Many companies have strict policies no to re-hire former employees, irrespective of the way the work relationship was terminated, so the above question is frankly pointless.
Sorry, but this nonsense about social ineptitude being related to technical interests is just that: inane, stupid babbling.
Many people have interests that distract most of their waking hours, but somehow it is only geeks that are singled out as socially inept.
Let me tell you something, musicians, specially in the classical tradition, will put more hours practising their instrument than any geek would reasonable spend in front of a computer, nevertheless their social and amorous life is as good as anybody's (or even better).
I could come with multiple examples of people that have "time sinks" in their life, strangely nobody stereotypes them as socially inept, so I have only to conclude that geeks are so stereotyped because they have being the most socially mobile, powerful group of people in the last 20 years or so, and thus people mock the successful.
I can take inane stereotypes from people working in other professions, after all they don't know any better, what I don't understand is geeks trying to explain a false stereotype to themselves.
The "nerd" that you describe is most atypical, I would say 1 in 30 or 40, maybe it is an stereotype true in the US, but elsewhere it just doesn't stick.
Every OS in the market probes this, with the glaring exception of MS OSes.
You can remove the browser in any other kind of machine and your computer will sit there, happily doing anything else you asking it to do, because the browser is an *user level* application.
If the brilliant Software Engineers at MS do not understand this (ha! As if...) it is not the market's fall.
Also some people here are way too young to remember how MS *abused* their monopoly in order to obliterate the competition, who were selling a product that threatened to make the Windows platform irrelevant. The threat was so real that now Google may bring that promise to fruition in spite of MS's interference.
That is what monopolies do, which is illegal, and why governments need to intervene, otherwise such companies would continue to stifle progress and innovation.
The EU can offer to MS to do the copyright patent stuff instead of fines in the range of billions (funny how people where saying EU fines were nothing, now that MS has "only" 18billion in cash, the EU fines are not that small now).
That is called a settlement and has nothing to do with Socialism.
To think so would be stupid, naive, or an unfortunate combination of both.
... which gives you access to the most important network the world has ever seen.
Still I would say that people who had a market releasing certain applications for which MS has released free alternatives would have a point to make regarding unfair competition.
If you consider the Windows juggernaut a complete commercial strategy, then forcing hardware manufacturers to buy Windows in bulk for any machine they produce, under the penalty of not being able to buy windows at all otherwise, is part of how windows is designed to "work".
Some companies have shyly introduced non MS OSes (Dell, HP, Asus) because they sense a shift in the market, and also because more likely MS no longer has the same power to "compel" companies to avoid other OSes (if OSX was available for Intel machines then MS would have a problem on their hands, shame Apple does not want to play ball).
The asinine amount of replies to this topic is completely mind boggling.
From all the fine arts, cinema is the most accessible and for the same reason the art that most matters, since all of us are exposed to it in a way that sculpture, classical music, literature, dance or architecture can only dream about.
This form of art awards prizes in different festivals and ceremonies, and undoubtedly the Oscar is the most important prize in the English speaking world, which in case you didn't know, dominates the movie industry worldwide.
So it is stuff that matters, movies are very often the only exposure that multitude of people will have to multitude of topics, for which they would otherwise not care at all.
Check this year's movies: now people know more about poverty in India, or gay activism, younger people can revisit the disastrous years of the Nixon presidency or can explore the surface of how the Nazi machine worked.
These topics are important, and it is vital that people, who don't read as much and are watching less TV nowadays, get exposure to diverse topics by means of intelligent entertainment.
The cultural apathy shown today on this thread is frankly dispiriting, it has only confirmed the stereotype of the nerd that hasn't got a life beyond the bloody computer in front of them, in spite of movies today being one of the most fertile grounds to use all kind of great gadgets and technology.
Are the Oscars an exercise of industrial wankery? Well, yes, maybe, why not. But at the very least the prize will point people out in the direction of worthwhile cinema they would have not watched otherwise (hands up who has watched "Frozen River". "Revanche", or even "Doubt", I am sure lots of people will now watch movies with a certain modicum of quality that they would have not watched otherwise).
Slashdot Mirror
Here in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world, you can find lawyers for around $100.
Surely you can do better than that wherever you are?
Honestly, I keep hearing this but frankly it is not true.
You will meet the odd acquaintance here and there, but it will be rarely in a situation in which they can block your professional progression...
Honestly, this reference business is over hyped.
You have control of who your company can contact, so I don't know whay they even bother to ask for them.
Many companies have strict policies no to re-hire former employees, irrespective of the way the work relationship was terminated, so the above question is frankly pointless.
Sorry, but this nonsense about social ineptitude being related to technical interests is just that: inane, stupid babbling.
Many people have interests that distract most of their waking hours, but somehow it is only geeks that are singled out as socially inept.
Let me tell you something, musicians, specially in the classical tradition, will put more hours practising their instrument than any geek would reasonable spend in front of a computer, nevertheless their social and amorous life is as good as anybody's (or even better).
I could come with multiple examples of people that have "time sinks" in their life, strangely nobody stereotypes them as socially inept, so I have only to conclude that geeks are so stereotyped because they have being the most socially mobile, powerful group of people in the last 20 years or so, and thus people mock the successful.
I can take inane stereotypes from people working in other professions, after all they don't know any better, what I don't understand is geeks trying to explain a false stereotype to themselves.
The stereotype you paint is unrecognisable to me.
The "nerd" that you describe is most atypical, I would say 1 in 30 or 40, maybe it is an stereotype true in the US, but elsewhere it just doesn't stick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Every OS in the market probes this, with the glaring exception of MS OSes.
You can remove the browser in any other kind of machine and your computer will sit there, happily doing anything else you asking it to do, because the browser is an *user level* application.
If the brilliant Software Engineers at MS do not understand this (ha! As if...) it is not the market's fall.
Also some people here are way too young to remember how MS *abused* their monopoly in order to obliterate the competition, who were selling a product that threatened to make the Windows platform irrelevant. The threat was so real that now Google may bring that promise to fruition in spite of MS's interference.
That is what monopolies do, which is illegal, and why governments need to intervene, otherwise such companies would continue to stifle progress and innovation.
Good morning!
I think you have a bit of a backlog of financial news in your in tray.
No, the guy that kissed you really was a Prince, that nap of yours was a bit longer than everybody expected ...
The EU can offer to MS to do the copyright patent stuff instead of fines in the range of billions (funny how people where saying EU fines were nothing, now that MS has "only" 18billion in cash, the EU fines are not that small now).
That is called a settlement and has nothing to do with Socialism.
To think so would be stupid, naive, or an unfortunate combination of both.
We don't know how exactly this is going to be enforced.
As long as a relatively recent alternative browser is provided, then the browser's installer can manage updates to newer versions automatically.
... which gives you access to the most important network the world has ever seen.
Still I would say that people who had a market releasing certain applications for which MS has released free alternatives would have a point to make regarding unfair competition.
Then you can ejaculate as much as you wish
If you consider the Windows juggernaut a complete commercial strategy, then forcing hardware manufacturers to buy Windows in bulk for any machine they produce, under the penalty of not being able to buy windows at all otherwise, is part of how windows is designed to "work".
Some companies have shyly introduced non MS OSes (Dell, HP, Asus) because they sense a shift in the market, and also because more likely MS no longer has the same power to "compel" companies to avoid other OSes (if OSX was available for Intel machines then MS would have a problem on their hands, shame Apple does not want to play ball).
It takes no more than a couple of minutes to explain what a browser is to any person of normal intelligence.
Most people think they are better than they really are.
If you get a pay cut you have more choices: carry on and wait, look for a new job, leave early and do gardening, wake up late before going to work.
If you get a layoff most likely you are in a race against the clock to regain gainful employment.
In times of plenty, yeah, bring the layoffs, that would mean getting a new job maybe with better pay.
In today's climate only somebody monumentally stupid, naive or both can really be relishing the prospect of being unemployed.
Even if you nuke your contacts on the biggest of companies it is unlikely that would finish your career.
I have rediscovered very few people along the way on my different jobs, and the people I found were in no position to block me to attain a position.
What about other email servers in the UNIX/Linux world?
Try the same nonsense with 2000 users and you are letting yourself in a place where the capital city is Pain.
So digital filmaking techniques and postproduction work (in computers) is not for nerds?
How the heck are nerds involved in making movies going to learn about the craft if they are cultural ignoramus?
Anybody involved in the movie industry should care about the Oscars, because the movies selected fro prizes show where the industry is nowadays.
And the word making the rounds is "digital". This is hughe news for all nerds, since new sources of work will be opening thatnks to this.
Bur of course we shouldn't care.
Vested interest in undermining the country?
Well buddy, you better back up those claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikas_Swarup
Which ideas has he stolen?
From where?
The asinine amount of replies to this topic is completely mind boggling.
From all the fine arts, cinema is the most accessible and for the same reason the art that most matters, since all of us are exposed to it in a way that sculpture, classical music, literature, dance or architecture can only dream about.
This form of art awards prizes in different festivals and ceremonies, and undoubtedly the Oscar is the most important prize in the English speaking world, which in case you didn't know, dominates the movie industry worldwide.
So it is stuff that matters, movies are very often the only exposure that multitude of people will have to multitude of topics, for which they would otherwise not care at all.
Check this year's movies: now people know more about poverty in India, or gay activism, younger people can revisit the disastrous years of the Nixon presidency or can explore the surface of how the Nazi machine worked.
These topics are important, and it is vital that people, who don't read as much and are watching less TV nowadays, get exposure to diverse topics by means of intelligent entertainment.
The cultural apathy shown today on this thread is frankly dispiriting, it has only confirmed the stereotype of the nerd that hasn't got a life beyond the bloody computer in front of them, in spite of movies today being one of the most fertile grounds to use all kind of great gadgets and technology.
Are the Oscars an exercise of industrial wankery? Well, yes, maybe, why not. But at the very least the prize will point people out in the direction of worthwhile cinema they would have not watched otherwise (hands up who has watched "Frozen River". "Revanche", or even "Doubt", I am sure lots of people will now watch movies with a certain modicum of quality that they would have not watched otherwise).
... about how movies are made.
And your ignorance is impudically exposed like if it was a badge of honour.
For example, Slumdog Millionaire has revolutionaized how movies can be made by taking advantage of digital film making technciques.
I could bore you with the specifics, but I don't want to dent the pride of your lack of curiosity.