If I were in your position, here is what I would do: 1) Find your dream job. Search job postings non-stop for a while. Figure out what which career you would enjoy the most. 2) Study the minimum and desired qualifications for each job. 3) Obtain the minimum and desired qualifications for each job. (Put an emphasis on written and oral communication skills) 4) Study the interview process (specific to your field of choice) and make friends/family give you mock interviews. 5) Apply for jobs. Remember to be optimistic and respectful. Don't appear desperate. Customize your resume for each application and write a custom cover letter for each application submission. Do not lie on your resume or you will be embarrassed during the interview.
Is a degree worth the time, effort, and money? If all of the job postings for your dream job require a degree, then absolutely. If not, then I think you know the answer.
Remember to take the initiative to acquire new skills and master them. Good luck!
"I'm tired of people saying "I like 'X cannidate's' message! It inspires me!"
Not to goodwin this, but Hitler inspired people too and we really need to be pragmatic about the next leader. If not Paul, then someone else who at best is nothing more than good technocrat and not an ideologist who's going to drag us down even further."
The problem is that people are not going to vote for a pessimistic, or even a non-optimistic candidate. Would you? Really? If someone says "Look everyone, we are screwed and I will try to lessen the impact" and an opponent says "I will do everything I can to improve this (specific) situation by x, y, and z" who are you going to vote for? It seems like most people will choose the optimistic candidate even though they may not be as pragmatic. If not, wouldn't the candidates be more pragmatic?
What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins? I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on violence in this (American) culture. What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)? The only entities winning here are the corporations making money by selling to a larger audience. Meanwhile another generation of violence-exposed-to kids will turn into violence-loving adults. But anyway, the whole 'violent video games make people violent' argument aside, I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits. I fail to see how anyone 'wins' either.
If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. That seems like a winning situation to me. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.
Sure they hire all of the top talent. But don't put it all on microsoft. Having known Daniel Robbins personally, I find him an interesting person. He has hopped from job to job many times, and has contributed to many things. I think that he likes to have a fresh start, especially on the development side. He probably did just about everything that he wanted to with gentoo, and now he is looking to gain some more experience. Previously he worked with Debian and BSD. Now Microsoft. They could use him, and I have little doubt that when he is finished with them he will move on to something else.
"No, what they are trying to do is to break up the opensource community by hiring all the top talent." Didn't someone take his place with gentoo? Top talent is everywhere in open source software, from developers to people submitting bug reports. A project or two may merge, die, or change, but the movement will go on. And, regardless of who is hired away we still have their source code;).
It is this closemindedness that is the problem. People often say those that believe in creationism are ignorant, or closeminded, but other people have made up their mind that, for example, evolution is the ONLY way we came about and they wont even acknowledge any other possibility. Sounds like the scientific method has gone to hell. You are supposed to question, and look for new answers, always trying to learn. Closing off a branch of study just because you dont like it isnt a good idea- on either side.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were in your position, here is what I would do:
1) Find your dream job. Search job postings non-stop for a while. Figure out what which career you would enjoy the most.
2) Study the minimum and desired qualifications for each job.
3) Obtain the minimum and desired qualifications for each job. (Put an emphasis on written and oral communication skills)
4) Study the interview process (specific to your field of choice) and make friends/family give you mock interviews.
5) Apply for jobs. Remember to be optimistic and respectful. Don't appear desperate. Customize your resume for each application and write a custom cover letter for each application submission. Do not lie on your resume or you will be embarrassed during the interview.
Is a degree worth the time, effort, and money? If all of the job postings for your dream job require a degree, then absolutely. If not, then I think you know the answer.
Remember to take the initiative to acquire new skills and master them.
Good luck!
"I'm tired of people saying "I like 'X cannidate's' message! It inspires me!"
Not to goodwin this, but Hitler inspired people too and we really need to be pragmatic about the next leader. If not Paul, then someone else who at best is nothing more than good technocrat and not an ideologist who's going to drag us down even further."
The problem is that people are not going to vote for a pessimistic, or even a non-optimistic candidate. Would you? Really? If someone says "Look everyone, we are screwed and I will try to lessen the impact" and an opponent says "I will do everything I can to improve this (specific) situation by x, y, and z" who are you going to vote for? It seems like most people will choose the optimistic candidate even though they may not be as pragmatic. If not, wouldn't the candidates be more pragmatic?
What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins? I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on violence in this (American) culture. What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)? The only entities winning here are the corporations making money by selling to a larger audience. Meanwhile another generation of violence-exposed-to kids will turn into violence-loving adults. But anyway, the whole 'violent video games make people violent' argument aside, I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits. I fail to see how anyone 'wins' either.
If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. That seems like a winning situation to me. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.
Sure they hire all of the top talent. But don't put it all on microsoft. Having known Daniel Robbins personally, I find him an interesting person. He has hopped from job to job many times, and has contributed to many things. I think that he likes to have a fresh start, especially on the development side. He probably did just about everything that he wanted to with gentoo, and now he is looking to gain some more experience. Previously he worked with Debian and BSD. Now Microsoft. They could use him, and I have little doubt that when he is finished with them he will move on to something else.
;).
"No, what they are trying to do is to break up the opensource community by hiring all the top talent."
Didn't someone take his place with gentoo? Top talent is everywhere in open source software, from developers to people submitting bug reports. A project or two may merge, die, or change, but the movement will go on.
And, regardless of who is hired away we still have their source code
It is this closemindedness that is the problem. People often say those that believe in creationism are ignorant, or closeminded, but other people have made up their mind that, for example, evolution is the ONLY way we came about and they wont even acknowledge any other possibility. Sounds like the scientific method has gone to hell. You are supposed to question, and look for new answers, always trying to learn. Closing off a branch of study just because you dont like it isnt a good idea- on either side.