I agree completely. I've never hired anyone, but I've been hired before (feels good). It seems to me your resume tells if you're able to do the job. Your interview tells what kind of person you are. If you're a liar, they'll figure it out at the interview. If you'd lie on your resume, you'll lie in the interview, they'll notice it, not say a thing, and you're finished.
Once you get the interview, you're qualified for the job (unless you lied), or they have some other interest in you (which might be as good/better than the job). Some people are more qualified for the job, but they might not be as personable. You'll get a job before these people every time. If you're the one getting interviews and not getting a job, you probably have a problem. It's usually that you do not act like yourself, such as putting on an image you view as confident but they'll see as arrogant.
Set up a mock interview and video tape yourself. Look at the stupid expression on your face (yes it will be stupid). Fix it. Look in the mirror. Then go over what you said in the interview. Completely scripted responses are easily noticeable and not appreciated.
There are two primary schools for the interviewer: new school and old school. Old school is more receptive to phoniness and arrogance, while new school sees that as being afraid to show yourself, and think you might not be stable. Try to judge the type the interviewer is (note that age is not a factor). Engineers and programmers are more likely to see new school (which I assume most readers will get). Every interview I've had but one has been new school. Those are better/more fun anyway!
Looking at the projected roadmaps (such as on the inquirer) there are a couple of chips that could easily be called the Itanium 3 and 4 (Montecito and Tukwila, respectively). Do you think they are about to drop this venture and just stick with a dual core 64 xeon processor? (Actually I'd love that for a processor) They must have much already invested in these. I wonder where the point is that launching a dud is more profitable than abandoning a project.
I'm really interested in how extreme the prices are going to be for these processors (esp Tukwila... *ear to ear grin*).
Not until we have PC's in the shape, mass, and durability of a piece of paper (hopefully a little better) will a computer be able to take place in the class room and for general use.
That being said I'm going to call my self a lier and say this: a tablet that is small enough and knows what it should do would also work. A little pad with wifi (about the size of a couple TI92's stacked long end) with the primary interface being a touch screen. I personally like the philosophy of things being good at what they are intended to do, instead of everytthing doing everything. In this light I'd say a bare minimum OS just capable of importing and exporting text, text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and the ability to be directly plugged into a network/printer. That's my dream note taking machine. To keep costs low (and battery life high) throw out color-- a nice black and amber screen would be perfect. I don't need color to take notes on paper so I don't expect color on a machine designed to help me take notes.
Heck I've thought of building one myself but I can't find a decent screen, let alone touch sensitive.
That's vanilla, orange, lemon, nutmeg, cinnamon, coriander, neroli, alcohol, and critic acid. Would you like it premixed? Powdered form costs less to ship...
In any case, Microsoft's code allows the company to keep its near-monopoly on computer operating systems, for the same reason Coca-Cola guards its secret formula.
I'd like to start by saying that the fee for preserving phone numbers is completely bologna and doesn't cost the company a cent. True, you still have to pay this, but I'd like to toss that aside.
Being in college right now I regularly go on coop (paid internships). I've bought a cellphone so that my phone number doesn't change every six months when my address changes. It's bad enough having to update twenty places each time I move (financial institutions, etc) at least if I forget one they have a phone number that will still work. And then there are my friends. When they need to contact me if I'm not at my computer (or they aren't) it doesn't matter that I've kept the same email and AIM contact for the past five years. I'd hate to be in a situation where I'm at an airport calling a ride but all the numbers have changed, so I end up crapping $50 for a taxi.
I think what we can agree on is that some form of contact must be constant. Otherwise you could just as easily not be able to email someone to get their phone, call to get their address, or write them to get any kind of contact at all! To me, the phone is the most logical choice. Emails change if you lose your provider for any reason (graduate, change companies, yahoo goes belly up, etc). Systems like Aim require both people to be at their computers (and you hope your buddy hasn't changed their online name). Don't forget Aim could also shut down at any moment for any reason. Others would move in to fill the void, but that contact list is gone.
I have a question that may look like a troll, but I'd like some real thoughts. I assume that hospital visits, operations, etc cost so much because of how much the hospitals must pay for their equipment. So, are there any ideas why hospital equipment costs so much? I thought I heard MRI's run in the hundreds of thousands. Heck, Maine has a mobile MRI bus.
But even with this taken into consideration, hospital visits that don't touch any expensive machines are still very expensive. Is this to lower the cost of visits that do use expensive equipment? I still think this is explanation is on shaky ground as a $500,000 MRI might be used several thousand times. Does it really cost that much more for upkeep?
Thanks for any info on this matter. It just doesn't seem correct.
The darwin award for this venture will occure when two groups decide in the spirit on friendship to launch the same day, no more than ten feet from eachother.
At RIT we had a couple systems. One was physically on the campus ethernet and was removed. I can understand that. Now we have two to choose from off-campus.
One of the most significant lines in a professor evaluation is where you say what grade you got from the professor. One professor at RIT I got complaints about even before I was a student there. His review average was a D/F (roughly). However, almost all his poor ratings came from people who didn't do well. I took the class, liked him as a professor (Not as a person, the guy's an ass), got an A and gave a good review. I've given glowing reviews for someone I've received a B from. I've also given very bad reviews to professors I got an A or B from. Just because I can pull it off doesn't mean the professor helped.
The numbers some sites have you report are pretty useless. It is the descriptions that matter. I had a professor I described as bipolar because he is. It he may not have ever been diagnosed (I'm guessing he has been) but shows all the symptoms and can't fulfill his job because of it. He can't be fired because of tenure, and no one wants to approach him professionally to discuss it. What's the alternative? Students don't take him. They read about him, and decide they'd rather delay their class than take it with this guy.
-Devil's advocate- Could it be that dark matter doesn't exist in any form, but we have some incorrect presumptions?
For instance we believe that gravity is a distortion of space and is thusly incompatible (except via string theory) with our other friendly forces. Has there been much effort to characterize this distortion with actual numbers? I wouldn't be to surprised if gravity could be represented by our other forces through a distorted space.
As a specific question, have we shown gravity to exist to the amount we expect the nanoscopic scale, such as two single protons, or two single neutrons? Again it wouldn't be surprising if gravity came from proton/neutron interaction, and the masses we determined for both actually don't make sense on the single boson level.
I don't mean to be any sort of a science troll, I just haven't heard of this kind of thing being addressed.
I have heard a lot about Venus which I must admit is unconfirmed, but very interesting. Supposedly it would be possible to render Venus almost hospitable by use of microbes. A bunch of rockets could simply crash into Venus releasing either genetically altered or natural microbes which will slowly change the global environment.
Of course there are problems with this idea. Do we only get one try, then the planet's screwed? Earth has redundant systems which keep things stable, perhaps Venus has a similar system which would end up destroying the microbes?
I'd really like to know more about this prospect. It seems much more viable than Mars, except that the microbes could take centuries to transform Venus.
One thing to consider is networks of electronics instead of computers. Here is a very specific example:
You want to be able to put surveillance in any area of the globe in a couple of hours after it's requested. One solution is to drop from plane or helicopter several identical devices which send a signal only when needed. Once they land they need to establish contact with each other and create some sort of net (laser, microwave, etc) to detect movement (radar, tripwire, etc). If such a movement is detected that is deemed important, only one of the devices sends the message so if detected, the other devices can continue scanning (perhaps after a timeout).
So then you can think of manners to solve the problem. Would you want the devices to create a hierarchy? How would you implement that assuming each device is identical (if they are not identical, any single piece failing would destroy the network, unless they are all unique-- think cost).
Ok maybe this is more off topic than I thought, but I think this is a really neat problem and may do a senior project / paper on it.;)
I almost worked for a company that made hightech analog clocks for this reason. The passage of time is harder to see on a digital clock than an analog. On an analog, you can take a quick look at get a rhythm of the time due to the speed of the hand. This is very important for surgeons.
What the company is doing is making analog clocks which time correctly at all times (they connect to a wireless server to get the current time). This is important for many companies, including schools, public buildings, and banks. Different degrees of accuracy are needed in different cases.
Pins are out of style. If the pins are put on at a 0.001 degree angle wrong, they won't all line up, and the chip processor is gone. (This is how it is now because of sheer number of pins).
I don't know about the rest of the world, but to me retreiving soil samples seems far more important/cheap/usable/practical/intelligent. I agree, it is less/newsworthy/.
The problem is the number of pipeline stages grows as the product is implemented. By the time it's obvious thtat the problem can't be avoided, it's too late to fix it at the low level it needs to be.
I'd really like to address this question fully but I'm currently working on an Intel processor. It hurts me not to type what I want but I know better.;-)
Yes yes-- that is how investing works. So thus the question, why invest where there is little to no potential?
Google is Google's Worst Enemy
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The only way Google will lose is if they do it to themselves. Now that they are supposed to be making an increasing amount of money every quarter (ie, impossible money) they will be pressured to do everything possible to gain money. Watch weird subscription services appear at first. Once no one buys into them expect more aggressive advertising. This will be their undoing.
I don't see why people have problems with self-suffecient companies. That is, make enough money to continue doing what you're doing and enough research to continue in the future. They are being measured too much by gains rather than gross. If Google stays at say, 70% of web searches for ten years, that would be amazing. Far more amazing than going up to 99% then failing.
Nice try, but many protections don't allow that. My favorite in highschool was to vbscript in excel, but that doesn't work either anymore. I think someone ratted on us.
I like the (ht/f)tp://user:password@domain if I'm on a computer with only IE. I'll be completely screwed otherwise. Sure "ftp" is on all windows machines, but they we're assuming I have access to "run" or at least a prompt, but that's not always the case. (Libraries, school computers).
The nice part about it is that it's very fast to log in to any FTP with drag and drop uploading and downloading. It exists on every PC windows PC already. It can connect to any port # with the same syntax anywhere (as oppose to prompt based ftpers).
I should point out that the only place this is useful is when accessing an FTP or HTTP site which has anonymous access (doesn't prompt for user/password) but you want to log in with an account.
I don't thave ADHD, or at least if I do, I haven't shown it, but I can hear those noises. CRT monitors are usually the worst, where most TV's aren't as bad unless they are displaying lots of white. LCD's do nothing to me.
I wouldn't expect him to have to get permission, as it is a parody. Other parodies (to show it's ridicules to force them to ask for permission): Political cartoonists, cartoonists, The National Enquirer, The Daily Show, 75% of acts and skits on Comedy Central (Chappell's show (sp?)), every other skit on SNL/MAD and one in ten The Simpsons episodes/scenes for starters.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. I've never hired anyone, but I've been hired before (feels good). It seems to me your resume tells if you're able to do the job. Your interview tells what kind of person you are. If you're a liar, they'll figure it out at the interview. If you'd lie on your resume, you'll lie in the interview, they'll notice it, not say a thing, and you're finished.
Once you get the interview, you're qualified for the job (unless you lied), or they have some other interest in you (which might be as good/better than the job). Some people are more qualified for the job, but they might not be as personable. You'll get a job before these people every time. If you're the one getting interviews and not getting a job, you probably have a problem. It's usually that you do not act like yourself, such as putting on an image you view as confident but they'll see as arrogant.
Set up a mock interview and video tape yourself. Look at the stupid expression on your face (yes it will be stupid). Fix it. Look in the mirror. Then go over what you said in the interview. Completely scripted responses are easily noticeable and not appreciated.
There are two primary schools for the interviewer: new school and old school. Old school is more receptive to phoniness and arrogance, while new school sees that as being afraid to show yourself, and think you might not be stable. Try to judge the type the interviewer is (note that age is not a factor). Engineers and programmers are more likely to see new school (which I assume most readers will get). Every interview I've had but one has been new school. Those are better/more fun anyway!
Looking at the projected roadmaps (such as on the inquirer) there are a couple of chips that could easily be called the Itanium 3 and 4 (Montecito and Tukwila, respectively). Do you think they are about to drop this venture and just stick with a dual core 64 xeon processor? (Actually I'd love that for a processor) They must have much already invested in these. I wonder where the point is that launching a dud is more profitable than abandoning a project. I'm really interested in how extreme the prices are going to be for these processors (esp Tukwila... *ear to ear grin*).
Not until we have PC's in the shape, mass, and durability of a piece of paper (hopefully a little better) will a computer be able to take place in the class room and for general use.
That being said I'm going to call my self a lier and say this: a tablet that is small enough and knows what it should do would also work. A little pad with wifi (about the size of a couple TI92's stacked long end) with the primary interface being a touch screen. I personally like the philosophy of things being good at what they are intended to do, instead of everytthing doing everything. In this light I'd say a bare minimum OS just capable of importing and exporting text, text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and the ability to be directly plugged into a network/printer. That's my dream note taking machine. To keep costs low (and battery life high) throw out color-- a nice black and amber screen would be perfect. I don't need color to take notes on paper so I don't expect color on a machine designed to help me take notes.
Heck I've thought of building one myself but I can't find a decent screen, let alone touch sensitive.
That's vanilla, orange, lemon, nutmeg, cinnamon, coriander, neroli, alcohol, and critic acid. Would you like it premixed? Powdered form costs less to ship...
In any case, Microsoft's code allows the company to keep its near-monopoly on computer operating systems, for the same reason Coca-Cola guards its secret formula.
Water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors, caffeine.
Uh uh the fuzz is after me.
I'd like to start by saying that the fee for preserving phone numbers is completely bologna and doesn't cost the company a cent. True, you still have to pay this, but I'd like to toss that aside.
Being in college right now I regularly go on coop (paid internships). I've bought a cellphone so that my phone number doesn't change every six months when my address changes. It's bad enough having to update twenty places each time I move (financial institutions, etc) at least if I forget one they have a phone number that will still work. And then there are my friends. When they need to contact me if I'm not at my computer (or they aren't) it doesn't matter that I've kept the same email and AIM contact for the past five years. I'd hate to be in a situation where I'm at an airport calling a ride but all the numbers have changed, so I end up crapping $50 for a taxi.
I think what we can agree on is that some form of contact must be constant. Otherwise you could just as easily not be able to email someone to get their phone, call to get their address, or write them to get any kind of contact at all! To me, the phone is the most logical choice. Emails change if you lose your provider for any reason (graduate, change companies, yahoo goes belly up, etc). Systems like Aim require both people to be at their computers (and you hope your buddy hasn't changed their online name). Don't forget Aim could also shut down at any moment for any reason. Others would move in to fill the void, but that contact list is gone.
I have a question that may look like a troll, but I'd like some real thoughts. I assume that hospital visits, operations, etc cost so much because of how much the hospitals must pay for their equipment. So, are there any ideas why hospital equipment costs so much? I thought I heard MRI's run in the hundreds of thousands. Heck, Maine has a mobile MRI bus.
But even with this taken into consideration, hospital visits that don't touch any expensive machines are still very expensive. Is this to lower the cost of visits that do use expensive equipment? I still think this is explanation is on shaky ground as a $500,000 MRI might be used several thousand times. Does it really cost that much more for upkeep?
Thanks for any info on this matter. It just doesn't seem correct.
Sadly in the society I live in, I can probably be arrested on charges of terrorism and sedition for playing a first person shooter on a plane.
Has anyone actually done this recently?
The darwin award for this venture will occure when two groups decide in the spirit on friendship to launch the same day, no more than ten feet from eachother.
At RIT we had a couple systems. One was physically on the campus ethernet and was removed. I can understand that. Now we have two to choose from off-campus.
One of the most significant lines in a professor evaluation is where you say what grade you got from the professor. One professor at RIT I got complaints about even before I was a student there. His review average was a D/F (roughly). However, almost all his poor ratings came from people who didn't do well. I took the class, liked him as a professor (Not as a person, the guy's an ass), got an A and gave a good review. I've given glowing reviews for someone I've received a B from. I've also given very bad reviews to professors I got an A or B from. Just because I can pull it off doesn't mean the professor helped.
The numbers some sites have you report are pretty useless. It is the descriptions that matter. I had a professor I described as bipolar because he is. It he may not have ever been diagnosed (I'm guessing he has been) but shows all the symptoms and can't fulfill his job because of it. He can't be fired because of tenure, and no one wants to approach him professionally to discuss it. What's the alternative? Students don't take him. They read about him, and decide they'd rather delay their class than take it with this guy.
-Devil's advocate- Could it be that dark matter doesn't exist in any form, but we have some incorrect presumptions?
For instance we believe that gravity is a distortion of space and is thusly incompatible (except via string theory) with our other friendly forces. Has there been much effort to characterize this distortion with actual numbers? I wouldn't be to surprised if gravity could be represented by our other forces through a distorted space.
As a specific question, have we shown gravity to exist to the amount we expect the nanoscopic scale, such as two single protons, or two single neutrons? Again it wouldn't be surprising if gravity came from proton/neutron interaction, and the masses we determined for both actually don't make sense on the single boson level.
I don't mean to be any sort of a science troll, I just haven't heard of this kind of thing being addressed.
I have heard a lot about Venus which I must admit is unconfirmed, but very interesting. Supposedly it would be possible to render Venus almost hospitable by use of microbes. A bunch of rockets could simply crash into Venus releasing either genetically altered or natural microbes which will slowly change the global environment.
Of course there are problems with this idea. Do we only get one try, then the planet's screwed? Earth has redundant systems which keep things stable, perhaps Venus has a similar system which would end up destroying the microbes?
I'd really like to know more about this prospect. It seems much more viable than Mars, except that the microbes could take centuries to transform Venus.
One thing to consider is networks of electronics instead of computers. Here is a very specific example: You want to be able to put surveillance in any area of the globe in a couple of hours after it's requested. One solution is to drop from plane or helicopter several identical devices which send a signal only when needed. Once they land they need to establish contact with each other and create some sort of net (laser, microwave, etc) to detect movement (radar, tripwire, etc). If such a movement is detected that is deemed important, only one of the devices sends the message so if detected, the other devices can continue scanning (perhaps after a timeout).
;)
So then you can think of manners to solve the problem. Would you want the devices to create a hierarchy? How would you implement that assuming each device is identical (if they are not identical, any single piece failing would destroy the network, unless they are all unique-- think cost).
Ok maybe this is more off topic than I thought, but I think this is a really neat problem and may do a senior project / paper on it.
I almost worked for a company that made hightech analog clocks for this reason. The passage of time is harder to see on a digital clock than an analog. On an analog, you can take a quick look at get a rhythm of the time due to the speed of the hand. This is very important for surgeons.
What the company is doing is making analog clocks which time correctly at all times (they connect to a wireless server to get the current time). This is important for many companies, including schools, public buildings, and banks. Different degrees of accuracy are needed in different cases.
Pins are out of style. If the pins are put on at a 0.001 degree angle wrong, they won't all line up, and the chip processor is gone. (This is how it is now because of sheer number of pins).
Not everything is using pins now...
I don't know about the rest of the world, but to me retreiving soil samples seems far more important/cheap/usable/practical/intelligent. I agree, it is less /newsworthy/.
The problem is the number of pipeline stages grows as the product is implemented. By the time it's obvious thtat the problem can't be avoided, it's too late to fix it at the low level it needs to be.
;-)
I'd really like to address this question fully but I'm currently working on an Intel processor. It hurts me not to type what I want but I know better.
Yes yes-- that is how investing works. So thus the question, why invest where there is little to no potential?
The only way Google will lose is if they do it to themselves. Now that they are supposed to be making an increasing amount of money every quarter (ie, impossible money) they will be pressured to do everything possible to gain money. Watch weird subscription services appear at first. Once no one buys into them expect more aggressive advertising. This will be their undoing.
I don't see why people have problems with self-suffecient companies. That is, make enough money to continue doing what you're doing and enough research to continue in the future. They are being measured too much by gains rather than gross. If Google stays at say, 70% of web searches for ten years, that would be amazing. Far more amazing than going up to 99% then failing.
And don't be a complete moron here man; no one is trying to stop MS for creating good technology,
You're correct on many levels.
So the ends justify the means, eh?
Nice try, but many protections don't allow that. My favorite in highschool was to vbscript in excel, but that doesn't work either anymore. I think someone ratted on us.
I like the (ht/f)tp://user:password@domain if I'm on a computer with only IE. I'll be completely screwed otherwise. Sure "ftp" is on all windows machines, but they we're assuming I have access to "run" or at least a prompt, but that's not always the case. (Libraries, school computers).
The nice part about it is that it's very fast to log in to any FTP with drag and drop uploading and downloading. It exists on every PC windows PC already. It can connect to any port # with the same syntax anywhere (as oppose to prompt based ftpers).
I should point out that the only place this is useful is when accessing an FTP or HTTP site which has anonymous access (doesn't prompt for user/password) but you want to log in with an account.
I don't thave ADHD, or at least if I do, I haven't shown it, but I can hear those noises. CRT monitors are usually the worst, where most TV's aren't as bad unless they are displaying lots of white. LCD's do nothing to me.
Perhaps I am low grade?
That link doesn't work for me, but..
I wouldn't expect him to have to get permission, as it is a parody. Other parodies (to show it's ridicules to force them to ask for permission): Political cartoonists, cartoonists, The National Enquirer, The Daily Show, 75% of acts and skits on Comedy Central (Chappell's show (sp?)), every other skit on SNL/MAD and one in ten The Simpsons episodes/scenes for starters.
Was Schwarzenegger consulted on Hanz and Franz?