If your coffee at home is 135F, you're making it wrong. The water should be at 195F when it hits the grounds
Who said anything about the temperature you make it at? It is the temperature you serve it at that is important.
Out of how many billion cups of coffee served at thousands of locations over 50-odd years?
The 700 reported incidents was in the ten year period 1982 to 1992. These were the incidents where they paid out. As it was brought up at the trial I would have thought you'd have known this...
I should really learn to stop responding to people who think that they and only they have all the facts on the case.
Maybe you should learn the facts instead - there are plenty of references.
your knowledge of pointless statistics is impressive
You ain't seen nothing yet.
okay, so i did comp sci and not chemistry and uni,
My commiserations.
but doesnt water evaporate after hitting the magical 100 degree mark?
Before trying to be a smart arse I'd strongly advise getting your technical terms correct (otherwise you look like a prat) - water evaporates before 100 degrees, boils at 100 degrees, and only exists as vapour after 100 degrees. And all this is only true at atmospheric pressure.
It is possible, of course, that you are ignorant of the Fahrenheit scale of temperature (which is widely used in the US). You have my best wishes for a speedy rehabilitation from such a blinkered and bleak existance.
... and if your this good with numbers, what about stats on how long it would take a 180 degree cup of coffee to cool down to 135 degrees?
It depends on the shape of the cup, the material the cup was made of, the ambient temperature, whether the lid was on, the material the lid was made off, the amount of coffee, etc etc....
However, the answer is about 30 minutes.
i suppose there is a third option, the 'too-hot-coffee-in-the-hands-of-a-non-retard' option
The coffee spilled when she was trying to open the lid. She was also 81 years old at the time of the incident.
blow on it... open up the lid
Erm - you want to blow on it before opening the lid? Why?
sorry, i forgot, we currently live in a world where if we are given a cup of coffee there are two possible eventualities...
Well, actually there are three. Too cold, OK, and too hot. In the McDonalds' case it was too hot - McDonalds served coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees (home coffee is about 135 degrees)* which is too hot for human consumption. Over 700 incidents had been reported to McDonalds relating to burns from coffee that was too hot.
The award of $2.7 million punitive damages was not because she burnt herself (she got $160,000 damages for that) but because McDonalds were knowingly indulging in a dangerous business practice. They has since rectified their practices.
The whole thing would not have happened if the company had agreed to pay the woman's medical bills ($20,000) in the first place (they rejected this out-of-hand).
* 180 degree coffee will cause a third degree burn in between two and seven seconds. In contrast you would have to pour 135 degree coffee over a skin for at least 60 seconds before doing the same damage.
I'm not sure how that aphorism was ever regarded as true.
It comes from Plato, and the apology of Socrates. But in a legalistic sense it comes from the Trial of Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor to King Henry VIII, when More was charged with treason for refusing to swear an Oath the the King was Head of the Church of England (and, crucially never actually speaking of it at all). During his trial, More got the jury to agree that, legally, silence had to be treated as assent in the absence of other evidence. He was still found guilty, but the legal priciple was established then in common law.
This is dramatised in "A Man for All Seasons". There is a particularly good passage in it which is pertinent to current times, especially in the USA:
Roper (More's Son-in-Law):"So now you'd give the devil benefit of law?"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
R:"I'd cut down every law in England to do that,"
M:"And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper?"
M (to himself): "This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast: man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
I remember the spring loaded return (and how annoying it was when one spring went), but if you went off track the wheel would start to vibrate, which seems to fit the needs of force feedback.
Here's a thought: What would happen if every time John Katz posted an article, NOONE responded to it?
"Silence gives assent". In other words, by not challenging the nonsense that he writes it appears to the silent masses that he is correct.
But this article was hopeless, both from a writing viepoint and a content viewpoint. What is it? Is it a book review? The part 1 would seem to suggest not.
The clue is normally in the first paragraph - let's reread it and see. Apparently it's the first part of a series that deals with "the new intersection of art, science, and technology". What new intersection. Art has being "intersecting" with science and technology always.
Bronze is invented - before you know it some bleedin' artisan has knocked together a few brooches and statues with it. High technology hard stone chisels - some la-de-day arty farty type is carving designs with them. Someone invents plaster walls - some painter sticks a fresco on them. I'd defy him to find *any* time in recorded history that there has not been an interplay between science and art.
So the central thesis behind this (probably interminable) series of articles is moot. The event - the sundering and reconciliation - he is postulating just didn't take place.
The C.P. Snow "two culture's" bit could have been interesting (although the remarks were originally made in 1959, not "in the 1960s") but was only mentioned in passing. Sort of a commentry comparing the viewpoint of C.P. Snow (whose views did not represent a consensus even at the time) with the reality of the world today. A recent example of the interplay between the Arts and Science would be "Beagle II" where artist Damien Hurst and pop group Blur contributed material for the probe to be used on the surface of mars (one is a colour calibration chart and the other is music for telemetry purposes).
But instead we got a retread of what appears to be a not very original book.
Sorry, gotta disagree there. You're violating the "20 second rule": if they can't read enough to be interested within 20 seconds and without looking for it, you get binned. Sad, but true.
The whole point is not to violate the 20 second rule. Suzie will see lists of abilities ("Languages: Perl, PHP, Java, VB, Cobol, etc Hardware: yadda yadda") all day everyday. Does this get her interesting in you? Probably the opposite. Instead she reads a short (tailored!) paragraph or two saying why you are suitable for the position.
My CV gets personal details, academic qualifications, employment history and a personal profile (what my skills areas are, what other skills I bring to the table) all on page 1. It's easily digestable, and anybody looking for someone in my area will be interested.
The rest is expanded employment details (with quantifiable achievements (1 1/2 pages), a one line hobbies and interests bit, and a one page addendum of my technical skills/courses/qualifications (although the personal profile does mention the prime techy qualification). It has served me well.
I was looking for it to descibe it for this post, and I found the original "list" version - it really sucks. Boy, cringeworthy'r'us.
Your earlier post on CV writing suggestions is absolutely bang on the money (literally).
Congratulations. Your CV has just ended up in my bin.
Whoohooo - I'm impressed. You haven't seen my CV, and from misreading my post you managed to leap to a conclusion. Congratulations.
Now, go back and read the bit that said
"Having a shopping list of abilities on the first page". That (should) provide enough context for you to realise that I do not suggest not listing skills anywhere on the CV, just not listing them at the very start. Personally, mine go in an appendix at the back: qualifications (academic and technical), courses completed, and areas of major and minor experise.
Speaking from a recruiter's perspective
Bullshit. Yet another slashdot chameleon - someone who pretends to be an expert in a given field. You are not a recruiter - you are a geek. You may have the occasional hiring decision to make, but that no more makes you a recruiter than making beans on toast makes you a chef.
Re:Well, look who they talked to....
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Employers can tell who is "vaguely looking" -- these people have weak resumes to begin with, they don't follow up, and they're discouraged easily. What employer wants to hire people like that?
Very true. There are three ways of getting a job - personal contracts, through an advertised position (direct or agency), or cold-calling. If you are looking for a job you must be doing all three, especially in the current employment climate. After you have a lead the next thing the prosepective employer sees is your CV. Most CVs suck really badly. You must (and this really cannot be overstated) get information on the first page of your CV that makes the reader interested in you. If you do not get this interest you will not get the job.
Common Mistake 1: Having a shopping list of abilities on the first page (e.g. Languages: A, B, C...).
They don't care that you know these languages - if they are needed for the job then you won't get the job without them, but don't use up prime CV real estate with a list. Instead, descibe what you have done with those languages and make sure the description brings out the abilities you are trying to sell - these abilities are things like problem solving, project management, tenacity, being methodical, broad range of exprience etc.
The first page of the CV should be a pen portrait of what you have done and why your skills are relevant to the company you are approaching. It must make them interested in you, or it'll go in the bin.
Common Mistake 2: Having one CV.
Your CVs job is to sell you and get you to the interview. When approaching a company you should not be afraid of customising the CV to make make a better match between your skills and their requirements. For example, if you are proficient in both Java and Perl but the company your are sending the CV to is a Perl shop, then your all-important first page should be emphasising the Perl side of your skills.
Common Mistake 3: Lying.
Never lie. If you are caught in a lie (and it is quite likely you will be) then you will not be hired. This also includes the hobbies section - if you don't read books, don't say you do - an interviewer will ask and you will look shifty. He may not even realise that you were lying, but you won't feel quite right to him, and that's you canned before you start. Lying about technical abilities is even dumber - here they will know you are lying.
There are lots of other tricks you can do - for example research the company and find out who you'd be working for and contract them - don't contact HR. When you contact them, explain why you would be a good choice for them (briefly) in a cover letter and attach your CV. The CV (or at least the first page) should be printed on high quality thick paper for two reasons: it gives the first impression of quality and care before anyone has even read it; and it looks good even after being passed about a dozen people.
Interestingly you missed a *huge* reason as to why infertile couples don't adopt. It's not easy to do. We looked into it and were told our chances were slim to none. The view for adoption agencies is to find the best home for a child not to provide a child for a family (as it should be).
Not only is it not easy it is made deliberately difficult. We have been through (unsuccessfully to date - but there is hope) IVF treatment. When we started this process we looked at all the options, and adoption was one that obviously came up. The policy of the adoption agencies (in the U.K.) is that if you want to adopt then you must stop fertility treatment. No ifs, buts, or maybes - stop. There is also a maximum age of the adoptive parents, and we were close to it. So that was the choice - we could try IVF but forego adoption, or adopt but forego IVF.
There would be a sting in the tail even if we were younger. Rather oddly you cannot be seen too be to keen to have children if you want to adopt (this is just one of the obscene number of hoops you have to jump through). Having multiple attempts at IVF "looks bad".
And people wonder why there are so many children needing adopted.
If I eat some toast, would i be subject to royalties for the various DNA sequences for the wheat, bread, etc
No. The patents are only ludicrously, not insanely, broad. The patents cover genotypical but not phenotypical effects. Which means that anything that can be directly associtated with that gene is covered, but not concerted effects.
For example, the gene sequence covers the protein and the use of that protein in fighting, say cancers, as cancer is a direct effect of a (malfunctioning) gene.
Blue eyes, on the other hand, are the result of lots of complex interactions between lots of genes (and lots of other chemicals) then even if the gene patented is involved in these effects blue eyes are not covered.
(It may seem daft to talk about blue eyes being patentable, but both are parts of the body - the only difference is scale).
This is the way I think that it works based on common sense - none of this has been to court yet, so it is anybody's guess what will happen. It may yet come to pass that someone, somewhere, will get what amounts to be a patent on blue eyes. The system is that broken.
Two requirements of a patent are the existance of an 'inventive step' and another is 'novelty'
Well, close. In simple terms, the three requirements of a patent are
1) Specific Utility
2) Novel
3) Non-obvious
These simple concepts do get complicated (what did you expect - there's lawyers about), but that's the jist of it.
Now, where the drug companies are paying fast and loose is that they are patenting gene sequences and their expressions (so the DNA and the protein) without any clear idea of what they (the genes and proteins) are doing. Effectively they are ringfencing a gene and trying to control any medicines/drugs/treatments that depend on their effectiveness for that gene. So person A invents a medicine that blocks protein P from doing damage in a cell (and P may well be an expressed cancer gene). Then because company C has a patent on the gene, A has to pay C royalties/licence fees to use the gene/protein.
The whole problem is that the patents of genes lack specific utility - that are not for something, they are almost the equivalent of land deeds.
I think there's a common misconception that these companies are patenting genes themselves
Sadly, it isn't a misconception. The companies are patenting the genes themselves (or, to be more exact, gene sequencies. The genes they are patenting aren't even complete in some cases). The criteria for patentability is that the gene should be capable of being cloned, and their function defined.
Cloning is straightforward, working out the function is too vague - the function of a gene is make a protein. OK - the patent application says gene Y makes protein X. What does X do? They don't have to know to get the patent.
I think the idea is wrong - genes and proteins are not, at a fundamental level, useful for the treatment of disease. Sure, you have to know what they are to design drugs to work on them but it is the drug that is the invention, not the protein.
The drug companies argument is that inventing these drugs is an expensive business, and they need the protection of a patent on the gene so that they will be the only people that can benefit from a drug that works with the protein that is expressed by the gene. Otherwise nobody would take the risk of developing these drugs and society would be worse off.
The whole question about these patents comes down to this - "Would a company take the risk of trying to develop a specific treatment for a protein if another company could beat them to market with a different treatment?". I think this is called competition, and it so far has worked well - I see no reason to change the rules just because the stakes are increasing.
Merely very irritated. The phrase "American freedoms" can be interpreted two ways: "freedoms which are innately American, nobody else has these freedoms" or "freedoms which happen to be enjoyed by Americans, whether other countries have these freedoms is not specified."
Not to get bogged down in semantics but
"Freedoms which are inately American" = American Freedoms
"Freedoms enjoyed by Americans" = Americans' Freedoms.
Call me elitist, but I won't work at a place that tells what tools i MUST use.
It is amusing, however, that your resume is downloadable as an MS Word file (albeit in HTML format, but the thought is there), and you have qualications in Visual Basic 3, 4, 5, and 6, and all versions of windows.
I am the IT director of a major global company.
This will be the Major Global Company of "PartMiner" (who?) then. And I think that Richard Sobel (the actual IT director) will be a bit surprised.
The word "unique" is unique. There is not some other word that means "one of a kind."
Apart from "singular".
For that reason, I will stick with the usage and definition of the word "unique" accepted by the vast majority of educated English speakers.
Nonsense - look up a dictionary (Merriam-Webster for example) and you will find more than one meaning for unique, and one of them (in Webster's) is "unusual". Oh - and read the usage note.
If you prefer to use the underwear-clad suspects on Cops as your guide to English grammer, there is nothing I can do about it.
No - I'll stick with such illiterate yokels such as J.D. Salinger and the editors of dictionaries.
Even when the meaning is as an absolute there is still a case for modifiers. Take "equal" for example - when used in the absolute sense things are either equal or they are not - the concept of "more equal than" seems absurd. Now read Animal Farm - "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." This gets across succinctly and powerfully the message. Modifiers with "unique" can be used in a similar way.
BTW "grammer" is spelt "grammar". I wouldn't normally mention such a typo, but a) it's the second time you've made this error, b) you are supposed to be a experienced editor, and c) you are the one being picky about language.
If that kind of thing makes you happy, I suggest that you shut off your computer and, instead of reading Slashdot, watch an episode of the Jenny Jones show.
A bit tricky, as they don't broadcast that in my country.
I am a published writer and experienced editor, so you can stop making a fool of yourself and let this drop. Or you can amuse me further by trying to come up with some explanation of why you believe that you are right.
Like a lot of words in English, unique has more than one meaning. As well as "the only one of its kind", it can also mean "extraordinary". It is probably this meaning that was been used in the original article, and thus the "very" modifier was legitimate.
The problem with a lot of these rules (such as "no modifiying an absolute") is they assume that a word has a fixed meaning. In the absence of a controlling authority for English words do change their meaning - look at the original meanings of awful, obnoxious, or nice for example.
So, lets apply the only test that means anything - what message was communicated in this case: "A very unique (onehanded) method of inputting characters". This is a PDA we're talking about, and anyone with any knowledge knows that all PDAs have a unique method of inputting characters - for patent reasons if nothing else. However, as most also know, most of the methods have similarities. In this case the writer is saying to me that this PDA has a new input system that is quick distictive from the systems used in other PDAs.
So the message was transmitted clearly. And for bonus points he managed to seriously annoy some language mavens.
Legally, they are. Common sense also says that they are a monolpoly.
The only monopolies we've had historically are ones where the government either mandated a private corporation (telcom, energy, etc), or the government subsidized one corporation and tariffed, penalized, or regulated its competition (Standard Oil, etc).
Huh? Pray tell, where was the Government Mandate or Government Subsidy in the United Shoe Machinery case (to pick one past monopoly)?
United Shoe Machinery (USM) had between 75% and 85% of the shoe machinery market. USM refused to sell it's machinery but only leased, on ten year leases. It also compelled leasees to agree that if they required an additional machines they must lease from USM. USM also provided free maintenance to their machines (or, alternatively, the lease cost included maintenance). The court found that the restictive lease and the free maintenance were barriers to entry by other companies, and removed them from the agreements.
Not a hint of mandate or subsidy here, yet USM were clearly a monopoly (which is quite legal), and were using that monopoly position to quench competition (which is quite illegal).
Not all capitalists are wannabe monopolists - only successful ones.
An immigrant running their own laundromat is most probably a capitalist.
The immigrant running their own laundromat (or laundrette here) is probably thinking about maybe getting another laundrette in another part of town. Then maybe buying another one, possibly moving into drycleaning too. And so on.
In otherwords, they are in a market, and they want to get as big a piece of the market as they can. All the better if it is all of it (all the laundettes in the town/county/state/country, depending on ambition).
The Ford car design is Ford's closed design, and other companies DO NOT have any right to produce wheels, carburettors, indicator lights and suchlike that can be fitted to Ford cars to modify them without legal consent from Ford.
Completely wrong (at least in the EU). There is a large market in after market spares from independent manufacturers for most makes of cars, and the car companies took a test case to the High Court and lost.
Slashdot Mirror
If your coffee at home is 135F, you're making it wrong. The water should be at 195F when it hits the grounds
Who said anything about the temperature you make it at? It is the temperature you serve it at that is important.
Out of how many billion cups of coffee served at thousands of locations over 50-odd years?
The 700 reported incidents was in the ten year period 1982 to 1992. These were the incidents where they paid out. As it was brought up at the trial I would have thought you'd have known this...
I should really learn to stop responding to people who think that they and only they have all the facts on the case.
Maybe you should learn the facts instead - there are plenty of references.
your knowledge of pointless statistics is impressive
... and if your this good with numbers, what about stats on how long it would take a 180 degree cup of coffee to cool down to 135 degrees?
... open up the lid
You ain't seen nothing yet.
okay, so i did comp sci and not chemistry and uni,
My commiserations.
but doesnt water evaporate after hitting the magical 100 degree mark?
Before trying to be a smart arse I'd strongly advise getting your technical terms correct (otherwise you look like a prat) - water evaporates before 100 degrees, boils at 100 degrees, and only exists as vapour after 100 degrees. And all this is only true at atmospheric pressure.
It is possible, of course, that you are ignorant of the Fahrenheit scale of temperature (which is widely used in the US). You have my best wishes for a speedy rehabilitation from such a blinkered and bleak existance.
It depends on the shape of the cup, the material the cup was made of, the ambient temperature, whether the lid was on, the material the lid was made off, the amount of coffee, etc etc....
However, the answer is about 30 minutes.
i suppose there is a third option, the 'too-hot-coffee-in-the-hands-of-a-non-retard' option
The coffee spilled when she was trying to open the lid. She was also 81 years old at the time of the incident.
blow on it
Erm - you want to blow on it before opening the lid? Why?
sorry, i forgot, we currently live in a world where if we are given a cup of coffee there are two possible eventualities ...
Well, actually there are three. Too cold, OK, and too hot. In the McDonalds' case it was too hot - McDonalds served coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees (home coffee is about 135 degrees)* which is too hot for human consumption. Over 700 incidents had been reported to McDonalds relating to burns from coffee that was too hot.
The award of $2.7 million punitive damages was not because she burnt herself (she got $160,000 damages for that) but because McDonalds were knowingly indulging in a dangerous business practice. They has since rectified their practices.
The whole thing would not have happened if the company had agreed to pay the woman's medical bills ($20,000) in the first place (they rejected this out-of-hand).
* 180 degree coffee will cause a third degree burn in between two and seven seconds. In contrast you would have to pour 135 degree coffee over a skin for at least 60 seconds before doing the same damage.
I disagree (obviously) but
I'm not sure how that aphorism was ever regarded as true.
It comes from Plato, and the apology of Socrates. But in a legalistic sense it comes from the Trial of Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor to King Henry VIII, when More was charged with treason for refusing to swear an Oath the the King was Head of the Church of England (and, crucially never actually speaking of it at all). During his trial, More got the jury to agree that, legally, silence had to be treated as assent in the absence of other evidence. He was still found guilty, but the legal priciple was established then in common law.
This is dramatised in "A Man for All Seasons". There is a particularly good passage in it which is pertinent to current times, especially in the USA:
Roper (More's Son-in-Law):"So now you'd give the devil benefit of law?"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
R:"I'd cut down every law in England to do that,"
M:"And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper?"
M (to himself): "This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast: man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
I remember the spring loaded return (and how annoying it was when one spring went), but if you went off track the wheel would start to vibrate, which seems to fit the needs of force feedback.
Here's a thought: What would happen if every time John Katz posted an article, NOONE responded to it?
"Silence gives assent". In other words, by not challenging the nonsense that he writes it appears to the silent masses that he is correct.
But this article was hopeless, both from a writing viepoint and a content viewpoint. What is it? Is it a book review? The part 1 would seem to suggest not.
The clue is normally in the first paragraph - let's reread it and see. Apparently it's the first part of a series that deals with "the new intersection of art, science, and technology". What new intersection. Art has being "intersecting" with science and technology always.
Bronze is invented - before you know it some bleedin' artisan has knocked together a few brooches and statues with it. High technology hard stone chisels - some la-de-day arty farty type is carving designs with them. Someone invents plaster walls - some painter sticks a fresco on them. I'd defy him to find *any* time in recorded history that there has not been an interplay between science and art.
So the central thesis behind this (probably interminable) series of articles is moot. The event - the sundering and reconciliation - he is postulating just didn't take place.
The C.P. Snow "two culture's" bit could have been interesting (although the remarks were originally made in 1959, not "in the 1960s") but was only mentioned in passing. Sort of a commentry comparing the viewpoint of C.P. Snow (whose views did not represent a consensus even at the time) with the reality of the world today. A recent example of the interplay between the Arts and Science would be "Beagle II" where artist Damien Hurst and pop group Blur contributed material for the probe to be used on the surface of mars (one is a colour calibration chart and the other is music for telemetry purposes).
But instead we got a retread of what appears to be a not very original book.
The first I remember with force feedback was Outrun, which was 1986. Again, a racing game and possibly prior art.
Sorry, gotta disagree there. You're violating the "20 second rule": if they can't read enough to be interested within 20 seconds and without looking for it, you get binned. Sad, but true.
The whole point is not to violate the 20 second rule. Suzie will see lists of abilities ("Languages: Perl, PHP, Java, VB, Cobol, etc Hardware: yadda yadda") all day everyday. Does this get her interesting in you? Probably the opposite. Instead she reads a short (tailored!) paragraph or two saying why you are suitable for the position.
My CV gets personal details, academic qualifications, employment history and a personal profile (what my skills areas are, what other skills I bring to the table) all on page 1. It's easily digestable, and anybody looking for someone in my area will be interested.
The rest is expanded employment details (with quantifiable achievements (1 1/2 pages), a one line hobbies and interests bit, and a one page addendum of my technical skills/courses/qualifications (although the personal profile does mention the prime techy qualification). It has served me well.
I was looking for it to descibe it for this post, and I found the original "list" version - it really sucks. Boy, cringeworthy'r'us.
Your earlier post on CV writing suggestions is absolutely bang on the money (literally).
Congratulations. Your CV has just ended up in my bin.
Whoohooo - I'm impressed. You haven't seen my CV, and from misreading my post you managed to leap to a conclusion. Congratulations.
Now, go back and read the bit that said
"Having a shopping list of abilities on the first page". That (should) provide enough context for you to realise that I do not suggest not listing skills anywhere on the CV, just not listing them at the very start. Personally, mine go in an appendix at the back: qualifications (academic and technical), courses completed, and areas of major and minor experise.
Speaking from a recruiter's perspective
Bullshit. Yet another slashdot chameleon - someone who pretends to be an expert in a given field. You are not a recruiter - you are a geek. You may have the occasional hiring decision to make, but that no more makes you a recruiter than making beans on toast makes you a chef.
Employers can tell who is "vaguely looking" -- these people have weak resumes to begin with, they don't follow up, and they're discouraged easily. What employer wants to hire people like that?
Very true. There are three ways of getting a job - personal contracts, through an advertised position (direct or agency), or cold-calling. If you are looking for a job you must be doing all three, especially in the current employment climate. After you have a lead the next thing the prosepective employer sees is your CV. Most CVs suck really badly. You must (and this really cannot be overstated) get information on the first page of your CV that makes the reader interested in you. If you do not get this interest you will not get the job.
Common Mistake 1: Having a shopping list of abilities on the first page (e.g. Languages: A, B, C...).
They don't care that you know these languages - if they are needed for the job then you won't get the job without them, but don't use up prime CV real estate with a list. Instead, descibe what you have done with those languages and make sure the description brings out the abilities you are trying to sell - these abilities are things like problem solving, project management, tenacity, being methodical, broad range of exprience etc.
The first page of the CV should be a pen portrait of what you have done and why your skills are relevant to the company you are approaching. It must make them interested in you, or it'll go in the bin.
Common Mistake 2: Having one CV.
Your CVs job is to sell you and get you to the interview. When approaching a company you should not be afraid of customising the CV to make make a better match between your skills and their requirements. For example, if you are proficient in both Java and Perl but the company your are sending the CV to is a Perl shop, then your all-important first page should be emphasising the Perl side of your skills.
Common Mistake 3: Lying.
Never lie. If you are caught in a lie (and it is quite likely you will be) then you will not be hired. This also includes the hobbies section - if you don't read books, don't say you do - an interviewer will ask and you will look shifty. He may not even realise that you were lying, but you won't feel quite right to him, and that's you canned before you start. Lying about technical abilities is even dumber - here they will know you are lying.
There are lots of other tricks you can do - for example research the company and find out who you'd be working for and contract them - don't contact HR. When you contact them, explain why you would be a good choice for them (briefly) in a cover letter and attach your CV. The CV (or at least the first page) should be printed on high quality thick paper for two reasons: it gives the first impression of quality and care before anyone has even read it; and it looks good even after being passed about a dozen people.
Happy hunting.
Interestingly you missed a *huge* reason as to why infertile couples don't adopt. It's not easy to do. We looked into it and were told our chances were slim to none. The view for adoption agencies is to find the best home for a child not to provide a child for a family (as it should be).
Not only is it not easy it is made deliberately difficult. We have been through (unsuccessfully to date - but there is hope) IVF treatment. When we started this process we looked at all the options, and adoption was one that obviously came up. The policy of the adoption agencies (in the U.K.) is that if you want to adopt then you must stop fertility treatment. No ifs, buts, or maybes - stop. There is also a maximum age of the adoptive parents, and we were close to it. So that was the choice - we could try IVF but forego adoption, or adopt but forego IVF.
There would be a sting in the tail even if we were younger. Rather oddly you cannot be seen too be to keen to have children if you want to adopt (this is just one of the obscene number of hoops you have to jump through). Having multiple attempts at IVF "looks bad".
And people wonder why there are so many children needing adopted.
Interesting now that I really can't find an english equivalent
Schadenfreude is the English equivalent - it's been adopted into the language (at least according to my dictionary).
Of course not - the correct spelling is "HILL"
If I eat some toast, would i be subject to royalties for the various DNA sequences for the wheat, bread, etc
No. The patents are only ludicrously, not insanely, broad. The patents cover genotypical but not phenotypical effects. Which means that anything that can be directly associtated with that gene is covered, but not concerted effects.
For example, the gene sequence covers the protein and the use of that protein in fighting, say cancers, as cancer is a direct effect of a (malfunctioning) gene.
Blue eyes, on the other hand, are the result of lots of complex interactions between lots of genes (and lots of other chemicals) then even if the gene patented is involved in these effects blue eyes are not covered.
(It may seem daft to talk about blue eyes being patentable, but both are parts of the body - the only difference is scale).
This is the way I think that it works based on common sense - none of this has been to court yet, so it is anybody's guess what will happen. It may yet come to pass that someone, somewhere, will get what amounts to be a patent on blue eyes. The system is that broken.
Two requirements of a patent are the existance of an 'inventive step' and another is 'novelty'
Well, close. In simple terms, the three requirements of a patent are
1) Specific Utility
2) Novel
3) Non-obvious
These simple concepts do get complicated (what did you expect - there's lawyers about), but that's the jist of it.
Now, where the drug companies are paying fast and loose is that they are patenting gene sequences and their expressions (so the DNA and the protein) without any clear idea of what they (the genes and proteins) are doing. Effectively they are ringfencing a gene and trying to control any medicines/drugs/treatments that depend on their effectiveness for that gene. So person A invents a medicine that blocks protein P from doing damage in a cell (and P may well be an expressed cancer gene). Then because company C has a patent on the gene, A has to pay C royalties/licence fees to use the gene/protein.
The whole problem is that the patents of genes lack specific utility - that are not for something, they are almost the equivalent of land deeds.
I think there's a common misconception that these companies are patenting genes themselves
Sadly, it isn't a misconception. The companies are patenting the genes themselves (or, to be more exact, gene sequencies. The genes they are patenting aren't even complete in some cases). The criteria for patentability is that the gene should be capable of being cloned, and their function defined.
Cloning is straightforward, working out the function is too vague - the function of a gene is make a protein. OK - the patent application says gene Y makes protein X. What does X do? They don't have to know to get the patent.
I think the idea is wrong - genes and proteins are not, at a fundamental level, useful for the treatment of disease. Sure, you have to know what they are to design drugs to work on them but it is the drug that is the invention, not the protein.
The drug companies argument is that inventing these drugs is an expensive business, and they need the protection of a patent on the gene so that they will be the only people that can benefit from a drug that works with the protein that is expressed by the gene. Otherwise nobody would take the risk of developing these drugs and society would be worse off.
The whole question about these patents comes down to this - "Would a company take the risk of trying to develop a specific treatment for a protein if another company could beat them to market with a different treatment?". I think this is called competition, and it so far has worked well - I see no reason to change the rules just because the stakes are increasing.
We should learn our lesson from cartoons.
OK - you stand under the 16ton weight first then.
but this does deny write permission to anyone in these groups. Deny permissions alway trumps Allow permissions.
The article in question does not have a symbol to mark it as Open Content or Copyleft or Free Content.
Apart from the backward © symbol in what must be about 144pt type. (This is in the paper edition).
I'd suggest ©++ for copyleft symbol. And this is not an entirely facetious suggestion either - the © is commonly available (and so are +) (unlike your "oc" symbol), and it clues up people that there is something over and above the usual copyright going on.
Merely very irritated. The phrase "American freedoms" can be interpreted two ways: "freedoms which are innately American, nobody else has these freedoms" or "freedoms which happen to be enjoyed by Americans, whether other countries have these freedoms is not specified."
Not to get bogged down in semantics but
"Freedoms which are inately American" = American Freedoms
"Freedoms enjoyed by Americans" = Americans' Freedoms.
The first is exclusively used.
Call me elitist, but I won't work at a place that tells what tools i MUST use.
It is amusing, however, that your resume is downloadable as an MS Word file (albeit in HTML format, but the thought is there), and you have qualications in Visual Basic 3, 4, 5, and 6, and all versions of windows.
I am the IT director of a major global company.
This will be the Major Global Company of "PartMiner" (who?) then. And I think that Richard Sobel (the actual IT director) will be a bit surprised.
The word "unique" is unique. There is not some other word that means "one of a kind."
Apart from "singular".
For that reason, I will stick with the usage and definition of the word "unique" accepted by the vast majority of educated English speakers.
Nonsense - look up a dictionary (Merriam-Webster for example) and you will find more than one meaning for unique, and one of them (in Webster's) is "unusual". Oh - and read the usage note.
If you prefer to use the underwear-clad suspects on Cops as your guide to English grammer, there is nothing I can do about it.
No - I'll stick with such illiterate yokels such as J.D. Salinger and the editors of dictionaries.
Even when the meaning is as an absolute there is still a case for modifiers. Take "equal" for example - when used in the absolute sense things are either equal or they are not - the concept of "more equal than" seems absurd. Now read Animal Farm - "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." This gets across succinctly and powerfully the message. Modifiers with "unique" can be used in a similar way.
BTW "grammer" is spelt "grammar". I wouldn't normally mention such a typo, but a) it's the second time you've made this error, b) you are supposed to be a experienced editor, and c) you are the one being picky about language.
If that kind of thing makes you happy, I suggest that you shut off your computer and, instead of reading Slashdot, watch an episode of the Jenny Jones show.
A bit tricky, as they don't broadcast that in my country.
I am a published writer and experienced editor, so you can stop making a fool of yourself and let this drop. Or you can amuse me further by trying to come up with some explanation of why you believe that you are right.
Like a lot of words in English, unique has more than one meaning. As well as "the only one of its kind", it can also mean "extraordinary". It is probably this meaning that was been used in the original article, and thus the "very" modifier was legitimate.
The problem with a lot of these rules (such as "no modifiying an absolute") is they assume that a word has a fixed meaning. In the absence of a controlling authority for English words do change their meaning - look at the original meanings of awful, obnoxious, or nice for example.
So, lets apply the only test that means anything - what message was communicated in this case: "A very unique (onehanded) method of inputting characters". This is a PDA we're talking about, and anyone with any knowledge knows that all PDAs have a unique method of inputting characters - for patent reasons if nothing else. However, as most also know, most of the methods have similarities. In this case the writer is saying to me that this PDA has a new input system that is quick distictive from the systems used in other PDAs.
So the message was transmitted clearly. And for bonus points he managed to seriously annoy some language mavens.
I don't believe M$ is a monopoly.
Legally, they are. Common sense also says that they are a monolpoly.
The only monopolies we've had historically are ones where the government either mandated a private corporation (telcom, energy, etc), or the government subsidized one corporation and tariffed, penalized, or regulated its competition (Standard Oil, etc).
Huh? Pray tell, where was the Government Mandate or Government Subsidy in the United Shoe Machinery case (to pick one past monopoly)?
United Shoe Machinery (USM) had between 75% and 85% of the shoe machinery market. USM refused to sell it's machinery but only leased, on ten year leases. It also compelled leasees to agree that if they required an additional machines they must lease from USM. USM also provided free maintenance to their machines (or, alternatively, the lease cost included maintenance). The court found that the restictive lease and the free maintenance were barriers to entry by other companies, and removed them from the agreements.
Not a hint of mandate or subsidy here, yet USM were clearly a monopoly (which is quite legal), and were using that monopoly position to quench competition (which is quite illegal).
A capitalist != wannabe monopolist.
Not all capitalists are wannabe monopolists - only successful ones.
An immigrant running their own laundromat is most probably a capitalist.
The immigrant running their own laundromat (or laundrette here) is probably thinking about maybe getting another laundrette in another part of town. Then maybe buying another one, possibly moving into drycleaning too. And so on.
In otherwords, they are in a market, and they want to get as big a piece of the market as they can. All the better if it is all of it (all the laundettes in the town/county/state/country, depending on ambition).
The Ford car design is Ford's closed design, and other companies DO NOT have any right to produce wheels, carburettors, indicator lights and suchlike that can be fitted to Ford cars to modify them without legal consent from Ford.
Completely wrong (at least in the EU). There is a large market in after market spares from independent manufacturers for most makes of cars, and the car companies took a test case to the High Court and lost.