You sent it to real companies on Monster? How do you know for sure? I have found that I responded to postings that seem to be real companies and still get replies from headhunters. I think they even have email accounts set up at some of their clients.
I think if you take away commercial and substitute trying to sell something. The distinction is a fine one and I believe it includes trying to sell yourself (aka résume).
Headhunters are a very necessary evil (very evil). They can be incredibly annoying when you are happy in your job (especially when they have your cell number) but when you are looking for something new they can be your best friend.
The real trick is when you get to the higher-tier jobs. When you pass 6 digits you start getting the manager headhunters and they are a lot nicer and do a lot less cold calling.
You don't understand what spamming is. Posting your resume on job search engines/websites is NOT spamming. That is how you should do it. Better yet, you should find a headhunter and let them do all the work - free for you.
It's when you just stripmine websites for addresses and then create a script to send out thousands of unsolicited emails. It is even worse when you are asked to stop and you continue to do it.
There is a huge difference there. Most of the listings on Monster are not real employers but are headhunters listing their clients' open positions. They know full well they are going to receive tons of responses. Also, if they aren't calling you back it's because they don't have a job for your skillset. I had to deactivate my resume because I was getting swamped in emails. Thankfully I used the anonymous option and none of them got my real email address.
Am I the only one who feels like this interview never took place and the author just took comments that the Judge made to somebody else and put statements around them to make it sound like an interview? I mean we never see the actual questions that he is answering.
Here is an example:
Microsoft is evil, very evil. I hear they torture little boys and feed them to Bill Gates. He cruches their bones and spits out the cartilage.
Judge Bork - "Yes. I hear that can be very detrimental to society."
What ever happened to a straight question/answer session without all the bullshit posturing and editorializing in between.
Where to start. First, if I am my own little "government", then why should my information be viewed by people outside of my "country" beyond what is already required by law?
You might say - "what about the shareholders?" But the shareholders ARE the owners of the company. Believe it or not they actually have the right to inspect the books of the company they own. Granted you have to own 5% of the shares outstanding but if you own less then you probably wouldn't get much from the books anyway.
As for the 60 yr old who invests more than 10% in any stock let alone his own company's stock deserves to be on the street. This is especially true after 20 yrs. In 20 yrs you didn't learn how to diversify? Dang. I am 28 and I work for one of the largest companies in the world and they are still only 20% of my 401(k). You expect me to sympathize with stupidity? I would also like to point out that Enron was formed in the late 80's so anybody there for 20 years is probably in on this whole scam anyway.
Do you know why banks hold money? Not because they are being nice. They are doing it to make money. And they are the biggest scums of the earth. Do you not think they give preferential treatment to big companies? Who do you think has a better checking account deal - you or AverageNationalCorp? Don't even start me with banks. I could for hours on how they are robbing you. But on the subject, how would any company profit from holding another company's information? Information doesn't gain interest. As soon as you start charging that company they become a client and they are not much different from an accounting firm. Or are you proposing just one huge repository owned and run by the government. I'll tell you what, you can vote for the politician that suggests that one.
And yes. Companies are required to keep accurate records and they do release financial statements as provided by the SEC. That doesn't mean that you should be able to see every journal entry booked and the minutes to every meeting.
I understand that you're not in this type of world and it is hard to understand from the outside but just take my word that most companies have document retention (aka destruction) policies, not because they are hiding something but because they realize that anything can be taking of context and blown up by the media. When it comes lawyers and the media there is no right or wrong, there is just win or lose.
The trick in all this is not documentation. All the documentation in the world is not going to bring back Enron. All you can do is sue the deep-pocket, which in this case in Arthur Andersen. Happens everytime a company goes belly up. In this case AA probably deserves it but there are 100 other cases to this one that they were nothing more than deep pockets. The truth is that if the senior management of any company wants to collude to "cook the books" the best accounting firms in the world won't find a thing.
Two things need to happen. First, Accounting firms need to be separated entirely from their consulting practices. The urge is too great to let accounting errors slip by in order to sell a big consulting deal. Second, people need to be educated on how to invest in their 401(k). My first advice would be - if you are over 50 then stop looking at stock and start looking at blended funds.
Unless you're running your whole business, you shouldn't be making policy about document archiving
Yeah because the CEO of the 80,000 employee company creates all of the policies. Typically, these are decisions made by the Legal department. They are ones who know that related laws and who know the current legal environment.
business that are for the most part just like little governments?
How are businesses like little governments? They don't pass/enforce laws (except through lobbying), they don't collect taxes, most companies don't even have a significant impact on their community.
I think they should pass a law that requires companies to store copies of all documents in escrow with an independant third-part for as long as they are in business.
I'm not even sure where to start with that. What do you define as documents? Ever email, every post-it note, every hand written review note? And these 3rd party escrows would have to be like Fort Knox. And if I am paying for them then that means that if I am a big client I might be able to bully them into letting me see a smaller competitors info.
I could go on for hours stating why your argument is horribly flawed but I am just getting over the flu and I am way too tired.
I should imagine that internal auditors would be more effective at keeping a company out of trouble
I am guessing you have never worked as an internal auditor or known someone who worked as an internal auditor. They don't typically review accounting policies. They are more procedure oriented.
Even if the internatl auditors did know about this problem, they would have just reported to the board of directors who most likely would have filed the report in the cabinet with the sharp cutting teeth.
People will always save (on their own) documents to protect themselfs. So any policy will be useless.
That's true until the first lawsuit comes up and they find out that you haven't been following the policy. Just see how quickly you are made an example of. Most corporate policies are useless until the first person gets hung for not following them.
A lot of people have posted that as long as you are legit then you shouldn't have to worry but that is just naive. The truth is that a well trained lawyer can take any document and manipulate the information to fit their needs. Add to that information taken out of context can be given uneducated scrutiny by the press and the general public resulting in a disaster.
To me, the best policy is whatever your legal requirements are and that's it. Destroy everything else.
We have these debates all the time. They used to turn into long-souring arguments. Now that we know that the answer is one-click away we never let it get that far.
We also are about 50/50 so if one of us gloats then the other just brings up another time when they were right.
Wow. What an unfair example to use. 9/11 was hardly your typical high-volume day. I mean the phone system failed that today, too. In defense of both systems, there was a lot of infrastructure located within the WTC.
First, your McDonald's reference is absurd since Stella Liebeck was burned back in 1992 and was 79 years old at the time. I hardly think she was spending a whole lot of time of the internet.
Second, assuming that the "Net Generation" will not take responsibility for their actions is as ignorant and close-minded as those that said that the "boob tube" will destroy our or our parent's generation. How children develop responsibility is by watching their parents. If you, as a parent, act responsible then mostly likely so will your children.
As for the increase in litigation, you have no further to look then the faulty/antiquated legal system.
The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.
I think you are missing that cost/benefit analysis that goes along with everything we do. There are many things that I could've done before but would not have because it would have taken too much time (cost) to justify the benefit.
For example, I talk to my sister almost every day via IM. Before we used IM, I never talked to her. Because of IM, my sister and I have a better relationship.
Another example, my girlfriend and I were watching a movie the other night and we started arguing about what other movies a particular actress was in. A quick jump to IMDB and the issue was solved (I was right this time). IMDB has helped my relationship.
Now these are obviously oversimplified examples but they make the point that the internet has changed the world (maybe only slightly) by reducing the cost to do certain tasks making it more likely that they will occur.
Another great example of parenting by proxy. We can't control our kids so we'll let the government do it for us. To me, if these are violent kids to start out (which it sounds like) then we should be glad they are focusing their anger on video games and not out on the streets.
Hopefully after 45 days they will open up the cafes again with some proper supervision and this won't be another Indianpolis.
I apologize for whatever moderator rated you a Troll. The truth is that I think that some of what you say may be true but you have to remember he came from a different time. You have to remember that he grew up before Martin Luther King, before Rosa Parks and the other great black leaders who helped make the US (and the world) a better, more tolerant place to live. That doesn't make it right but it does explain a little.
You also have to know that a lot of the controversial stories he based his cartoons on (Tarzan, Brair Rabbit, etc.) were not written by him.
I had heard differently about him. I heard that he really never had too much control over his company and that in the end his brother (Roy) was pretty much running everything. I also heard that he was an artist first and foremost. He may have had incredible business sense but he still was just an artist at heart.
I find that most talented artists care more about sharing their talent with the world than they do about protecting it to the point of hiding it. It is those with less talent (i.e. Mettalica) that insist on holding all rights. I think a lot of the business that is Disney nowadays is all Eisner. He saved Disney from the crap Roy had done but at the same time he changed it from an artists studio to a multinational conglomerate.
I often wonder whether Walt would have wanted it this way. I remember doing a bio in 6th grade on him and how he grew up pretty much out of nothing in KC. He was an incredible businessman and loved to make a dollar but he also wanted to make people happy. I wonder if he would have been as possesive over Mickey Mouse as Michael Eisner is.
May sound absurd but I know that AOL and NASCAR had some kind of mobile web access thing going. There is a picture of it on Here. Of course, I am not sure how cost effective it is to have two satellite dishes on top of an old mac truck.
What is truly unfortunate is that only the most violent nutcases ever make the news and the whole movement gets attached to those nutcases. It is an age old dilemma of course. The internet promises the possibility of fresh hope by providing alternatives to the mainstream media and the ability to make anonymous comments without the fear of reprisal. Of course, there are constant attempts to change that but to me the technology to circumvent will always be one step ahead of the technology to censor.
What's even worse is that by causing such mayhem they are not endearing themselves to the average joe voter. Quite the opposite of course. I know I heard at least one person comment about the "scum" destroying Seattle while WTO was in town.
If they check their history lessons, by sitting peacefully and letting the police create the violence they would appear much more in control and get their point across much better.
Thank you for your anonymous, yet insightful addition to this discussion. Your point is well stated and definitely was succinct.
We all want to believe that the terrorists are just a few, stupid, angry old men living in caves in Afghanistan and that our smart government agencies will wipe them from the face of the earth.
The truth, of course, is that we have probably in the past underestimated their size and pervasiveness. We have to realize that they are spread throughout the world and in a lot cases they meld seemlessly into society. Only by realisizing this can we effectively target and destroy them.
Thankfully, our government seems to understand that better than the average AC on slashdot.
I look forward to your intelligent rebuttal.
(PS I have karma to burn so feel free to mod all you want.)
Slashdot Mirror
You sent it to real companies on Monster? How do you know for sure? I have found that I responded to postings that seem to be real companies and still get replies from headhunters. I think they even have email accounts set up at some of their clients.
I think if you take away commercial and substitute trying to sell something. The distinction is a fine one and I believe it includes trying to sell yourself (aka résume).
Headhunters are a very necessary evil (very evil). They can be incredibly annoying when you are happy in your job (especially when they have your cell number) but when you are looking for something new they can be your best friend.
The real trick is when you get to the higher-tier jobs. When you pass 6 digits you start getting the manager headhunters and they are a lot nicer and do a lot less cold calling.
You don't understand what spamming is. Posting your resume on job search engines/websites is NOT spamming. That is how you should do it. Better yet, you should find a headhunter and let them do all the work - free for you.
It's when you just stripmine websites for addresses and then create a script to send out thousands of unsolicited emails. It is even worse when you are asked to stop and you continue to do it.
There is a huge difference there. Most of the listings on Monster are not real employers but are headhunters listing their clients' open positions. They know full well they are going to receive tons of responses. Also, if they aren't calling you back it's because they don't have a job for your skillset. I had to deactivate my resume because I was getting swamped in emails. Thankfully I used the anonymous option and none of them got my real email address.
Am I the only one who feels like this interview never took place and the author just took comments that the Judge made to somebody else and put statements around them to make it sound like an interview? I mean we never see the actual questions that he is answering.
Here is an example:
Microsoft is evil, very evil. I hear they torture little boys and feed them to Bill Gates. He cruches their bones and spits out the cartilage.
Judge Bork - "Yes. I hear that can be very detrimental to society."
What ever happened to a straight question/answer session without all the bullshit posturing and editorializing in between.
Where to start. First, if I am my own little "government", then why should my information be viewed by people outside of my "country" beyond what is already required by law?
You might say - "what about the shareholders?" But the shareholders ARE the owners of the company. Believe it or not they actually have the right to inspect the books of the company they own. Granted you have to own 5% of the shares outstanding but if you own less then you probably wouldn't get much from the books anyway.
As for the 60 yr old who invests more than 10% in any stock let alone his own company's stock deserves to be on the street. This is especially true after 20 yrs. In 20 yrs you didn't learn how to diversify? Dang. I am 28 and I work for one of the largest companies in the world and they are still only 20% of my 401(k). You expect me to sympathize with stupidity? I would also like to point out that Enron was formed in the late 80's so anybody there for 20 years is probably in on this whole scam anyway.
Do you know why banks hold money? Not because they are being nice. They are doing it to make money. And they are the biggest scums of the earth. Do you not think they give preferential treatment to big companies? Who do you think has a better checking account deal - you or AverageNationalCorp? Don't even start me with banks. I could for hours on how they are robbing you. But on the subject, how would any company profit from holding another company's information? Information doesn't gain interest. As soon as you start charging that company they become a client and they are not much different from an accounting firm. Or are you proposing just one huge repository owned and run by the government. I'll tell you what, you can vote for the politician that suggests that one.
And yes. Companies are required to keep accurate records and they do release financial statements as provided by the SEC. That doesn't mean that you should be able to see every journal entry booked and the minutes to every meeting.
I understand that you're not in this type of world and it is hard to understand from the outside but just take my word that most companies have document retention (aka destruction) policies, not because they are hiding something but because they realize that anything can be taking of context and blown up by the media. When it comes lawyers and the media there is no right or wrong, there is just win or lose.
The trick in all this is not documentation. All the documentation in the world is not going to bring back Enron. All you can do is sue the deep-pocket, which in this case in Arthur Andersen. Happens everytime a company goes belly up. In this case AA probably deserves it but there are 100 other cases to this one that they were nothing more than deep pockets. The truth is that if the senior management of any company wants to collude to "cook the books" the best accounting firms in the world won't find a thing.
Two things need to happen. First, Accounting firms need to be separated entirely from their consulting practices. The urge is too great to let accounting errors slip by in order to sell a big consulting deal. Second, people need to be educated on how to invest in their 401(k). My first advice would be - if you are over 50 then stop looking at stock and start looking at blended funds.
Unless you're running your whole business, you shouldn't be making policy about document archiving
Yeah because the CEO of the 80,000 employee company creates all of the policies. Typically, these are decisions made by the Legal department. They are ones who know that related laws and who know the current legal environment.
business that are for the most part just like little governments?
How are businesses like little governments? They don't pass/enforce laws (except through lobbying), they don't collect taxes, most companies don't even have a significant impact on their community.
I think they should pass a law that requires companies to store copies of all documents in escrow with an independant third-part for as long as they are in business.
I'm not even sure where to start with that. What do you define as documents? Ever email, every post-it note, every hand written review note? And these 3rd party escrows would have to be like Fort Knox. And if I am paying for them then that means that if I am a big client I might be able to bully them into letting me see a smaller competitors info.
I could go on for hours stating why your argument is horribly flawed but I am just getting over the flu and I am way too tired.
I should imagine that internal auditors would be more effective at keeping a company out of trouble
I am guessing you have never worked as an internal auditor or known someone who worked as an internal auditor. They don't typically review accounting policies. They are more procedure oriented.
Even if the internatl auditors did know about this problem, they would have just reported to the board of directors who most likely would have filed the report in the cabinet with the sharp cutting teeth.
People will always save (on their own) documents to protect themselfs. So any policy will be useless.
That's true until the first lawsuit comes up and they find out that you haven't been following the policy. Just see how quickly you are made an example of. Most corporate policies are useless until the first person gets hung for not following them.
A lot of people have posted that as long as you are legit then you shouldn't have to worry but that is just naive. The truth is that a well trained lawyer can take any document and manipulate the information to fit their needs. Add to that information taken out of context can be given uneducated scrutiny by the press and the general public resulting in a disaster.
To me, the best policy is whatever your legal requirements are and that's it. Destroy everything else.
We have these debates all the time. They used to turn into long-souring arguments. Now that we know that the answer is one-click away we never let it get that far.
We also are about 50/50 so if one of us gloats then the other just brings up another time when they were right.
Wow. What an unfair example to use. 9/11 was hardly your typical high-volume day. I mean the phone system failed that today, too. In defense of both systems, there was a lot of infrastructure located within the WTC.
First, your McDonald's reference is absurd since Stella Liebeck was burned back in 1992 and was 79 years old at the time. I hardly think she was spending a whole lot of time of the internet.
Second, assuming that the "Net Generation" will not take responsibility for their actions is as ignorant and close-minded as those that said that the "boob tube" will destroy our or our parent's generation. How children develop responsibility is by watching their parents. If you, as a parent, act responsible then mostly likely so will your children.
As for the increase in litigation, you have no further to look then the faulty/antiquated legal system.
The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.
I think you are missing that cost/benefit analysis that goes along with everything we do. There are many things that I could've done before but would not have because it would have taken too much time (cost) to justify the benefit.
For example, I talk to my sister almost every day via IM. Before we used IM, I never talked to her. Because of IM, my sister and I have a better relationship.
Another example, my girlfriend and I were watching a movie the other night and we started arguing about what other movies a particular actress was in. A quick jump to IMDB and the issue was solved (I was right this time). IMDB has helped my relationship.
Now these are obviously oversimplified examples but they make the point that the internet has changed the world (maybe only slightly) by reducing the cost to do certain tasks making it more likely that they will occur.
Another great example of parenting by proxy. We can't control our kids so we'll let the government do it for us. To me, if these are violent kids to start out (which it sounds like) then we should be glad they are focusing their anger on video games and not out on the streets.
Hopefully after 45 days they will open up the cafes again with some proper supervision and this won't be another Indianpolis.
I apologize for whatever moderator rated you a Troll. The truth is that I think that some of what you say may be true but you have to remember he came from a different time. You have to remember that he grew up before Martin Luther King, before Rosa Parks and the other great black leaders who helped make the US (and the world) a better, more tolerant place to live. That doesn't make it right but it does explain a little.
You also have to know that a lot of the controversial stories he based his cartoons on (Tarzan, Brair Rabbit, etc.) were not written by him.
I had heard differently about him. I heard that he really never had too much control over his company and that in the end his brother (Roy) was pretty much running everything. I also heard that he was an artist first and foremost. He may have had incredible business sense but he still was just an artist at heart.
I find that most talented artists care more about sharing their talent with the world than they do about protecting it to the point of hiding it. It is those with less talent (i.e. Mettalica) that insist on holding all rights. I think a lot of the business that is Disney nowadays is all Eisner. He saved Disney from the crap Roy had done but at the same time he changed it from an artists studio to a multinational conglomerate.
I often wonder whether Walt would have wanted it this way. I remember doing a bio in 6th grade on him and how he grew up pretty much out of nothing in KC. He was an incredible businessman and loved to make a dollar but he also wanted to make people happy. I wonder if he would have been as possesive over Mickey Mouse as Michael Eisner is.
May sound absurd but I know that AOL and NASCAR had some kind of mobile web access thing going. There is a picture of it on Here. Of course, I am not sure how cost effective it is to have two satellite dishes on top of an old mac truck.
What is truly unfortunate is that only the most violent nutcases ever make the news and the whole movement gets attached to those nutcases. It is an age old dilemma of course. The internet promises the possibility of fresh hope by providing alternatives to the mainstream media and the ability to make anonymous comments without the fear of reprisal. Of course, there are constant attempts to change that but to me the technology to circumvent will always be one step ahead of the technology to censor.
What's even worse is that by causing such mayhem they are not endearing themselves to the average joe voter. Quite the opposite of course. I know I heard at least one person comment about the "scum" destroying Seattle while WTO was in town.
If they check their history lessons, by sitting peacefully and letting the police create the violence they would appear much more in control and get their point across much better.
Thank you for your anonymous, yet insightful addition to this discussion. Your point is well stated and definitely was succinct.
We all want to believe that the terrorists are just a few, stupid, angry old men living in caves in Afghanistan and that our smart government agencies will wipe them from the face of the earth.
The truth, of course, is that we have probably in the past underestimated their size and pervasiveness. We have to realize that they are spread throughout the world and in a lot cases they meld seemlessly into society. Only by realisizing this can we effectively target and destroy them.
Thankfully, our government seems to understand that better than the average AC on slashdot.
I look forward to your intelligent rebuttal.
(PS I have karma to burn so feel free to mod all you want.)
As I said, it is just a matter of what you consider trivial.