You've got to be kidding me. If I have to come to a location multiple times for a job interview, I'm probably wasting my time....
No, you're probably wasting ours.
In my 11 years of experience and many, many job interviews, I've never had to come back to a place for a second interview.
Then you've probably never held a senior position at a LARGE company. Multiple interviews are the norm. There's the preliminary interview with HR, then you'll probably get interviewed by the country/regional director, one of the VP's, or someone on the board, then you'll probably get interviewed by the leader of your team/group and other members of the group. There's at least 3 interviews.
Of course you won't even be CONSIDERED for the position by HR if you haven't taken a number of tests by outside consulting firms that point out your strengths and weaknesses. In fact, continual testing is a part of any serious career.
But then again, I guess we're not talking about the same salary range either.
I agree. I especially didn't like the part on the test about "how would you write code to solve for problem X", and then the form I had to sign that said "all answers on this test become property of Small Dev Shop Inc and you are waiving all copyright and patent claims for such code"...
Yes, in humans, suffering involves a lot more factors. However I am sure that cows do not attend cow school, do not realize that there exists more "world" outside what they immediately observe and have observed all their lives. The are also not aware that they are destined to be turned into hamburger. There is no elder cow hanging around to "teach" all these young cows about how great the world used to be, and how miserable they should feel today, despite the lack of any physical pain.
because U.S. public companies are required to seek to maximize profits.
Yeah, I keep hearing that same line every time I mention unethical business practices. Yet tell me where all the lawsuits are, nay, where is the massive outcry from shareholders over last year's market crash? How many boards of directors have been changed and how many CEO's have been fired?
Not that many. Even when you count the ones that leave with multimillion dollar "bonuses".
This "requirement to seek to maximize profits" does not include the words "AT ANY COST, even if it means breaking the law, even if it means unethical business practices, etc". Of course it's reasonable to assume that if you obtain public funds - RISK capital - for a company, you will take steps to ensure that those funds are used responsibly and not a la Bernie Madhoff. However if you buy stock, especially common stock, it's also implicit that you are putting your money at risk and shouldn't expect the government to bail you out all the time.
In this example, even if AT&T invested a huge portion of its profits in improving infrastructure, thus reducing the amount of "reported" earnings - WHO CARES if it ensures they will be 1) better positioned than their competitors in the future and 2) offer a better quality of service. But no, AT&T simply doesn't give a shit. It's much easier just to keep picking the low hanging fruit, after all when you're an oligopoly, who else is your customer going to go to? Your fellow corporation of slackers? They'll get just the same mediocrity or worse.
But no, the usual trolls just blow it off with "duh that's capitalism it's all about profit". Thanks for not being one. Capitalism is not synonymous with monopoly or oligopoly. In fact monopolies are far closer to both the extreme left and right: fascism and communism.
This is they typical telco story. Be it transatlantic phone calls way back in the satellite era "All outside lines are busy now, please try your call again later, beep!", be it "broadband", or cellular phone service. The telco business model is:
1. Establish a technology 2. Charge an arm and a leg for said technology 3. Oversubscribe said networks until they are practically useless, then blame the customer.
You know, for a company pulling in 12 BILLION dollars a year, AFTER tax, there really is no excuse. It's not like they're going to spend the 18 billion to "upgrade" all at once. And you can BET that the "new" network will allow them to sell even more subscribers and/or charge even more for some new "must have" technology.
Communications is a racket. Is it any wonder that Ma Bell was broken up, and yet her children have mostly eaten each other and are each as big or bigger than she was, in under 30 years? Yet this is the industry that cries poverty and "we can't afford it" when the idea of upgrading to a REAL (I mean Japanese or S Korean style) broadband network is put on the table. Of course not. They don't give a shit about providing service, they just care about their balance sheet and whatever other company they can swallow.
But I for one feel no pity or sorrow for AT&T, and the suckers who sign exclusive multi-year contracts with them.
The other night I was a witness to flagrant copyright infringement. Nay, I even supported it.
I was at a small restaurant, and there was this guy strumming an electric guitar, playing all these "Golden Oldies" (I am 40+) from the 60's to the 80's. The guy was a terrible singer, but he could play the guitar reasonably well. My girlfriend and I started singing along (we are pretty damned good singers) to some of the classics (like Beatles songs we knew) - it was that kind of relaxed tiny restaurant. We got applause.
We ended up having a great time. I tipped the guy the equivalent of about $20.
However according to RIAA world view, this person should probably be in jail for not only singing songs that weren't "his" but actually trying to earn a living from it. And I should be in jail for supporting his illegal activities and singing along. In fact, this probably constituted a "public performance". You know, the world according to the RIAA would kind of suck.
Name me ONE FUCKING ARTIST who started out with 100% original music. Everyone plays the songs they like, or the songs they heard, while they're learning to play. EVERYONE. Without explicit written permission from the copyright holder. The RIAA hypocrites represent the worst in human greed and, to quote Pink Floyd: "And if I had my own way, I'd have all of you SHOT!".
The study finds that the cost and severity of crashes where roadway conditions are a factor
What does this mean, specifically?
Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half-
Again, what does it mean, SPECIFICALLY? Was it raining? Were there potholes? Did they compare a stretch of unmaintained road with the same stretch of unmaintained road 20 years later? THESE WORDS MEAN NOTHING. But they are very good for marketing - my wife is a market research manager, she uses these vague unspecific terms all the time. It sells product. Did you know that products with the word "natural" in them outsell other products by a fair margin? EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOTHING REALLY NATURAL IN THE PRODUCT? Feel free to live your life by other people's words. Me I resist all ideas until they are proven to me.
I can postulate that VELOCITY is a factor in 100% of roadway collisions, because even if you are sitting in a parked car, the car that hits you has to have had velocity. Therefore I can conclude that velocity is responsible for $217 billion in economic damage per year, and I can go on and write a doctoral thesis about this (no thanks, I already have one). THIS DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. In fact, it's kind of stupid. But it's 100% TRUE!
Rule #1 of any logical discussion: DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
"Roadway conditions" is such a broad term that it is meaningless. Wait, if it's night time, does that affect "roadway conditions"? Or are we just talking about the coefficient of dynamic/kinetic friction? What about the grade of the road? The camber? Curves?
Sorry to be picky here, but when I publish a study I make damned sure that the parameters I am evaluating are precise and well understood, and I do a REAL statistical analysis to determine if my results show any significant variation from the control group. However some idiot bureaucrat in some office coming up with the idea that he can put a fairly accurate (to the nearest billion) dollar amount on "roadway conditions" fails to convince me. But hell, I'm not even American. Feel free to vote for them - your tax dollars at work, I guess. Me, I keep a lot more distance and slow down when I'm driving in wet/icy/poor visibility conditions.
And I suppose your comments are from the "I like to use rhetoric instead of facts" department.
No, it's called logic and critical thinking.
If friction is the sole cause of 1/5th of all fatal traffic accidents, then I must assume that 1 in 5 people are sliding off the roads into trees, bridges, etc. and killing themselves that way. However if you have TWO (or more) vehicles involved (the likely case) then separation is FAR more important than friction. The less friction there is, the more separation you need, and you avoid the collision. You know I happen to be from Canada and I know what it's like to drive on pure ice yet not everyone crashes. Mis-judging the road surface and stopping distance is probably being "lumped" into your 20% group.
I guess it's just over your head that BAD SCIENCE exists everywhere, including - no, ESPECIALLY in government "statistics".
$33.454 Trillion dollars. If there is enough manufacturing capacity to create that much solar panel.
It's only just under 3 year's GDP for the US. But don't worry, we'll print some more dollar bills and send them to China (who seem to like them for some reason), in exchange for having their children make the panels for us.
1. The math was done by a wall street bank 2. This is the only way to get federal funding 3. The $100,000 is only the cost for the prototype solar panel, however making, installing and overseeing successive solar panels (not to mention a 20 year maintenance contract) will probably cost at least 3 trillion dollars - can the federal government print some money for us, too?
An estimated 20% of traffic fatalities in the US are currently correlated with inadequate road surface friction.
This brought to you from the "numbers out of the ass" department.
Seriously, are all of these people who try to take corners at 100 mph? I could counter that 99.9% of traffic fatalities in the US are correlated with people not keeping an adequate stopping distance for the weather conditions. The other.1% would be the idiot who tries to take the corner at 100mph and dies due to lack of "friction"...
I'm being sarcastic but there's an important point I'm making here. Don't blame the road, blame the driver.
in the UK actually steal the asphalt from newly laid roads, and other people around the world steal copper wiring from telephone cables from the damned telephone poles, I can just imagine exactly how long this "solar paneled highway" will last...
Then where do you draw the line? As a physician I have seen a case of mistaken sexuality - a genetic XY male born with genital ambiguity, that spent their entire childhood thinking she was female, was raised by her parents as female, was bought dresses and dolls to play with, etc. Until puberty hit, "she" started to grow a beard and extreme body hair, failed to grow breasts or acquire the female hips and waist, etc. In fact, by looking at "her" it was quite obvious "she" was male.
It was a very sad case, and the patient in question had attempted suicide several times. I spent quite a few hours talking to her because she was obviously depressed - the average person simply didn't understand her situation and after being mocked and ridiculed by society for so long, she quite obviously thought herself unworthy. Psychologically she considered herself to be female. Her documents said she was female. However the genetic studies we ran said XY - male. As did the obvious secondary sexual characteristics.
But again, you have to draw the line somewhere. It has nothing to do with compassion, understanding, or the person's feelings. In the case of our patient we treated her as female, interned her in the female ward (despite the looks from the other female patients), since it's what she was accustomed to psychologically. However if you're talking about the rules and regulations of a sporting event, you either have to disqualify a person like this for being such an exceptional case, or decide on an absolute dichotomy that says either MALE or FEMALE. Only chromosomes can do that. A genetic male will have less body fat, more muscle density and mass, and therefore would have an unfair advantage competing against genetic females.
An XY person with complete androgen insensitivity is generally considered unambiguously female in spite of an XY karyotype.
That doesn't apply in this case, as the person in question has fairly male features. You're talking about Jaimie Lee Curtis who has a very unmistakably female body. Apples and oranges.
If there's a Y chromosome ANYWHERE then it's male.
There are all sorts of abnormalities - XO (turner), XXX, etc, but most of them have severe deformities and or chronic non progressive encephalopathy which would preclude them from competing and winning in sporting events (unless we're talking about the special olympics).
this is jetfuel for some guy on an aircraft carrier stationed thousands of miles from the nearest friendly gas station in a warzone
Eeeek, exactly how many gallons per minute is your magic aircraft carrier based fuel plant going to produce, how much will it weigh, how many points of failure does it have, how much will it slow down that 30+ knot bulls-eye for Chinese subs (who have already proven they can pop up in the middle of carrier battle groups) even more. Oh, and what's that going to do to the price tag of your already expensive carriers defending a more than bankrupt country?
I would have thought supply tankers were much cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got to be kidding me. If I have to come to a location multiple times for a job interview, I'm probably wasting my time....
No, you're probably wasting ours.
In my 11 years of experience and many, many job interviews, I've never had to come back to a place for a second interview.
Then you've probably never held a senior position at a LARGE company. Multiple interviews are the norm. There's the preliminary interview with HR, then you'll probably get interviewed by the country/regional director, one of the VP's, or someone on the board, then you'll probably get interviewed by the leader of your team/group and other members of the group. There's at least 3 interviews.
Of course you won't even be CONSIDERED for the position by HR if you haven't taken a number of tests by outside consulting firms that point out your strengths and weaknesses. In fact, continual testing is a part of any serious career.
But then again, I guess we're not talking about the same salary range either.
but what they're really saying is that they don't want to pay for home-grown talent.
Usually it's not the home grown talent but all the other crap/paperwork/regulations that go with it.
Much easier to "hire" someone in India, wire them the money every week, and not have to worry about little details like the Labor Code.
00A0, in decimal
We need to test the submitters.
I agree. I especially didn't like the part on the test about "how would you write code to solve for problem X", and then the form I had to sign that said "all answers on this test become property of Small Dev Shop Inc and you are waiving all copyright and patent claims for such code"...
Suffering != Pain
Yes, in humans, suffering involves a lot more factors. However I am sure that cows do not attend cow school, do not realize that there exists more "world" outside what they immediately observe and have observed all their lives. The are also not aware that they are destined to be turned into hamburger. There is no elder cow hanging around to "teach" all these young cows about how great the world used to be, and how miserable they should feel today, despite the lack of any physical pain.
Idiot, go make love to a tree.
because U.S. public companies are required to seek to maximize profits.
Yeah, I keep hearing that same line every time I mention unethical business practices. Yet tell me where all the lawsuits are, nay, where is the massive outcry from shareholders over last year's market crash? How many boards of directors have been changed and how many CEO's have been fired?
Not that many. Even when you count the ones that leave with multimillion dollar "bonuses".
This "requirement to seek to maximize profits" does not include the words "AT ANY COST, even if it means breaking the law, even if it means unethical business practices, etc". Of course it's reasonable to assume that if you obtain public funds - RISK capital - for a company, you will take steps to ensure that those funds are used responsibly and not a la Bernie Madhoff. However if you buy stock, especially common stock, it's also implicit that you are putting your money at risk and shouldn't expect the government to bail you out all the time.
In this example, even if AT&T invested a huge portion of its profits in improving infrastructure, thus reducing the amount of "reported" earnings - WHO CARES if it ensures they will be 1) better positioned than their competitors in the future and 2) offer a better quality of service. But no, AT&T simply doesn't give a shit. It's much easier just to keep picking the low hanging fruit, after all when you're an oligopoly, who else is your customer going to go to? Your fellow corporation of slackers? They'll get just the same mediocrity or worse.
But no, the usual trolls just blow it off with "duh that's capitalism it's all about profit". Thanks for not being one. Capitalism is not synonymous with monopoly or oligopoly. In fact monopolies are far closer to both the extreme left and right: fascism and communism.
This is they typical telco story. Be it transatlantic phone calls way back in the satellite era "All outside lines are busy now, please try your call again later, beep!", be it "broadband", or cellular phone service. The telco business model is:
1. Establish a technology
2. Charge an arm and a leg for said technology
3. Oversubscribe said networks until they are practically useless, then blame the customer.
You know, for a company pulling in 12 BILLION dollars a year, AFTER tax, there really is no excuse. It's not like they're going to spend the 18 billion to "upgrade" all at once. And you can BET that the "new" network will allow them to sell even more subscribers and/or charge even more for some new "must have" technology.
Communications is a racket. Is it any wonder that Ma Bell was broken up, and yet her children have mostly eaten each other and are each as big or bigger than she was, in under 30 years? Yet this is the industry that cries poverty and "we can't afford it" when the idea of upgrading to a REAL (I mean Japanese or S Korean style) broadband network is put on the table. Of course not. They don't give a shit about providing service, they just care about their balance sheet and whatever other company they can swallow.
But I for one feel no pity or sorrow for AT&T, and the suckers who sign exclusive multi-year contracts with them.
seeing as you seem to enjoy Pink Floyd, we will send you the limited edition box set "Oh, By the Way" entirely for free
No thanks, I just downloaded it yesterd...
The other night I was a witness to flagrant copyright infringement. Nay, I even supported it.
I was at a small restaurant, and there was this guy strumming an electric guitar, playing all these "Golden Oldies" (I am 40+) from the 60's to the 80's. The guy was a terrible singer, but he could play the guitar reasonably well. My girlfriend and I started singing along (we are pretty damned good singers) to some of the classics (like Beatles songs we knew) - it was that kind of relaxed tiny restaurant. We got applause.
We ended up having a great time. I tipped the guy the equivalent of about $20.
However according to RIAA world view, this person should probably be in jail for not only singing songs that weren't "his" but actually trying to earn a living from it. And I should be in jail for supporting his illegal activities and singing along. In fact, this probably constituted a "public performance". You know, the world according to the RIAA would kind of suck.
Name me ONE FUCKING ARTIST who started out with 100% original music. Everyone plays the songs they like, or the songs they heard, while they're learning to play. EVERYONE. Without explicit written permission from the copyright holder. The RIAA hypocrites represent the worst in human greed and, to quote Pink Floyd: "And if I had my own way, I'd have all of you SHOT!".
The study finds that the cost and severity of crashes where roadway conditions are a factor
What does this mean, specifically?
Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half-
Again, what does it mean, SPECIFICALLY? Was it raining? Were there potholes? Did they compare a stretch of unmaintained road with the same stretch of unmaintained road 20 years later? THESE WORDS MEAN NOTHING. But they are very good for marketing - my wife is a market research manager, she uses these vague unspecific terms all the time. It sells product. Did you know that products with the word "natural" in them outsell other products by a fair margin? EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOTHING REALLY NATURAL IN THE PRODUCT? Feel free to live your life by other people's words. Me I resist all ideas until they are proven to me.
I can postulate that VELOCITY is a factor in 100% of roadway collisions, because even if you are sitting in a parked car, the car that hits you has to have had velocity. Therefore I can conclude that velocity is responsible for $217 billion in economic damage per year, and I can go on and write a doctoral thesis about this (no thanks, I already have one). THIS DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. In fact, it's kind of stupid. But it's 100% TRUE!
Rule #1 of any logical discussion: DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
"Roadway conditions" is such a broad term that it is meaningless. Wait, if it's night time, does that affect "roadway conditions"? Or are we just talking about the coefficient of dynamic/kinetic friction? What about the grade of the road? The camber? Curves?
Sorry to be picky here, but when I publish a study I make damned sure that the parameters I am evaluating are precise and well understood, and I do a REAL statistical analysis to determine if my results show any significant variation from the control group. However some idiot bureaucrat in some office coming up with the idea that he can put a fairly accurate (to the nearest billion) dollar amount on "roadway conditions" fails to convince me. But hell, I'm not even American. Feel free to vote for them - your tax dollars at work, I guess. Me, I keep a lot more distance and slow down when I'm driving in wet/icy/poor visibility conditions.
And I suppose your comments are from the "I like to use rhetoric instead of facts" department.
No, it's called logic and critical thinking.
If friction is the sole cause of 1/5th of all fatal traffic accidents, then I must assume that 1 in 5 people are sliding off the roads into trees, bridges, etc. and killing themselves that way. However if you have TWO (or more) vehicles involved (the likely case) then separation is FAR more important than friction. The less friction there is, the more separation you need, and you avoid the collision. You know I happen to be from Canada and I know what it's like to drive on pure ice yet not everyone crashes. Mis-judging the road surface and stopping distance is probably being "lumped" into your 20% group.
I guess it's just over your head that BAD SCIENCE exists everywhere, including - no, ESPECIALLY in government "statistics".
$33.454 Trillion dollars. If there is enough manufacturing capacity to create that much solar panel.
It's only just under 3 year's GDP for the US. But don't worry, we'll print some more dollar bills and send them to China (who seem to like them for some reason), in exchange for having their children make the panels for us.
Sheesh, you have to understand a few things:
1. The math was done by a wall street bank
2. This is the only way to get federal funding
3. The $100,000 is only the cost for the prototype solar panel, however making, installing and overseeing successive solar panels (not to mention a 20 year maintenance contract) will probably cost at least 3 trillion dollars - can the federal government print some money for us, too?
An estimated 20% of traffic fatalities in the US are currently correlated with inadequate road surface friction.
This brought to you from the "numbers out of the ass" department.
Seriously, are all of these people who try to take corners at 100 mph? I could counter that 99.9% of traffic fatalities in the US are correlated with people not keeping an adequate stopping distance for the weather conditions. The other .1% would be the idiot who tries to take the corner at 100mph and dies due to lack of "friction"...
I'm being sarcastic but there's an important point I'm making here. Don't blame the road, blame the driver.
there's still the issue of DRIVING ON GLASS - what happens when it rains?
Well it can't be any worse than driving on ice. Just make sure you wear your chains on your tyres oh wait...
in the UK actually steal the asphalt from newly laid roads, and other people around the world steal copper wiring from telephone cables from the damned telephone poles, I can just imagine exactly how long this "solar paneled highway" will last...
Hey where did the road go?
Everyone knows that engineers make lousy rugby players...
He is a developer so by definition he is computer literate; you don't "accidentally" copy the wrong files
So you have a driver's license, therefore you will never ever make a mistake and have a collision...
[citation needed]
isn't fully satisfactory.
Then where do you draw the line? As a physician I have seen a case of mistaken sexuality - a genetic XY male born with genital ambiguity, that spent their entire childhood thinking she was female, was raised by her parents as female, was bought dresses and dolls to play with, etc. Until puberty hit, "she" started to grow a beard and extreme body hair, failed to grow breasts or acquire the female hips and waist, etc. In fact, by looking at "her" it was quite obvious "she" was male.
It was a very sad case, and the patient in question had attempted suicide several times. I spent quite a few hours talking to her because she was obviously depressed - the average person simply didn't understand her situation and after being mocked and ridiculed by society for so long, she quite obviously thought herself unworthy. Psychologically she considered herself to be female. Her documents said she was female. However the genetic studies we ran said XY - male. As did the obvious secondary sexual characteristics.
But again, you have to draw the line somewhere. It has nothing to do with compassion, understanding, or the person's feelings. In the case of our patient we treated her as female, interned her in the female ward (despite the looks from the other female patients), since it's what she was accustomed to psychologically. However if you're talking about the rules and regulations of a sporting event, you either have to disqualify a person like this for being such an exceptional case, or decide on an absolute dichotomy that says either MALE or FEMALE. Only chromosomes can do that. A genetic male will have less body fat, more muscle density and mass, and therefore would have an unfair advantage competing against genetic females.
An XY person with complete androgen insensitivity is generally considered unambiguously female in spite of an XY karyotype.
That doesn't apply in this case, as the person in question has fairly male features. You're talking about Jaimie Lee Curtis who has a very unmistakably female body. Apples and oranges.
If there's a Y chromosome ANYWHERE then it's male.
There are all sorts of abnormalities - XO (turner), XXX, etc, but most of them have severe deformities and or chronic non progressive encephalopathy which would preclude them from competing and winning in sporting events (unless we're talking about the special olympics).
Any biologist will tell you what a karyotype is.
If it's XX, it's female. If it's XY, it's male. Pediatricians do this all the time in cases of genital ambiguity.
Rust?
Most modern hard drives are sealed. So maybe the casing will rust, but the silver and gold contacts won't, nor will the water get inside.
this is jetfuel for some guy on an aircraft carrier stationed thousands of miles from the nearest friendly gas station in a warzone
Eeeek, exactly how many gallons per minute is your magic aircraft carrier based fuel plant going to produce, how much will it weigh, how many points of failure does it have, how much will it slow down that 30+ knot bulls-eye for Chinese subs (who have already proven they can pop up in the middle of carrier battle groups) even more. Oh, and what's that going to do to the price tag of your already expensive carriers defending a more than bankrupt country?
I would have thought supply tankers were much cheaper.