Re:Thats why we need to change the interview proce
on
Resumes for New Grads?
·
· Score: 1
A lot of places use a scoring technique to reduce the number of applications/resumes that are seen by the HR people.
The problem with an automated system that leads straight to interviews is that it can be gamed. If google and spam filters can be gamed to give irrelevant results, so can a resume sorting/filtering/scoring system.
Just because he got his degree and moved on does not mean he can keep it after committing fraud. If what you say is true, and you have evidence, you have a case.
You might try Craigslist, especially if there is one in your area. I see all kinds of interesting jobs on there. Just today, I saw an ad for oil-wrestling girls for a trailer-trash themed party.
My guess is that if a bridge says its limit is 2 tons, that is probably the work of some engineer who rounded it down to a nice even number from whatever calculations they performed (which probably included some % tolerance from the maximum anyway).
The bridge (or other weight-limited structure) is not likely to suffer a tremendous difference in stress between a truck that weighs 4409 lbs, 4480 lbs, or 4000 lbs.
I would say that it would be pretty safe to leave the signs alone in these cases.
Fortune 500 companies are run like you say, full of HR staff who can't tell a valid candidate from their ass, so they latch onto some kind of meaningless benchmark like a piece of paper which, in all reality, means that individual spent a crapload of money to get that piece of paper. In other words, they're hiring out of the good ol' boy network. New money, old money, you're hiring the upper crust.
This isn't the complete picture. I have a friend who works in HR at a very large corporation. I commented on their "scoring" system that weeds out a lot of people simply based on experience-based questions for each position (ie. "do you have a bachelors in ____, do you have experience with SAP"). I told her a lot of very good people probably won't score in the top 10% that they actually look at.
She said that of course, N*ke wants the very best person for the job. But each position may have a between 100 and 1000 applicants. Even if they simply cut the bottom 90% based on their score, they feel reasonably certain that they'll still get someone who be able to do the job very well... even if the best person was in that 90% they didn't consider.
It's kind of the like the decision-making problem of "value of perfect information". When making a decision, you try to evaluate "what would the outcome be if we had 'perfect information' that would give us the absolute best outcome". You then figure that you'll have a certain probability of a "good outcome" and determine the cost for that. The difference in return between your reasonably assured "good outcome" and the "very best" outcome is the most you should be willing to pay for better information.
In the case of hiring, you could get near-perfect information by individually interviewing all 1000 applicants. But that would cost quite a bit more than interviewing only the top 10%. If you interview the entire field, what are the chances that someone not in that top 10% will bring enough value to the company to compensate for the much higher costs from interviewing more people?
It's a gamble, and a successful company finds the right balance.
The solution is simple. It needs to be a 2 part system. On system for generating error-reduced ballots. This is where the fancy touch-screens and audio prompting comes in. The computer assists you in generating a ballot that can be read. It prints it for you.
You then take that ballot, look at it, verify it works, then put it in the ballot box.
Later, at the end of the election, those ballots are taken out and put in a second machine that counts them. Sure, this machine can be compromised, but we already use electronic machines for counting, and they can be compromised.
Now, it might be interesting to have the ballot-generating machine also run a tally that can be compared to what the ballot-counting machine comes up with. If they differ by a certain percentage, BANG!, You do a hand count of the machine and human readable ballots.
Jim goes to machine one, and makes his choices. It gives him a piece of paper. He verfifies it and puts it in the box. Machine 2 counts it. He doesn't have anything to take home to Sally except for a silly "I voted, give me a blowjob" sticker.
I prefer that too... but Linux doesn't seem to have reliable drivers for writing NTFS yet.
The solution I personally use is to put my WinXP system on a FAT32 formatted partition. Most people wince at that, but I haven't seen any problems so far. But then again, I see that system as being "disposable".. "problem? Oh, let me re-image that".
Again, I use this approache for backing up the OS and not my data. It takes some tweaking, but you can get most windows apps to finally look somewhere besides c:\... for their default data locations.
I don't like trying to maintain windows boxes either. I find this works pretty well. I can always return to a "known" state before I try new software or upgrade something. If it buggers up, I can always step back to my backup again.
You definitely should consider doing some kind of "imaging". If yo do linux, the easiest is to split your drive in half, or have a 2nd drive. Put linux on that other drive.
When you get your windows box set up "just right", go into linux (or boot on a linux cd... linux doesn't even need to be on that computer). The do something like:
(first assume that your backup location is at/backup)
Like I said, you can probably avoid the "dd"s and use cat, but I know this works for me. And I'd rather spend time on slashdot than find other solutions!
This works extremely well if you can get all your apps to use another location to store data. Get your mozilla profiles, "my documents" and other defaults to go to a D: or network drive. Then, you don't have to change anything to get back up and running.
Nobody seems to be bringing up the possibility that the rise in viruses could be attempts at economic warfare. There are a lot of people disgruntled with the US and the West and some of them are probably good programmers.
It would be interesting to compare the economic costs of losing the World Trade Center buildings to the economic cost of viruses and fighting them.
It could be a case of "we are at war with you and I made this virus to cost you money and productivity."
that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system....How are they going to swing that one?
It's my understanding that a lot of compact flash using devices use FAT file system to organize data on the CF card. MS could then go after companies like Cannon, Nikon, etc, who use FAT in their devices.
You can get all that by stealing one of my checks. You don't need to get my online account to do all this. Besides, the banks I access online don't have any account numbers.
When the costs of fraudulent use of accounts exceeds the cost of implementing more secure access methods, the banks will then implement more secure methods.
Besides, what can you do from most US online bank systems? Check balances, transfer funds from one type of account to anther (savings to checking), or maybe even transfer to another member of the same bank? These are all very traceable and means that really stupid criminals will get caught.
It's probably much easier to just steal credit card numbers.
It seems the phrase "known or should have known" shows up when a little guy is going to get screwed. Of course, it doesn't work on people like Kenneth Lay.
Right, but what excuse will be left for American hegemony?
I suppose it could take the form of pushing fast food around the world so that there is more used oil to make biodiesel. It then becomes a "national security" issue to control the waste disposal of every country in the world.
Damn... even Tom Clancy can't make up shit this good!
You don't have to have robots and nano-tech to make humans seem pretty useless. It's something humans have struggled with for a long time.
Take it to the micro level - just one person, and in this case, I'll use myself as an example. In almost every case, I can find a way to replace myself and justify self-termination:
I work tech services... someone else could do my job I have lots of friends... someone could fill my place for each of them I pay rent... someone else could live here I have 2 cats... someone else could feed and care for them
In fact, the only place I can't be easily replaced is in my family relationships. While my parents and brother can't replace me, they could get by without me, and you have to ask what value those relationships have.
Most of us could probably be eliminated by the above criteria. So, either we find our value through some other measure, or we have no value at all, and the inroduction of robots and nano-tech doesn't really impact the equation.
I definitely got the quote wrong. However he said it (and I can't quite recall), I know that he was referring to the amount of electromagnetic engergy received from sources outside our solar system. It might have been from the context of his discussion that our own sun was excluded from that.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of places use a scoring technique to reduce the number of applications/resumes that are seen by the HR people.
The problem with an automated system that leads straight to interviews is that it can be gamed. If google and spam filters can be gamed to give irrelevant results, so can a resume sorting/filtering/scoring system.
Just because he got his degree and moved on does not mean he can keep it after committing fraud. If what you say is true, and you have evidence, you have a case.
Check out: DISGRACED PHYSICIST STRIPPED OF PH.D. DEGREE
You might try Craigslist, especially if there is one in your area. I see all kinds of interesting jobs on there. Just today, I saw an ad for oil-wrestling girls for a trailer-trash themed party.
There's more serious stuff there too.
My guess is that if a bridge says its limit is 2 tons, that is probably the work of some engineer who rounded it down to a nice even number from whatever calculations they performed (which probably included some % tolerance from the maximum anyway).
The bridge (or other weight-limited structure) is not likely to suffer a tremendous difference in stress between a truck that weighs 4409 lbs, 4480 lbs, or 4000 lbs.
I would say that it would be pretty safe to leave the signs alone in these cases.
Sorry about that... I missed the "armed" part of your statement.
I suppose, however, that there's a difference between being better at violence than your neighbor and doingbetter violence to your neighbor.
The army can have small fixed wing aircraft. I belive the RC-12, used at least in Guardrail, is the largest plane the army is alowed to operate.
NPR (National Public Radio) calls that a "Driveway Moment", and in fact made a set of CDs of such stories:
NPR Shop: Driveway Moments 2CD Set
Fortune 500 companies are run like you say, full of HR staff who can't tell a valid candidate from their ass, so they latch onto some kind of meaningless benchmark like a piece of paper which, in all reality, means that individual spent a crapload of money to get that piece of paper. In other words, they're hiring out of the good ol' boy network. New money, old money, you're hiring the upper crust.
This isn't the complete picture. I have a friend who works in HR at a very large corporation. I commented on their "scoring" system that weeds out a lot of people simply based on experience-based questions for each position (ie. "do you have a bachelors in ____, do you have experience with SAP"). I told her a lot of very good people probably won't score in the top 10% that they actually look at.
She said that of course, N*ke wants the very best person for the job. But each position may have a between 100 and 1000 applicants. Even if they simply cut the bottom 90% based on their score, they feel reasonably certain that they'll still get someone who be able to do the job very well... even if the best person was in that 90% they didn't consider.
It's kind of the like the decision-making problem of "value of perfect information". When making a decision, you try to evaluate "what would the outcome be if we had 'perfect information' that would give us the absolute best outcome". You then figure that you'll have a certain probability of a "good outcome" and determine the cost for that. The difference in return between your reasonably assured "good outcome" and the "very best" outcome is the most you should be willing to pay for better information.
In the case of hiring, you could get near-perfect information by individually interviewing all 1000 applicants. But that would cost quite a bit more than interviewing only the top 10%. If you interview the entire field, what are the chances that someone not in that top 10% will bring enough value to the company to compensate for the much higher costs from interviewing more people?
It's a gamble, and a successful company finds the right balance.
Not if you count the ballots in the box.
The solution is simple. It needs to be a 2 part system. On system for generating error-reduced ballots. This is where the fancy touch-screens and audio prompting comes in. The computer assists you in generating a ballot that can be read. It prints it for you.
You then take that ballot, look at it, verify it works, then put it in the ballot box.
Later, at the end of the election, those ballots are taken out and put in a second machine that counts them. Sure, this machine can be compromised, but we already use electronic machines for counting, and they can be compromised.
Now, it might be interesting to have the ballot-generating machine also run a tally that can be compared to what the ballot-counting machine comes up with. If they differ by a certain percentage, BANG!, You do a hand count of the machine and human readable ballots.
Jim goes to machine one, and makes his choices. It gives him a piece of paper. He verfifies it and puts it in the box. Machine 2 counts it. He doesn't have anything to take home to Sally except for a silly "I voted, give me a blowjob" sticker.
I prefer that too... but Linux doesn't seem to have reliable drivers for writing NTFS yet.
The solution I personally use is to put my WinXP system on a FAT32 formatted partition. Most people wince at that, but I haven't seen any problems so far. But then again, I see that system as being "disposable".. "problem? Oh, let me re-image that".
Again, I use this approache for backing up the OS and not my data. It takes some tweaking, but you can get most windows apps to finally look somewhere besides c:\... for their default data locations.
I don't like trying to maintain windows boxes either. I find this works pretty well. I can always return to a "known" state before I try new software or upgrade something. If it buggers up, I can always step back to my backup again.
You definitely should consider doing some kind of "imaging". If yo do linux, the easiest is to split your drive in half, or have a 2nd drive. Put linux on that other drive.
/backup)
When you get your windows box set up "just right", go into linux (or boot on a linux cd... linux doesn't even need to be on that computer). The do something like:
(first assume that your backup location is at
# dd if=/dev/hda1|gzip -c |dd of=/backup/winbackup_20040607.gz
When windows gets dicked up, just go back into linux and reverse it:
# dd if=/backup/winbackup_20040607.gz| gunzip -c |dd of=/dev/hda1
and reboot.
You can do that with cat and such as well. I do it with dd so that this can be done over ssh easily:
# dd if=/dev/hda1 |gzip -c |ssh backupserver "dd of=/backup/winbackup_20040607.gz"
and
# ssh backupserver "dd if=/backup/winbackup_20040607.gz"|gunzip -c |dd of=/dev/hda1
Like I said, you can probably avoid the "dd"s and use cat, but I know this works for me. And I'd rather spend time on slashdot than find other solutions!
This works extremely well if you can get all your apps to use another location to store data. Get your mozilla profiles, "my documents" and other defaults to go to a D: or network drive. Then, you don't have to change anything to get back up and running.
This isn't about counterfeiting, it's all about screwing the little guy.
The major sources of counterfeiting are other governments and large multinational crime organizations. They'll be able to get around this stuff.
Now that the little guy can make his own passable bills, they're all out to squash him down. Nothing new here.
The real question is what if they can individually mark the music you purchase, and hold you liable if that music shows up on the net?
I probably can't count how many tapes and CDs have been stolen from me over the years. Car-break-ins, "friends" taking stuff at parties, etc.
So, am I supposed to call the RIAA every time a CD gets stolen so I don't go to jail? Fuck that. I just won't buy their crap.
Nobody seems to be bringing up the possibility that the rise in viruses could be attempts at economic warfare. There are a lot of people disgruntled with the US and the West and some of them are probably good programmers.
It would be interesting to compare the economic costs of losing the World Trade Center buildings to the economic cost of viruses and fighting them.
It could be a case of "we are at war with you and I made this virus to cost you money and productivity."
Please remind me. It's been 15 years since I took calculus, and 10 since I used it. But I'm curious now!
I remember taking a cylinder and cutting it up into cylinders of "dx" thickness... or slicing it into disks of "dx" height.
There was a summation and a formula for area*dx, and then the number of slices goes infinite.
And while I'm at it, is there a notation for doing factors rather than summation?
You know, I can do {summation, x=1 to 10}(x+r)^2
Is there a notation for doing the same thing, except where you multiply the terms?
I'm guessing you can do some nasty manipulation to get it into a factorial of some kind.
that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system....How are they going to swing that one?
It's my understanding that a lot of compact flash using devices use FAT file system to organize data on the CF card. MS could then go after companies like Cannon, Nikon, etc, who use FAT in their devices.
You can get all that by stealing one of my checks. You don't need to get my online account to do all this. Besides, the banks I access online don't have any account numbers.
When the costs of fraudulent use of accounts exceeds the cost of implementing more secure access methods, the banks will then implement more secure methods.
Besides, what can you do from most US online bank systems? Check balances, transfer funds from one type of account to anther (savings to checking), or maybe even transfer to another member of the same bank? These are all very traceable and means that really stupid criminals will get caught.
It's probably much easier to just steal credit card numbers.
It seems the phrase "known or should have known" shows up when a little guy is going to get screwed. Of course, it doesn't work on people like Kenneth Lay.
I think I better dial back on the prozac.
Right, but what excuse will be left for American hegemony?
I suppose it could take the form of pushing fast food around the world so that there is more used oil to make biodiesel. It then becomes a "national security" issue to control the waste disposal of every country in the world.
Damn... even Tom Clancy can't make up shit this good!
You obviously never studied mathematics, 3 and 2.999... are exactly the same.
I thought that was engineering:
pi =3
g=10m/s^2
or at least close enough for government work.
What exactly are we humans good for now?
You don't have to have robots and nano-tech to make humans seem pretty useless. It's something humans have struggled with for a long time.
Take it to the micro level - just one person, and in this case, I'll use myself as an example. In almost every case, I can find a way to replace myself and justify self-termination:
I work tech services... someone else could do my job
I have lots of friends... someone could fill my place for each of them
I pay rent... someone else could live here
I have 2 cats... someone else could feed and care for them
In fact, the only place I can't be easily replaced is in my family relationships. While my parents and brother can't replace me, they could get by without me, and you have to ask what value those relationships have.
Most of us could probably be eliminated by the above criteria. So, either we find our value through some other measure, or we have no value at all, and the inroduction of robots and nano-tech doesn't really impact the equation.
I definitely got the quote wrong. However he said it (and I can't quite recall), I know that he was referring to the amount of electromagnetic engergy received from sources outside our solar system. It might have been from the context of his discussion that our own sun was excluded from that.