When times are tough you have to (and I hate this phrase) "re-invent yourself".
This can even mean leaving the tech industry altogether. Whenever I read that someone has been unemployed for over a year, I wonder, "Have they even tried other industries?" It may be hard to accept, sometimes, but there are lots of people who earn money by not programming or sysadmining! Or am I delusional?
Another option would be to become dirt poor on purpose to feed on other taxpayers (earned income credit, anyone?).
Not so! It may be gone for now, but mark my words the next tech boom is the semantic web. Companies will want their services exposed via webservices so that intelligent agents can search for goods and services automatically. This will mark a new era in terms of data accessibility, much like the internet boom in the 90's.
This is a definite possibility, but I don't think it can happen as long as Microsoft is #1. The entire reason the Liberty Alliance exists is that many competing businesses didn't want Passport/Hailstorm. Only when businesses are confident MS isn't using them as guinea pigs will the WWW really take off.
Seriously, we need to keep the WWW out of the hands of one company. IE and IIS have already done heaps of damage to any idealism we once had.
Being proactive in a passive way sometimes works well. Just by posting my resume to Monster.com and making it searchable landed me an interview or two.
There are lots of openings that aren't posted but are put into the hands of recruiters/head-hunters who then do keyword searches on the WWW. I'd bet some companies prefer to do this, because actually posting a job would create a useless deluge of "will work for food" resumes.
If you are saying that it's volatile across minor versions, then the library is junk and should never have been considered.
It is highly volatile across minor versions. I tried three different 1.X distributions before one had the right directory structure for GNUCash.
How on earth do you propose compiling a GNOME 1.4 application "for" KDE?
I really didn't intend to mean compiling GNUCash in the presence of just a KDE installation. Often, getting GNOME apps to work under KDE or CDE is a matter of having the right libraries. GNUCash, however, has dependencies on the much of the GNOME 1.4 distribution, including utilities under its "bin" directory.
As such, it's an indicator of high code quality, you have it backwards.
No. For example, one dependency, g-wrap, is highly volatile across versions and should be bundled into GnuCash at a minimum. If they are going to choose such libraries as a part of the GnuCash architecture, then, at least, they should do it wisely. Also, I remember there being direct dependencies on GNOME 1.4's configuration utilities built into their autoconf scheme. Without a lot of hacking, it isn't even possible to attempt getting GnuCash to compile for GNOME 2 or KDE.
Libraries and external tools are always a mixed blessing, and GnuCash made sure to excersize this fact to its fullest.
The only I can think of is Mosix. The other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).
Open Source deserves a lot of credit.
KDE and GNOME have additional forms of network-awareness built into them at low levels that aren't present in Windows, CDE, etc. Mozilla allows pretty fine-grained control over cookies, JavaScript, and images (small but extremely useful features), and it is actually standards-compliant, for once. Emacs is pretty darn innovative for its time (Lisp engine and rediculous extensibility). Ghostscript is the only way I know to print PostScript under Windows to cheap printers. Is there a better EPS plot generator than GnuPlot? LaTeX and DocBook are basically the only options for large-scale structured document authoring that allow true version control, output to who knows how many formats, awesome mathematics support (LaTeX, at least), among lots of other things. OpenOffice.org will level the playing field for office software. OpenBSD is the most secure OS I know of. The most popular HPC clustering software is open source (Beowulf, anyone?). Apache+mod_basically_anything. I'd bet NetBSD literally runs on a toaster, somewhere. Open Source will figure out package management, eventually, Microsoft won't. The best TCP/IP stacks are open source. PERL/Python/Ruby. CVS-over-SSH allows distributed development of proprietary software. gzip/bzip. tcp_wrappers. gcc (languages X platforms).
Some of what I list are significant refinements rather than true innovation, but the fact that many best-in-class applications exist in Open Source form is undeniable. There are hundreds of other innovations/refinements that I can't remember or am unaware of (a lot of them get taken for granted).
On the other side of the pond, Microsoft will let something fail, and fail, and fail, tweak, twist, fix, and then they have something worth having.
1) Microsoft has lots, lots, and lots more of money.
2) Money allows hiring programmer-whores to hack on something until they get it right, even if by chance. Money also allows hiring conscience-less managers, lawyers, and marketeers to whip the whores into action and sell the resulting software to their masses of sheep...er, customers.
Could anyone have kept accurate track of equipment and accounting for it under those conditions?
We could just tip off the BSA. I'd bet there are lots of DOS and Windows licenses floating around that haven't been paid for twice. Just watch the telcos crumble under the BSA onslaught.
Imagine a world where all those people who would otherwise shell out $30 for MoneyDance would be willing to donate half of that to support "free" comparable software such as Gnucash.
Would you be willing to appoint yourself the dictator that makes this happen? Perhaps, then, we can really see what Free software can do!
Great program when running, but horrible to get it there.
All the other responses to this post say "just use apt-get" or "up2date" or "emerge this or that". That's all nice and dandy, but part of the freedom of Open Source is being able to compile from the source from the authors! Getting GNUCash to compile on Solaris, for example, is absolute torture. I don't want to know how much pain and suffering the people at Debian, Red Hat, and Gentoo had to go through to make their one-shot commands actually work.
IMO, the fact that GNUCash is so difficult to compile from source reflects badly upon its architecture and packaging. However, I do agree that it works well once it's in place.
Actually, GNUcash doesn't run on windows, the third 'platform' listed.
True. Actually, it isn't portable beyond systems that have GNOME 1.4 and a plethora of other libraries installed. It's also GTK-based. The huge number of dependencies in GNUCash are its greatest portability weakness, IMO. I doubt it would ever run on Windows without substantial re-engineering.
I find it amazing and disappointing how many people are posting excuses why they don't vote. For most of their imagined problems, actually going out and voting would do a small part in fixing those problems. By voting, you, in a small way, are making your mark on the statistics of the election. Even if there is only one vote--your vote--for legalizing dog-weddings (for example), the fact that someone wants them is know known to the public. The effect is subtle but real.
Another good example: a recent school bond referendum fell through by a measily 200 or so votes in a county of thousands of registered voters. If only 200 more people had formed an opinion about the referendum and actually voted, the outcome could have been completely different. Remember, the outcomes of elections are decided by the majority of voters, not citizens.
Unfortunately, more often than not, the OS ends up being Windows NT/2000/XP.:(
Yes, it is unfortunate. In my experience, Solaris on Sun hardware has been bulletproof, where the applications are clearly the source of problems (Pro/E crashes plenty well on its own). In Windows, it isn't always so transparent, many thanks to Microsoft's build-it-now-fix-it-later attitude.
Hopefully, if PCs are to rule the CAD market, the vendors will have the sense to begin using Linux-based or BSD-based systems (I've read Pro/E will be available for Red Hat sometime, which is encouraging).
Someone who has spent 3k on an Apple is more likely to spend that 700 on a Dell and stick it on the network.
Having a PCI card offers several advantages for a workstation: better desktop integration, fewer moving parts, fewer physical enclosures to manage, and fewer monitors and keyboards. For an office/home office desktop, the PCI cards really would be a perfect fit for many people.
Also, the cards don't have to cost $700. Used ones with 400MHz CPUs go for about $100 to $200. From Sun, ones with 733MHz Celerons are $500, and ones with 1600+ Athlons are $700. There are also unofficial ways to upgrade the CPUs (at least on the SunPCi I cards), so they aren't necessarily fixed configurations.
Ummm...I'm pretty sure Apple already tried this once. They sold some PowerMacs with cards that had 486 processors on them so you could write Windows on it. Wasn't that thing a dismal failure?
I'm curious why it would fail for Apple but not Sun. Sun, for many years, has sold x86-based motherboards on a PCI or SBus card for running Windows. They integrate nicely with CDE, put Windows where it belongs (in an CDE window and in a flat-file emulated hard drive), allow mounting Solaris UFS directories as network drives, among other useful things.
Quite honestly, I would love for Sun to make a PowerPC card, too, so I could play with Mac OS X. Imagine Solaris 9, Windows 2000, and Mac OS X all in one box. This isn't too far from what Apple would accomplish (classic, OS X, Windows). I've also seen instructions for putting Linux on Sun's PC cards, so it could even be Solaris, Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux all in one enclosure running simultaneously (multiple SunPCi cards can be installed...what fun!).
Anybody like to cite interesting portions of the EULA of those systems?
Well, you can read the Solaris license here. It reads like a typical commercial EULA and has some parts in common with the Win XP EULA. However, it does appear less scandalous, overall, relative to Win XP's.
For example, Sun's tends to discourage large-scale commercial use of its no-cost offerings by limiting bundled features rather than imposing artificial connection limits. There is also a single-CPU limit to the no-cost version of Solaris 9 (eight CPUs for Solaris 8). Regardless, any of these limitations in Solaris tend to err on the side of generosity and are adequate for small businesses, and they bundle in their media kits a lot of GNU tools, lots of Sun ONE software, StarOffice, real OpenGL, an MPEG viewer/recorder, and Oracle 9i (!), among other things, with no time-bombs. They also bundle BEA WebLogic and the Sun compiler suite, but those are only 60-day trials.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that smells of Microsoft's automatic updates in Sun's EULA appears to be limited to the Java WebStart installations they offer for some software. Additionally, I didn't see anything related to collecting information, personal or otherwise. Sun typically has good privacy policies regarding customer data.
The Solaris EULA is pretty typical (denouncing liability, etc), but is noticabliy better than the one for Win XP. This probably stems from the fact that Sun is generally more reasonable towards its customers.
No, the article is comparing the XP Professional Edition EULA. The grandparent post must be talking about the Home Edition. The article clearly states the 10-machine limit in the Professional EULA.
Often not slow enough. I've seen only a few IMAX movies, but there invariably seems to be several scenes, where the helicopter is moving faster than the framerate can handle. The result is a rather unsettling stutter in the image.
Most people drive comfortable at about 85 mph (on the highway).
Obviously, you haven't driven an old American four-banger with only 90HP on the highway. Often, simply driving the speed limit is hard enough in the U.S.
I disagree that speed limits are unnecessary. One often overlooks aspect of speed is the simple formula: E = 1/2mv^2. 85MPH is potentially much much more dangerous than 65MPH when you need to stop or maneuver around a suprising obstacle (tire carcass, deer, etc.). Even those 5-star safety ratings become a joke at 85MPH.
I think its obvious that it would be safer if every car on the road was driving at about 85mph as opposed to some driving 65 and some driving as high as 90. Mixing fast + slow cars disrupts the traffic and makes thing less-safe.
I think you are forgetting that 40,000+ pound trucks also share that highway.
Regardless, I do agree that driver's license standards are too low. If I had a nickel for each time a teeny-bopper cut me off without looking...
If you wrap your fingers around to form a small hole through them, you can capture an image of a solar eclipse on the ground or in a box. It works suprisingly well.
MS is one of the few remaining software (large) firms where education is a not considered the uber credential.
Did Bill G. ever get a degree? If not, this may be one reason they can't expect the same thing from their employees.
Regardless, I agree that some companies place too much emphasis on whether a canidate has a degree. U.S. government positions tend to be refreshingly degree-agnostic, where they consider years of experience to be equivalent to schooling.
Yet virtually every Microsoft employee accepts the "obvious" rationale, that only people who do well in logic puzzles will do well at Microsoft.
I'd bet they think higher SAT scores make better engineers or managers, too.
They got the correct answer right away? No fair, they must have seen it before.
Sure, punish people for having experience.
one recruiter named Colleen offers a quote from Yoda: "Do or do not, there is no try." Other recruiter tips include "Stay awake" and "Always leave room for dessert."
Why say something when saying nothing achieves the same effect?
Developers write code: program managers design the user interface
Are they using the UI to capture software requirements that should be documented elsewhere? Could this be the source of the 15,000 menus in Office?
Designing software is something any reasonably intelligent person can attempt
This explains a lot about why most software still sucks, and MS is no exception, apparently. There are lots of smart people in the world, yet most of them would not make good software architects.
Developers, meanwhile, are usually asked to write code on the whiteboard, an experience that program management candidates are spared
Technical managers are not requried to express technical knowledge during an interview?
Another recruiter, Stacey, gives the following interview tip: "The best interview tips I can give you are to relax and think for yourself.
OT: Many recruiters suck, too. The generic advice they give is nauseating.
intelligence, hard work, ability to get things done, and vision
What about effectively managing complexity? Perhaps if they architected a simpler operating system they wouldn't need to hire such "intelligent" people.
Someone who tries five different attempts might demonstrate more resourcefulness than someone who just "gets it"--but they would get turned down.
Are no scientists employed by Microsoft?
For those considering a job at Microsoft, the book may ratchet up the "arms race" of questions.
So it's all just some made-up game, where interviewers try to best eachother. That's very reassuring.
In conclusion, working at Microsoft must be like regressing to the third-grade playground we all look back at and wonder "was I really that immature?".
How Would You Move Mount Fuji? Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle - How the World's Smartest Company Selects the Most Creative Thinkers
I wonder if the author is biased? Naw, he's just an impartial observer. Yea, that's it.
It is highly debatable whether Microsoft is the smartest. It is easily argued that they are the most cunning, however. Cunning like the devil, that is.
It is also highly debatable that Microsoft hires the "most creative thinkers." They are certainly good at aquiring creativity--I guess that is an indirect form of hiring.
One thing I find frustrating is that many people equate Microsofts market share and asset portfolio with "they must be the best". This is a fallacy, of course, but it appears that Microsoft's marketing dapartment can work around any logical inconsistency. The fact that Microsoft keeps most of the public in the dark about their lack of ethics doesn't hurt, either.
I wouldn't be suprised at all if Mr. Poundstone is, directly or indirectly, on Microsoft's payroll.
But what would happen to the masses when they are no longer spoon-fed meaning and optimism? How many people are willing to derive optimism from observation and logic? How many people are even capable?
Slashdot Mirror
When times are tough you have to (and I hate this phrase) "re-invent yourself".
This can even mean leaving the tech industry altogether. Whenever I read that someone has been unemployed for over a year, I wonder, "Have they even tried other industries?" It may be hard to accept, sometimes, but there are lots of people who earn money by not programming or sysadmining! Or am I delusional?
Another option would be to become dirt poor on purpose to feed on other taxpayers (earned income credit, anyone?).
Not so! It may be gone for now, but mark my words the next tech boom is the semantic web. Companies will want their services exposed via webservices so that intelligent agents can search for goods and services automatically. This will mark a new era in terms of data accessibility, much like the internet boom in the 90's.
This is a definite possibility, but I don't think it can happen as long as Microsoft is #1. The entire reason the Liberty Alliance exists is that many competing businesses didn't want Passport/Hailstorm. Only when businesses are confident MS isn't using them as guinea pigs will the WWW really take off.
Seriously, we need to keep the WWW out of the hands of one company. IE and IIS have already done heaps of damage to any idealism we once had.
You will need to be proactive.
Being proactive in a passive way sometimes works well. Just by posting my resume to Monster.com and making it searchable landed me an interview or two.
There are lots of openings that aren't posted but are put into the hands of recruiters/head-hunters who then do keyword searches on the WWW. I'd bet some companies prefer to do this, because actually posting a job would create a useless deluge of "will work for food" resumes.
If you are saying that it's volatile across minor versions, then the library is junk and should never have been considered.
It is highly volatile across minor versions. I tried three different 1.X distributions before one had the right directory structure for GNUCash.
How on earth do you propose compiling a GNOME 1.4 application "for" KDE?
I really didn't intend to mean compiling GNUCash in the presence of just a KDE installation. Often, getting GNOME apps to work under KDE or CDE is a matter of having the right libraries. GNUCash, however, has dependencies on the much of the GNOME 1.4 distribution, including utilities under its "bin" directory.
As such, it's an indicator of high code quality, you have it backwards.
No. For example, one dependency, g-wrap, is highly volatile across versions and should be bundled into GnuCash at a minimum. If they are going to choose such libraries as a part of the GnuCash architecture, then, at least, they should do it wisely. Also, I remember there being direct dependencies on GNOME 1.4's configuration utilities built into their autoconf scheme. Without a lot of hacking, it isn't even possible to attempt getting GnuCash to compile for GNOME 2 or KDE.
Libraries and external tools are always a mixed blessing, and GnuCash made sure to excersize this fact to its fullest.
The only I can think of is Mosix. The other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).
Open Source deserves a lot of credit.
KDE and GNOME have additional forms of network-awareness built into them at low levels that aren't present in Windows, CDE, etc. Mozilla allows pretty fine-grained control over cookies, JavaScript, and images (small but extremely useful features), and it is actually standards-compliant, for once. Emacs is pretty darn innovative for its time (Lisp engine and rediculous extensibility). Ghostscript is the only way I know to print PostScript under Windows to cheap printers. Is there a better EPS plot generator than GnuPlot? LaTeX and DocBook are basically the only options for large-scale structured document authoring that allow true version control, output to who knows how many formats, awesome mathematics support (LaTeX, at least), among lots of other things. OpenOffice.org will level the playing field for office software. OpenBSD is the most secure OS I know of. The most popular HPC clustering software is open source (Beowulf, anyone?). Apache+mod_basically_anything. I'd bet NetBSD literally runs on a toaster, somewhere. Open Source will figure out package management, eventually, Microsoft won't. The best TCP/IP stacks are open source. PERL/Python/Ruby. CVS-over-SSH allows distributed development of proprietary software. gzip/bzip. tcp_wrappers. gcc (languages X platforms).
Some of what I list are significant refinements rather than true innovation, but the fact that many best-in-class applications exist in Open Source form is undeniable. There are hundreds of other innovations/refinements that I can't remember or am unaware of (a lot of them get taken for granted).
On the other side of the pond, Microsoft will let something fail, and fail, and fail, tweak, twist, fix, and then they have something worth having.
1) Microsoft has lots, lots, and lots more of money.
2) Money allows hiring programmer-whores to hack on something until they get it right, even if by chance. Money also allows hiring conscience-less managers, lawyers, and marketeers to whip the whores into action and sell the resulting software to their masses of sheep...er, customers.
Could anyone have kept accurate track of equipment and accounting for it under those conditions?
We could just tip off the BSA. I'd bet there are lots of DOS and Windows licenses floating around that haven't been paid for twice. Just watch the telcos crumble under the BSA onslaught.
Imagine a world where all those people who would otherwise shell out $30 for MoneyDance would be willing to donate half of that to support "free" comparable software such as Gnucash.
Would you be willing to appoint yourself the dictator that makes this happen? Perhaps, then, we can really see what Free software can do!
Great program when running, but horrible to get it there.
All the other responses to this post say "just use apt-get" or "up2date" or "emerge this or that". That's all nice and dandy, but part of the freedom of Open Source is being able to compile from the source from the authors! Getting GNUCash to compile on Solaris, for example, is absolute torture. I don't want to know how much pain and suffering the people at Debian, Red Hat, and Gentoo had to go through to make their one-shot commands actually work.
IMO, the fact that GNUCash is so difficult to compile from source reflects badly upon its architecture and packaging. However, I do agree that it works well once it's in place.
Actually, GNUcash doesn't run on windows, the third 'platform' listed.
True. Actually, it isn't portable beyond systems that have GNOME 1.4 and a plethora of other libraries installed. It's also GTK-based. The huge number of dependencies in GNUCash are its greatest portability weakness, IMO. I doubt it would ever run on Windows without substantial re-engineering.
I find it amazing and disappointing how many people are posting excuses why they don't vote. For most of their imagined problems, actually going out and voting would do a small part in fixing those problems. By voting, you, in a small way, are making your mark on the statistics of the election. Even if there is only one vote--your vote--for legalizing dog-weddings (for example), the fact that someone wants them is know known to the public. The effect is subtle but real.
Another good example: a recent school bond referendum fell through by a measily 200 or so votes in a county of thousands of registered voters. If only 200 more people had formed an opinion about the referendum and actually voted, the outcome could have been completely different. Remember, the outcomes of elections are decided by the majority of voters, not citizens.
Unfortunately, more often than not, the OS ends up being Windows NT/2000/XP. :(
Yes, it is unfortunate. In my experience, Solaris on Sun hardware has been bulletproof, where the applications are clearly the source of problems (Pro/E crashes plenty well on its own). In Windows, it isn't always so transparent, many thanks to Microsoft's build-it-now-fix-it-later attitude.
Hopefully, if PCs are to rule the CAD market, the vendors will have the sense to begin using Linux-based or BSD-based systems (I've read Pro/E will be available for Red Hat sometime, which is encouraging).
Someone who has spent 3k on an Apple is more likely to spend that 700 on a Dell and stick it on the network.
Having a PCI card offers several advantages for a workstation: better desktop integration, fewer moving parts, fewer physical enclosures to manage, and fewer monitors and keyboards. For an office/home office desktop, the PCI cards really would be a perfect fit for many people.
Also, the cards don't have to cost $700. Used ones with 400MHz CPUs go for about $100 to $200. From Sun, ones with 733MHz Celerons are $500, and ones with 1600+ Athlons are $700. There are also unofficial ways to upgrade the CPUs (at least on the SunPCi I cards), so they aren't necessarily fixed configurations.
Ummm...I'm pretty sure Apple already tried this once. They sold some PowerMacs with cards that had 486 processors on them so you could write Windows on it. Wasn't that thing a dismal failure?
I'm curious why it would fail for Apple but not Sun. Sun, for many years, has sold x86-based motherboards on a PCI or SBus card for running Windows. They integrate nicely with CDE, put Windows where it belongs (in an CDE window and in a flat-file emulated hard drive), allow mounting Solaris UFS directories as network drives, among other useful things.
Quite honestly, I would love for Sun to make a PowerPC card, too, so I could play with Mac OS X. Imagine Solaris 9, Windows 2000, and Mac OS X all in one box. This isn't too far from what Apple would accomplish (classic, OS X, Windows). I've also seen instructions for putting Linux on Sun's PC cards, so it could even be Solaris, Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux all in one enclosure running simultaneously (multiple SunPCi cards can be installed...what fun!).
Anybody like to cite interesting portions of the EULA of those systems?
Well, you can read the Solaris license here.
It reads like a typical commercial EULA and has some parts in common with the Win XP EULA. However, it does appear less scandalous, overall, relative to Win XP's.
For example, Sun's tends to discourage large-scale commercial use of its no-cost offerings by limiting bundled features rather than imposing artificial connection limits. There is also a single-CPU limit to the no-cost version of Solaris 9 (eight CPUs for
Solaris 8). Regardless, any of these limitations in Solaris tend to err on the side of generosity and are adequate for small businesses, and they bundle in their media kits a lot of GNU tools, lots of Sun ONE software, StarOffice, real OpenGL, an MPEG viewer/recorder, and Oracle 9i (!), among other things, with no time-bombs. They also bundle BEA WebLogic and the Sun compiler suite, but those are only 60-day trials.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that smells of Microsoft's automatic updates in Sun's EULA appears to be limited to the Java WebStart installations they offer for some software. Additionally, I didn't see anything related to collecting information, personal or otherwise. Sun typically has good privacy policies regarding customer data.
The Solaris EULA is pretty typical (denouncing liability, etc), but is noticabliy better than the one for Win XP. This probably stems from the fact that Sun is generally more reasonable towards its customers.
Don't forget: IANAL.
They are comparing the XP Home edition EULA.
No, the article is comparing the XP Professional Edition EULA. The grandparent post must be talking about the Home Edition. The article clearly states the 10-machine limit in the Professional EULA.
Slow, wide pans...
Often not slow enough. I've seen only a few IMAX movies, but there invariably seems to be several scenes, where the helicopter is moving faster than the framerate can handle. The result is a rather unsettling stutter in the image.
The biggest problem was the dialogue, especially between natalie portman and anakin.
There was dialog between Padme and Anakin in Episode 2?
Most people drive comfortable at about 85 mph (on the highway).
Obviously, you haven't driven an old American four-banger with only 90HP on the highway. Often, simply driving the speed limit is hard enough in the U.S.
I disagree that speed limits are unnecessary. One often overlooks aspect of speed is the simple formula: E = 1/2mv^2. 85MPH is potentially much much more dangerous than 65MPH when you need to stop or maneuver around a suprising obstacle (tire carcass, deer, etc.). Even those 5-star safety ratings become a joke at 85MPH.
I think its obvious that it would be safer if every car on the road was driving at about 85mph as opposed to some driving 65 and some driving as high as 90. Mixing fast + slow cars disrupts the traffic and makes thing less-safe.
I think you are forgetting that 40,000+ pound trucks also share that highway.
Regardless, I do agree that driver's license standards are too low. If I had a nickel for each time a teeny-bopper cut me off without looking...
If you wrap your fingers around to form a small hole through them, you can capture an image of a solar eclipse on the ground or in a box. It works suprisingly well.
MS is one of the few remaining software (large) firms where education is a not considered the uber credential.
Did Bill G. ever get a degree? If not, this may be one reason they can't expect the same thing from their employees.
Regardless, I agree that some companies place too much emphasis on whether a canidate has a degree. U.S. government positions tend to be refreshingly degree-agnostic, where they consider years of experience to be equivalent to schooling.
Not meaning to troll, but:
Yet virtually every Microsoft employee accepts the "obvious" rationale, that only people who do well in logic puzzles will do well at Microsoft.
I'd bet they think higher SAT scores make better engineers or managers, too.
They got the correct answer right away? No fair, they must have seen it before.
Sure, punish people for having experience.
one recruiter named Colleen offers a quote from Yoda: "Do or do not, there is no try." Other recruiter tips include "Stay awake" and "Always leave room for dessert."
Why say something when saying nothing achieves the same effect?
Developers write code: program managers design the user interface
Are they using the UI to capture software requirements that should be documented elsewhere? Could this be the source of the 15,000 menus in Office?
Designing software is something any reasonably intelligent person can attempt
This explains a lot about why most software still sucks, and MS is no exception, apparently. There are lots of smart people in the world, yet most of them would not make good software architects.
Developers, meanwhile, are usually asked to write code on the whiteboard, an experience that program management candidates are spared
Technical managers are not requried to express technical knowledge during an interview?
Another recruiter, Stacey, gives the following interview tip: "The best interview tips I can give you are to relax and think for yourself.
OT: Many recruiters suck, too. The generic advice they give is nauseating.
intelligence, hard work, ability to get things done, and vision
What about effectively managing complexity? Perhaps if they architected a simpler operating system they wouldn't need to hire such "intelligent" people.
Someone who tries five different attempts might demonstrate more resourcefulness than someone who just "gets it"--but they would get turned down.
Are no scientists employed by Microsoft?
For those considering a job at Microsoft, the book may ratchet up the "arms race" of questions.
So it's all just some made-up game, where interviewers try to best eachother. That's very reassuring.
In conclusion, working at Microsoft must be like regressing to the third-grade playground we all look back at and wonder "was I really that immature?".
How Would You Move Mount Fuji? Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle - How the World's Smartest Company Selects the Most Creative Thinkers
I wonder if the author is biased? Naw, he's just an impartial observer. Yea, that's it.
It is highly debatable whether Microsoft is the smartest. It is easily argued that they are the most cunning, however. Cunning like the devil, that is.
It is also highly debatable that Microsoft hires the "most creative thinkers." They are certainly good at aquiring creativity--I guess that is an indirect form of hiring.
One thing I find frustrating is that many people equate Microsofts market share and asset portfolio with "they must be the best". This is a fallacy, of course, but it appears that Microsoft's marketing dapartment can work around any logical inconsistency. The fact that Microsoft keeps most of the public in the dark about their lack of ethics doesn't hurt, either.
I wouldn't be suprised at all if Mr. Poundstone is, directly or indirectly, on Microsoft's payroll.
I think we should stop building churches!
Religion is the opium of the masses
But what would happen to the masses when they are no longer spoon-fed meaning and optimism? How many people are willing to derive optimism from observation and logic? How many people are even capable?