Is the Music apples sells through iTunes exclusive? I mean, can REAL.COM sell the same music? If not, then Apple is monopolizing, if so, than I agree with other posters: just buy a different MP3 player, the same you would if you wanted to play Xbox and PC games.
I think you misunderstood me: I didn't say clever, I said overachievers. Yes, 4.0 is the top grade in the majority of institutions (some have a 5.0 system, some don't even have GPAs).
There are clever folks who got 2.0s because they spent a semester smoking hashish. They could be the best hacker in the world and I'd miss their resume.
I'm talking about the kids who ran a blood pressure of 180/100 all year long. The ones who felt driven by some bizarre need to be part of everything: crew, Tau Beta Pi, class ring comittee (even in college!), alumni association, interns, side jobs, helping out at the homeless shelter... The perfectionists. The booksmart. The memorizers.
Most of the 4.0s at my school were squintly little Asian dudes and newly immigrated Indians (the ones that avoided alchohol, that is -- I hope Uj isn't reading this!;-). Out of a graduating class of ~300, I only knew two honkeys (like myself) that got 4.0s, one was a stress monster and the other was a the model ROTC boy. Neither of them enjoyed the curriculum.
Why were they there? Beats me. The people I spent weekends in the labs with writing code, building circuits, or machining and welding stuff were all in the 2.5-3.2 GPA range, but they LIVED for engineering, not grades. Those are the men and women I want to hire: the ones who worked hard to get good grades because they had to play the game (or they really liked the material), but who spent their free time doing barely quantifiable hacking projects.
Just once I'd love to see on a resume under Other Interests: "Spending weekends hacking Linux code and building LEGO mindstorm robots..." or SOMETHING that isn't what they were told people interview want to hear.
This has got to be the longest rant I've ever trolle^H^H^H^H^H^H engaged in.
Noble of you to re-view the chaff. How do you handle situations when you get 50 resumes, all candidates are from the same university, have a 4.0 and did the same research projects (I swear I saw three dozen resumes from Bangalore who did FIR filters! Same resumes, different names!). Feh!
Even what they did for fun was nearly the same. Since I HAD to phone screen 5 candidates per day (requirement), I essentially randomly picked.
30% of the resumes are coming from india and look identical. It is so hard to pick who to screen.
Stereotypes are necessary and a part of everyday life. Everyone constantly uses stereotypes (what a great sentence!). It is the only way to get things done efficiently without being bogged down.
Everyone has bashed or reasonably criticized my method...
BUT NO ONE HAS PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE!
It is easier to criticize that to assist, obviously.
Tell me an efficient and reasonably fast way to get though 100 resumes in an hour, please! What is the best way???
Anyone? Anyone? Beuler?
No comments? I didn't think so.
That astute reader would comment that I shouldn't be reviewing resumes, or I should delegate the work to people who can spend more time. But alas, such is life.
I meant superperformer as in "how they performed in academic work". My point was that in their career, they basically made a lot of noise: three of them created entire systems of simulation in three different divisions that yeilded ZERO usable results.
So how does your system handle people who did poorly their first year, left, did something useful, came back and excelled?
That's an excellent point. My system isn't perfect. I would miss this good candidate. Hopefully someone else working on the resumes caught it, and hopefully if they did something useful, they can do it again! But in general, sub 3 is a hard number to justify.
My company gets thousands of resumes a week. We absolutely need a first-line filter. It is GPA.
In my career I have found that GPA is a very good indicator of a whole host of things. When I get a pile of resumes on my desk, I skip the 4.0s and throw out the 3.0s, if nothing turns up in between, I go back to the 4.0s.
4.0 = uptight asshole or passionless droid
3.5ish = smart but obviously had to work at it
3.0 = probably only excelled in things s/he liked
3.0 forget it, not worth my time because you shouldn't have been in college if you can't maintain a high-B low-A average.
The 3.0-3.5 range implies they are not suzuki-method droids, but actually had to work as proof by some low grades (so not everything came easily to them), OR, they cared about something enough to get an A and demoted things they didn't care about. This shows promise in my eyes.
Regarding college 4.0s, my gripe is that they tend to be passionless about what they master, but they seem to master quite a bit. I sound like I'm knocking them, but not really: most 4.0s in college studied their ASSES off and never developed a social life. While this is admirable, there is more to excelling at a career than studying what's in a book.
I can easily recall 5 superperformers at my company (4.0 doctorates from top schools with 3-5 years experience at work), and they all share the same traits: stubborn, egocentric, verbose, scared of precision error greater than 1e-10, and always in the goddamn way of deadlines!
Ha ha ha!!! I laugh at all of you who thought this would dominate ANY market segment, and who saw this as anything more than an academic study.
It was a dumb idea to begin with, but was so cool and flashy, and had LINUS written in big letters on everything that it was more a fan item than a viable product.
How could a dynamic architecture possibly complete with a tuned architecture? Everyone knows this: tuned assembly is always faster, better, cheaper, than an all-in-one programming language. The software analogy holds to hardware.
This was an academic exercise, a graduate student thesis with a lot of investing capital and some big industry names.
I'm happy it was done and it was an exciting adventure, but never for an instant did I think it would succeed, and it has NOTHING to do with monopolostic theories. Those of you claiming the MAN held them down should look closesly: THE ENTIRE SEMICONDUCTOR industry has focused its guns on low power, and with 1000x the engineering brains, you bet yer ass Transmeta would eventually be outgunned. This has nothing to do with an unfair free market as some of you have whined.
Not trying to start a flame war with you, but can you back this urban legend thing up with some links? It is rare the PBS and the History chanel really bone things this badly (except when they have David Blaine specials on!)
I saw an PBS documentary that said it went up because it was painted with solid rocket fuel: aluminum powder and iron oxide. They said the hydrogen would have escaped before it had a chance to ignite and explode.
Now as for a compressed H2 tank exploding in a car, that seems more likely.
I just read a collection of articles talking about his poverty and I completely forgot how many times he raves about being an addict. Good point.
But he still made very little money, something like a maximum $12,000 the year he spent writing 4 novels in the 70's, but typically averaging $4k a year. Since a VW Beetle was ~3k in the 70's, I guess 4k is not a lot.
Now if he had lived long enough to reap the options his estate claims, I suppose he'd be as compensated as the lead actors.
So this degenerates into a thread of: is anyone worth millions and millions of dollars for their job?
...have had the success enough to get him the cash.
PKD died before his first movie was optioned. My point still stands.
You cannot possibly argue that Brad Pitt's salary is justified compared to say, a teacher or a garbage man. (Pull your kids out of school or don't empty your garbage for a week and see what I mean).
Are Hopkins and Washington your idea of good actors? That point means two different things depending.
I'm a cinema snob, I admit it. And I laugh at how people on this board (not you) claim to be all counterculture with their OSX and Linux flavors, but then bow to the Microsoft version of cinema that lives in the hollywood blockbuster.
Instead of paying one star 20 million for a picture why not pay 200 actors 100,000 for several movies? Duh cuz that would make sense...[well not for the self-centered power-tripping millionaire fake people].
Bingo! I like your style. In a perfect world, the market decides the $$$ worth of a job, and I think we all can agree than John Travolta, Collin Farell, Hillary Duff, Sandra Bullock, Jeniffer Aniston and all those other frauds deserve a big fat realty bitch-slap.
Philip Dick lived in poverty and ate fvcking dogfood when writing so that idiots like Tom Cruise and Ah-nuld could make millions off of PKD's plots.
Hah hah! I remember the episode where Mark and Trini are playing with a quilt making program, making big blocky squares on the screen. Sweet!
Did you ever watch "Bits and Bytes" with Billy Van? It was on local PBS right before the BBC broadcast of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", sometime in 1980. I remember Billy explaining how a graphics tablet worked while drawing in apple hires mode (279 by 151 8 color mode!)
Summer after 4th grade (1981) I took a summer course: 4 days, using an Apple ][+, learning LOGO. We also had an Atari 800. I still have my first project printed out on 13" white/green lined formfeed dotmatrix: it drew a pacman ghost.
The following year in 5th grade I had a TI 49 and a Commodore PET at my disposal. All we had were tape/catridge games, so I didn't learn much except how to look at other people's source code, which didn't make any sense at my age. The teachers knew nothing at the time.
6th grade was the only year a teacher took the initiative, and using another TI49, she gave me a list of programming flash cards from a tutorial and I REALLY learned BASIC.
After that it was 100% on my own at home on the Apple//e using Beagle Brothers software and some basic programming books from the Waite Group. I progressed to an IBM and C in 1986 yadda yadda yadda...
Logo was fun enough to get me thinking about programming, but I think the 6th grade teacher who forced me to go through the flashcards at a slow pace and really do the exercises to learn basic taught me the most. When I finished the cards I was able to write a simple "galaga" like game which was really rewarding.
I'd like to note that although/. is aggressively pro-Linux and anti-M$, and despite this pro-Linux propaganda, the/. community has remained largely objective to this study.
I guess coding discipline trumps O/S bias and politics.
Slashdot Mirror
iI iThink iThat iJobs iAnd iApple iAre iTaking iThis iI iPrefix iThing iToo iFar i.
Is the Music apples sells through iTunes exclusive? I mean, can REAL.COM sell the same music? If not, then Apple is monopolizing, if so, than I agree with other posters: just buy a different MP3 player, the same you would if you wanted to play Xbox and PC games.
I think you misunderstood me: I didn't say clever, I said overachievers. Yes, 4.0 is the top grade in the majority of institutions (some have a 5.0 system, some don't even have GPAs).
;-). Out of a graduating class of ~300, I only knew two honkeys (like myself) that got 4.0s, one was a stress monster and the other was a the model ROTC boy. Neither of them enjoyed the curriculum.
There are clever folks who got 2.0s because they spent a semester smoking hashish. They could be the best hacker in the world and I'd miss their resume.
I'm talking about the kids who ran a blood pressure of 180/100 all year long. The ones who felt driven by some bizarre need to be part of everything: crew, Tau Beta Pi, class ring comittee (even in college!), alumni association, interns, side jobs, helping out at the homeless shelter... The perfectionists. The booksmart. The memorizers.
Most of the 4.0s at my school were squintly little Asian dudes and newly immigrated Indians (the ones that avoided alchohol, that is -- I hope Uj isn't reading this!
Why were they there? Beats me. The people I spent weekends in the labs with writing code, building circuits, or machining and welding stuff were all in the 2.5-3.2 GPA range, but they LIVED for engineering, not grades. Those are the men and women I want to hire: the ones who worked hard to get good grades because they had to play the game (or they really liked the material), but who spent their free time doing barely quantifiable hacking projects.
Just once I'd love to see on a resume under Other Interests: "Spending weekends hacking Linux code and building LEGO mindstorm robots..." or SOMETHING that isn't what they were told people interview want to hear.
This has got to be the longest rant I've ever trolle^H^H^H^H^H^H engaged in.
While I agree with you, you failed to propose any alternatives. So we're in the same boat.
Noble of you to re-view the chaff. How do you handle situations when you get 50 resumes, all candidates are from the same university, have a 4.0 and did the same research projects (I swear I saw three dozen resumes from Bangalore who did FIR filters! Same resumes, different names!). Feh!
Even what they did for fun was nearly the same. Since I HAD to phone screen 5 candidates per day (requirement), I essentially randomly picked.
30% of the resumes are coming from india and look identical. It is so hard to pick who to screen.
Stereotypes are necessary and a part of everyday life. Everyone constantly uses stereotypes (what a great sentence!). It is the only way to get things done efficiently without being bogged down.
Everyone has bashed or reasonably criticized my method...
BUT NO ONE HAS PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE!
It is easier to criticize that to assist, obviously.
Tell me an efficient and reasonably fast way to get though 100 resumes in an hour, please! What is the best way???
Anyone? Anyone? Beuler?
No comments? I didn't think so.
That astute reader would comment that I shouldn't be reviewing resumes, or I should delegate the work to people who can spend more time. But alas, such is life.
I meant superperformer as in "how they performed in academic work". My point was that in their career, they basically made a lot of noise: three of them created entire systems of simulation in three different divisions that yeilded ZERO usable results.
That is an interesting experiment, but I don't have time. I'm too busy reading emails and posting to /. ;-)
Have you tried your experiment? Or are you just throwing the idea around?
So how does your system handle people who did poorly their first year, left, did something useful, came back and excelled?
That's an excellent point. My system isn't perfect. I would miss this good candidate. Hopefully someone else working on the resumes caught it, and hopefully if they did something useful, they can do it again! But in general, sub 3 is a hard number to justify.
My company gets thousands of resumes a week. We absolutely need a first-line filter. It is GPA.
In my career I have found that GPA is a very good indicator of a whole host of things. When I get a pile of resumes on my desk, I skip the 4.0s and throw out the 3.0s, if nothing turns up in between, I go back to the 4.0s.
4.0 = uptight asshole or passionless droid
3.5ish = smart but obviously had to work at it
3.0 = probably only excelled in things s/he liked
3.0 forget it, not worth my time because you shouldn't have been in college if you can't maintain a high-B low-A average.
The 3.0-3.5 range implies they are not suzuki-method droids, but actually had to work as proof by some low grades (so not everything came easily to them), OR, they cared about something enough to get an A and demoted things they didn't care about. This shows promise in my eyes.
Regarding college 4.0s, my gripe is that they tend to be passionless about what they master, but they seem to master quite a bit. I sound like I'm knocking them, but not really: most 4.0s in college studied their ASSES off and never developed a social life. While this is admirable, there is more to excelling at a career than studying what's in a book.
I can easily recall 5 superperformers at my company (4.0 doctorates from top schools with 3-5 years experience at work), and they all share the same traits: stubborn, egocentric, verbose, scared of precision error greater than 1e-10, and always in the goddamn way of deadlines!
Ha ha ha!!! I laugh at all of you who thought this would dominate ANY market segment, and who saw this as anything more than an academic study.
It was a dumb idea to begin with, but was so cool and flashy, and had LINUS written in big letters on everything that it was more a fan item than a viable product.
How could a dynamic architecture possibly complete with a tuned architecture? Everyone knows this: tuned assembly is always faster, better, cheaper, than an all-in-one programming language. The software analogy holds to hardware.
This was an academic exercise, a graduate student thesis with a lot of investing capital and some big industry names.
I'm happy it was done and it was an exciting adventure, but never for an instant did I think it would succeed, and it has NOTHING to do with monopolostic theories. Those of you claiming the MAN held them down should look closesly: THE ENTIRE SEMICONDUCTOR industry has focused its guns on low power, and with 1000x the engineering brains, you bet yer ass Transmeta would eventually be outgunned. This has nothing to do with an unfair free market as some of you have whined.
Fascinating. Thanks for the information.
Not trying to start a flame war with you, but can you back this urban legend thing up with some links? It is rare the PBS and the History chanel really bone things this badly (except when they have David Blaine specials on!)
I saw an PBS documentary that said it went up because it was painted with solid rocket fuel: aluminum powder and iron oxide. They said the hydrogen would have escaped before it had a chance to ignite and explode.
Now as for a compressed H2 tank exploding in a car, that seems more likely.
But IANAPhysicist.
I just read a collection of articles talking about his poverty and I completely forgot how many times he raves about being an addict. Good point.
But he still made very little money, something like a maximum $12,000 the year he spent writing 4 novels in the 70's, but typically averaging $4k a year. Since a VW Beetle was ~3k in the 70's, I guess 4k is not a lot.
Now if he had lived long enough to reap the options his estate claims, I suppose he'd be as compensated as the lead actors.
So this degenerates into a thread of: is anyone worth millions and millions of dollars for their job?
Which is wayyyy off topic, so I'll end here.
i bet missed the irony in your posts, too.
...have had the success enough to get him the cash.
PKD died before his first movie was optioned. My point still stands.
You cannot possibly argue that Brad Pitt's salary is justified compared to say, a teacher or a garbage man. (Pull your kids out of school or don't empty your garbage for a week and see what I mean).
Are Hopkins and Washington your idea of good actors? That point means two different things depending.
I'm a cinema snob, I admit it. And I laugh at how people on this board (not you) claim to be all counterculture with their OSX and Linux flavors, but then bow to the Microsoft version of cinema that lives in the hollywood blockbuster.
i'll leave you to your humanitarian pr0n.
Instead of paying one star 20 million for a picture why not pay 200 actors 100,000 for several movies? Duh cuz that would make sense...[well not for the self-centered power-tripping millionaire fake people].
Bingo! I like your style. In a perfect world, the market decides the $$$ worth of a job, and I think we all can agree than John Travolta, Collin Farell, Hillary Duff, Sandra Bullock, Jeniffer Aniston and all those other frauds deserve a big fat realty bitch-slap.
Philip Dick lived in poverty and ate fvcking dogfood when writing so that idiots like Tom Cruise and Ah-nuld could make millions off of PKD's plots.
Hah hah! I remember the episode where Mark and Trini are playing with a quilt making program, making big blocky squares on the screen. Sweet!
Did you ever watch "Bits and Bytes" with Billy Van? It was on local PBS right before the BBC broadcast of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", sometime in 1980. I remember Billy explaining how a graphics tablet worked while drawing in apple hires mode (279 by 151 8 color mode!)
Good stuff, that PBS.
Summer after 4th grade (1981) I took a summer course: 4 days, using an Apple ][+, learning LOGO. We also had an Atari 800. I still have my first project printed out on 13" white/green lined formfeed dotmatrix: it drew a pacman ghost.
The following year in 5th grade I had a TI 49 and a Commodore PET at my disposal. All we had were tape/catridge games, so I didn't learn much except how to look at other people's source code, which didn't make any sense at my age. The teachers knew nothing at the time.
6th grade was the only year a teacher took the initiative, and using another TI49, she gave me a list of programming flash cards from a tutorial and I REALLY learned BASIC.
After that it was 100% on my own at home on the Apple
Logo was fun enough to get me thinking about programming, but I think the 6th grade teacher who forced me to go through the flashcards at a slow pace and really do the exercises to learn basic taught me the most. When I finished the cards I was able to write a simple "galaga" like game which was really rewarding.
I'd like to note that although /. is aggressively pro-Linux and anti-M$, and despite this pro-Linux propaganda, the /. community has remained largely objective to this study.
I guess coding discipline trumps O/S bias and politics.
They authors were also overheard asking the questions:
"Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?"
and
"Is it shorter to New York, or by train?"
Boners.
No, I never noticed those. Who reads manpages anyway? ;-)
Thanks for the tips.
Thanks, you should have been modded for the info.