That's harsh: shouldn't you put more responsibility on the shoulders of doctors and hospitals? Plus, sorry to say, patients who choose the wrong hospitals?
They're in the battle day after day-warriors against the ever encroaching frost giants of spam, seeing the lies, scams, floods, threatenings of lawsuits, DOS, obscenity filled email boxen, chickenboners getting support from the DMA suits...
It is their volunteer job, and if they failed for a moment the rest of the web would get as tainted as usenet was during the peak pink floods-unusenetable.
These are warriors, these are cops and investigators, and they fight for good. But all cops are told to never make mistakes, and if 99 of 100 times you are right, it becomes quite hard to admit that 1 time you were wrong. You've got an expert system supplying your gut reaction- if you're getting a bad feeling about a person, he must have done something wrong, and the very fact he is arguing, rather than immediately accepting your expertise, well, that's exactly what all spammers do- argue. That innocent people also argue is only of interest theoretically- if we've caught them, they are spammers.
I have seen the dangers with police and FBI investigations, where when an acually innocent person is released from jail, based on strong evidence, the procecuters cannot say "we were wrong." Because we as a society don't give them enough room to do so. The procecutor only says "well, procedurally we no longer have enough to hold him..."
In some antispam groups, there also is little room to be wrong. The people who disagree with the current anti spam methods, who worry about collateral damage to 'innocents' or 'ammendments', are nothing but appologists for the spammers themselves, even if they hate spam. The cause is so just there cannot be innocents and collateral damage is irrelevant.
HR: rude or just incompetent (is it your company?)
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 1
I'm in Silicon Valley, laid off this fall from a now death-spiraling company. I've got many years of specialized experience, and I'm only sending resumes where I match 80%+ of the requests (and all of the requirements)- i.e. no resume spamming. Even so, in all but two cases, the companies don't even send an autoresponse to acknowledge they received a resume- not for email, fax or paper.
It isn't hard to write a script that checks an email and then autoresponds with a "yes we got it" or requests more information-- Yes, some HR departments *want* Word documents even if they don't tell you. They claim they're flooded with resumes- sure, because they're not adding any automation to the process. But there are many ways to handle much larger floods of incoming emails- HR simply has to ask for help from other departments.
Is it your company that is behaving this way? You should find out now and get them to change, because
It isn't a good way to treat your future coworkers.
It isn't how you're going to want to be treated (and don't think you're immune- my ex company did its last layoffs almost strictly by salary in some departments)
people have long memories- when I'm back to making purchasing decisions, rude behavior now will influence how I decide...
Slashdot Mirror
That's harsh: shouldn't you put more responsibility on the shoulders of doctors and hospitals? Plus, sorry to say, patients who choose the wrong hospitals?
It is their volunteer job, and if they failed for a moment the rest of the web would get as tainted as usenet was during the peak pink floods-unusenetable.
These are warriors, these are cops and investigators, and they fight for good. But all cops are told to never make mistakes, and if 99 of 100 times you are right, it becomes quite hard to admit that 1 time you were wrong. You've got an expert system supplying your gut reaction- if you're getting a bad feeling about a person, he must have done something wrong, and the very fact he is arguing, rather than immediately accepting your expertise, well, that's exactly what all spammers do- argue. That innocent people also argue is only of interest theoretically- if we've caught them, they are spammers.
I have seen the dangers with police and FBI investigations, where when an acually innocent person is released from jail, based on strong evidence, the procecuters cannot say "we were wrong." Because we as a society don't give them enough room to do so. The procecutor only says "well, procedurally we no longer have enough to hold him..."
In some antispam groups, there also is little room to be wrong. The people who disagree with the current anti spam methods, who worry about collateral damage to 'innocents' or 'ammendments', are nothing but appologists for the spammers themselves, even if they hate spam. The cause is so just there cannot be innocents and collateral damage is irrelevant.
It isn't hard to write a script that checks an email and then autoresponds with a "yes we got it" or requests more information-- Yes, some HR departments *want* Word documents even if they don't tell you. They claim they're flooded with resumes- sure, because they're not adding any automation to the process. But there are many ways to handle much larger floods of incoming emails- HR simply has to ask for help from other departments.
Is it your company that is behaving this way? You should find out now and get them to change, because