economy and tax system works is a prerequisite to useful discussion of a topic like UBI.
This is completely ignorant. A fully-reusable multi-stage system (which is essentially the goal of SpaceX) expends nothing but fuel and oxidizer ... and your SSTO is better than that HOW?
Functional SSTO will probably eventually happen, but for anyone who knows anything, the most likely scenario is that improvements in engineering and materials science will render most use cases for SSTO moot. With better (lighter, stronger) materials, efficiency and lift capabilities for reusable multi-stage vehicles skyrocket (pun intended) ... and cost-per-pound drops to close to consumer levels. At that time, the only use cases for SSTO that will make economic sense will be high-end military and specialized commercial applications ... a good analogy would be the requirement for a supersonic jet versus the everyday application of a 757 (for things like freight transport).
Another analogy ... we still transport by truck and rail ... WHY? I mean, when we have fighter jets that can do Mach 2, why not deliver my packet of coffee creamers from Amazon Prime using those F-22's?
As the kids like to say ... SMDH.
Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV?
Don't know the answer?
Hmm. Successful, isn't it?
- Max Headroom
First of all, in spite of some scientific & other issues, I really liked the movie, and I especially thought the several bits of 'homage' were well-handled.
HOWEVER -
If you are going to nitpick the science, you really don't need to get into the quantum physics at all. They clearly have the technology (and had it developed quite a few years before the time in which the film is set) to make use of re-usable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) space craft. I don't understand why the initial launch required a large booster rocket, either ... because mater the Ranger craft is able to achieve orbit from a planet with 90% Earth-gravity without any such assist.
So - if you have a fast, obviously re-usable SSTO craft that can hurl a bunch of mass into orbit over & over, you really don't need the dang wormhole. As anyone who really understands these things can tell you, if you have affordable, reliable, RE-USABLE SSTO craft, you can do all kinds of neat-o things which involve getting lots of mass off this rock (including starting a colony in space, on the moon, or even Mars).
With decades in which to work, and a presumably well-motivated civilization, they would never have reached this point of desperation in the first place. If you can throw enough mass (materials, fuel, equipment, people) into low-earth orbit with a fleet of re-usable SSTO craft (the Rangers) ... and do it thousands of times over perhaps decades of time, you will have no problem expanding the reach of your civilization beyond a single planet.
Problem solved.
The movie was, and is, utterly un-watchable crap. And this is coming from someone who enjoys the occasional "so bad it's good" romp.
Anyone who falls for this deconstructionist drivel is a fool.
Not only do they have a long track record of reasonable, methodical engineering & development, Urban Aero has the *ONLY* design with promising practical characteristics, coupled with no showstopping requirements for "maybe in ten years" technologies.
THIS will be the first practical "flying car", if you must call it that.
Http://www.urbanaero.com
You, sir, are an idiot.
Do a little actual historical research ... visit a library. Ever hear of the Wright B Flyer??
1910. Their FIFTH practical design. (Flyers I, II, and III, Model A, Model B) Landing gear, elevator at the rear, capable of carrying a PASSENGER, and produced in quantity, not a "one-off" experiment. Sold under contract to various branches of the U.S. military. And you can take a ride on one anytime you like at the Wright Brothers airport in south Dayton, Ohio.
Furthermore, in the years between 1903 & 1910, the Wrights flew ALL THE TIME around the Huffman Prairie fields, just a couple of miles outside of the Dayton city limits. ANYONE could lean against the fence & watch them go. (Again, do some light reading on the subject.)
"Secretive"? Hardly.
The resource that is lacking is WILL.
Call it "political will" ... "moral fortitude" ... whatever. Once the tech is available, the only thing preventing any group from making a large project like this happen is the will to do it. Which is precisely why we probably WILL have a Mars mission (manned) by 2033 ... but it WILL NOT be the government doing it.
Private enterprise has the will, the stated goal, is gathering the money, and refining the tech. Elon Musk is not the only one, either.
People routinely OVERestimate how difficult this will be once the will is in-place.
(Note: having the will to "do it" includes the acceptance of the RISK involved. Kinda like Everest climbers and cave divers.)
... features Lotus Notes and a machine gun.
It is the finest available.
>Fascism: the merger of corporate and state interests.
Huh?
Where did you get this definition, or did you just make it up? Or did you transcribe it from the "Peoples Microphone" last summer in NYC?
*sigh*
I get tired of pointing these guys out ... but if you do your homework you will realize they are the real deal ... and they are not rushing anything just to get some cheap PR. Eventually, I am confident they will succeed:
http://www.urbanaero.com
These guys have it just about there. ... but (a la Blade Runner) the military, police, fire & rescue, diplomats, etc, etc.
Won't be the vehicle for "everyman"
http://www.urbanaero.com
I have worked in the belly of this very beast ... and although much wisdom has been shared in this thread, the true solution can be found right here:
http://programming-motherfucker.com/
As far as adding value (and therefore commanding a better hourly rate) the "cert du jour" is arguably the PMP (Project Management Professional) from the Project Management Institute.
As the recently popularized joke goes:
Q: What does and engineer call a PMP?
A: Boss.
Of course, YMMV ...
"... we are long, long years away from any sort of "cruise ship in space" experience."
Well ... depending on how you define that phrase, perhaps not as long as you imply.
Just a bit of Googling illustrates the fact that an orbital "hotel" (okay, perhaps more like a rented office space available on a month-to-month lease) capable of hosting a dozen people at a time is at most five years away. (Bigelow Aerospace)
Once there is a commercial capsule available for transport (SpaceX, three years), and a habitable destination available for stays of weeks at a time for mere millions of dollars per person, then the phrase "cruise ship in space" starts to sound less and less ridiculous.
Based on current projections from SpaceX and Bigelow, some cocktail napkin figures would probably place a week in space at an "orbiting hotel" in the range of about $15M per visitor.
Definitely in the realm of "billionaire tourist", but already being regularly snapped-up at a higher price than that via Space Adventures, Inc. In fact, it is widely known there is more demand than capacity for such trips NOW, due to the limited access at the ISS.
However, this calculation ignores the fact that with potentially hundreds of launches per year, costs will be reduced significantly. There indeed will be economies of scale in the commercial space industry.
In just one example, such a destination could easily spur development of a large passenger module for the Falcon Heavy rocket, which could potentially transport dozens of people per launch (estimated at $120M). In addition, larger Bigelow stations to host more people are not simply a possibility, they are already in the plan.
It is not a stretch to imagine costs for a week in space coming down into the range of "several million dollars" within a decade, in which case the market opens to quite a large number of people.
I, for one, welcome our new commercial space overlords.
"You see, to be quite frank, Kevin, the fabric of the universe is far from perfect. It was a bit of botched job, you see. We only had seven days to make it."
OMNI rocked in all the ways that matter.
As mentioned, the sci-fi, the science, the palpable sensuality of it's envisioned future ... it was the death of OMNI which led me to seek solace in the emergent WIRED. For a time, it was a suitable heir.
And the death of WIRED (just try and argue that it ain't) has led me ... nowhere.
I'd gladly pay $36 a year for a worthy successor to either one.
My security system must needs include a newer, betterer selection of colors.
*adjusts eyepatch*
All squirrels will be exempt from TSA screening, of course.
Sorry dude - she's taken:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DC133FF933A15752C0A967958260
Always interesting when people put their foot in their mouth publicly, without stopping to consider how much of their lives are available for review.
What do ten year-olds typically do on their birthdays? I think mine had a make-over party with her friends from school. This party may take a bit of thought ...
Long live Slashdot!
Yay!
I was the first one who said it.