Real creativity is risky. It's less risky to copy a proven winner. Make a creative flop, get the blame. Copy a proven formula and you're likely to profit. And that's at the bottom of all this, isn't it.
Tolkien said he intended nothing more than to tell a tale that he hoped others would find entertaining. I am persuaded his love for his craft was greater than his hope of profiting greatly from the sharing of it. He must have expected that it would also bore many people...
You are probably right. I think you would be bored by the books. You'd find lots of descriptions of the land, it history, and the mythic races that roamed it, including extraordinarily detailed histories and fictional languages.
Does Tolkien ever get around to tying all these loose ends together?
Yes.
hour after hour of battle scenes again?
Yes. Or rather, at least two fairly large ones, the latter being the penultimate hopeless battle.
What percentage of the movie can be easily projected to be CG
Probably same ratio as seen in TTT.
[can Jackson] tear himself away from the computerized stuff long enough to actually tell a story
The "real" story has many details that necessarily get lost in a fast-moving screen. You can't really grok LOTR without being infected by the books first.
Serious questions...
I'm a fan of the books who found the movies to be suprisingly faithful in spirit to them, to the highest degree that can be expected for a screen version.
My point is that unless the interviewer is already hooked on you as a candidate, answers that are loaded with negativity will quickly lower your chances of an offer.
I like your first answer. It's honest without being negative. And it invites me as an interviewer to find out about what makes you tick. It prompts the question "So what *are* our needs and ambitions?" Make sure your answers sound carreer-minded.
Second answer is judgemental. It is fine to disclose what you didn't like about your previous employer but try not to sound eager to condemn. You don't want to sound like you're carrying your axe with you to the interview. Project an image of happiness to be taking responsibility to move on with your life.
Last answer is a major red flag, assuming your interviewer has an ounce of competence. The next thought in the interviewer's mind is: "If I decide I am interested in this candidate (not so sure now) I will have to call their previous employer and find out why this person "doesn't know". Though I bet he does know." Now, even if you previous employer accepted your resignation willingly, the fact that they would like to avoid lawsuits about about recommendations will make them avoid negative comments if possible. So make it easy for them: steer your interviewer towards the skills you exercised that made you valuable and mention that "they'd rehire me for those skills, but that under the current conditions they may not hire a replacement at all" (assuming that applies).
Being genuine about your feelings is fine, unless your goal is to get a job. In front of a interviewer you never, never want to project negativity. Just two things: "I am the perfect candidate for this position" and "I want the job".
I was aware of the illegality of asking questions about gender, ethnicity, age, and so on but what is it about these questions that put the hiring company at risk of legal action?
I see how the references in the employee's previous company might face a lawsuit for the consequences of inappropriate answers, but not the hiring company doing the asking. Enlighten me...?
Lines of credit are secured by your ability to repay. Becoming unemployed is technically a material change in your creditworthiness of which the creditor expects to be notified (you promised to do so when you signed the credit agreement). And guess what? Your line of credit will be revoked. Nobody bothers to notify of course, and we usually do find jobs and no one's the wiser -- but if or when you hit rock bottom and go into collection and beyond it can be antoher strike against you.
It doesn't affect anyone until the question is asked. That's a risk you don't need to take when hunting for another paycheck. So it's a useless wall just balancing there -- why disturb it and give it a chance to drop on you?
When there are lots of resumes the HR folks will narrow the choices by elimination. Negative attributes will play their role in eliminating you from consideration among a pool of similarly qualified applicants -- unfairly or not.
Quite right, having what you consider good references doesn't make you the prime candidate. But lacking any or having bad ones will eliminate you fast.
You have to ask youself how eager you are to be employed by a company that doesn't screen its employees well. If you're desperate for a job then it's not an issue, but in the long run you'll be stuck working with jerks like the ones in the last job you bailed out of.
Embellishing your resume in ways that puts your performance in a favorable light isn't lying, that's called Good Marketing. I think that's protected by the fifth amendment or something. Intentionally misrepresenting the facts (education, employment history, salaries) will come back to bite sooner or later. Smart people don't risk it. Show your best side only, but accurately.
What's the first few questions you'll be asked at your next job interview?
Why are you looking for a job?
Why did you leave your previous job?
Would your former employer rehire you?
Make sure the way you exit provides the best possible answers to these questions. You'll regret it if not.
When I was in a similar situation, I got the next job first and then I wrote two resignation letters: the one wanted to send, which is still fun to read, and the cordial one I did send. The object is not so much to avoid burning bridges but to let them stew in the regret of not to being able to hold on to such a desirable employee. Flip the bird on the way out and it'll only give you more trouble later.
"THE disorganization led to a poisonous culture in the broadband unit, former executives said, with
the only available means for advancement often
being to attack the technologies and strategies of
other executives..."
Wow. Doesn't sound like any place I've ever worked. Nope...
The originators of this scripting language chose to imbue it with a name of a totally different langauge for marketing purposes. They are now reaping the rewards of that decision.
The intellectual enjoyment of self-consistent systems,that have surprising beautiful patterns. Oh, and cool ways to calculate stuff in the physcal sciences.
This is a long-winded way of saying that effort involved in the artful craft activity we call coding isn't neatly measured by the bureaucratic EN-coding by which we earn paychecks (uniform elapsed time periods).
I think you've made a good summary of the frustrating thoughts most programmers have when faced with project management constraints. The frustrations of the business employing you are equally legitimate: to have some ability to forecast demand, budget resources, and predict delivery dates. The company's value to you is that predictable concrete paycheck. Your value to the company is that predictable concrete code output. There is very little else in the contract.
In some places it is certainly the dehumanized picture you've painted. Yet I've always found that coding provides both good pay and reasonable opportunity for creative outlet, if you know where to push yourself. Divert in some direction that has real potential to add to your skill set in a way you can leverage in the near future (and is likely to be relevant at your current empoyer). It's a lot easier to justify slacking when it's increasing your future productivity rather than your current high score.
Good point. People recognize the value of a cool name and defend it accordingly. Something that soars in the sky vs. something that writhes in filth...
Slashdot Mirror
Creativity is such boring work...
Real creativity is risky. It's less risky to copy a proven winner. Make a creative flop, get the blame. Copy a proven formula and you're likely to profit. And that's at the bottom of all this, isn't it.
Tolkien said he intended nothing more than to tell a tale that he hoped others would find entertaining. I am persuaded his love for his craft was greater than his hope of profiting greatly from the sharing of it. He must have expected that it would also bore many people...
You are probably right. I think you would be bored by the books. You'd find lots of descriptions of the land, it history, and the mythic races that roamed it, including extraordinarily detailed histories and fictional languages.
Does Tolkien ever get around to tying all these loose ends together?
Yes.
hour after hour of battle scenes again?
Yes. Or rather, at least two fairly large ones, the latter being the penultimate hopeless battle.
What percentage of the movie can be easily projected to be CG
Probably same ratio as seen in TTT.
[can Jackson] tear himself away from the computerized stuff long enough to actually tell a story
The "real" story has many details that necessarily get lost in a fast-moving screen. You can't really grok LOTR without being infected by the books first.
Serious questions ...
I'm a fan of the books who found the movies to be suprisingly faithful in spirit to them, to the highest degree that can be expected for a screen version.
My point is that unless the interviewer is already hooked on you as a candidate, answers that are loaded with negativity will quickly lower your chances of an offer.
I like your first answer. It's honest without being negative. And it invites me as an interviewer to find out about what makes you tick. It prompts the question "So what *are* our needs and ambitions?" Make sure your answers sound carreer-minded.
Second answer is judgemental. It is fine to disclose what you didn't like about your previous employer but try not to sound eager to condemn. You don't want to sound like you're carrying your axe with you to the interview. Project an image of happiness to be taking responsibility to move on with your life.
Last answer is a major red flag, assuming your interviewer has an ounce of competence. The next thought in the interviewer's mind is: "If I decide I am interested in this candidate (not so sure now) I will have to call their previous employer and find out why this person "doesn't know". Though I bet he does know." Now, even if you previous employer accepted your resignation willingly, the fact that they would like to avoid lawsuits about about recommendations will make them avoid negative comments if possible. So make it easy for them: steer your interviewer towards the skills you exercised that made you valuable and mention that "they'd rehire me for those skills, but that under the current conditions they may not hire a replacement at all" (assuming that applies).
Being genuine about your feelings is fine, unless your goal is to get a job. In front of a interviewer you never, never want to project negativity. Just two things: "I am the perfect candidate for this position" and "I want the job".
How do I use my mod points on the story? -1 Redundant...
I was aware of the illegality of asking questions about gender, ethnicity, age, and so on but what is it about these questions that put the hiring company at risk of legal action?
I see how the references in the employee's previous company might face a lawsuit for the consequences of inappropriate answers, but not the hiring company doing the asking. Enlighten me...?
Lines of credit are secured by your ability to repay. Becoming unemployed is technically a material change in your creditworthiness of which the creditor expects to be notified (you promised to do so when you signed the credit agreement). And guess what? Your line of credit will be revoked. Nobody bothers to notify of course, and we usually do find jobs and no one's the wiser -- but if or when you hit rock bottom and go into collection and beyond it can be antoher strike against you.
You can't collect unemployment when you are fired for cause either.
It doesn't affect anyone until the question is asked. That's a risk you don't need to take when hunting for another paycheck. So it's a useless wall just balancing there -- why disturb it and give it a chance to drop on you?
When there are lots of resumes the HR folks will narrow the choices by elimination. Negative attributes will play their role in eliminating you from consideration among a pool of similarly qualified applicants -- unfairly or not.
Quite right, having what you consider good references doesn't make you the prime candidate. But lacking any or having bad ones will eliminate you fast.
You have to ask youself how eager you are to be employed by a company that doesn't screen its employees well. If you're desperate for a job then it's not an issue, but in the long run you'll be stuck working with jerks like the ones in the last job you bailed out of.
Embellishing your resume in ways that puts your performance in a favorable light isn't lying, that's called Good Marketing. I think that's protected by the fifth amendment or something. Intentionally misrepresenting the facts (education, employment history, salaries) will come back to bite sooner or later. Smart people don't risk it. Show your best side only, but accurately.
What's the first few questions you'll be asked at your next job interview?
Why are you looking for a job?
Why did you leave your previous job?
Would your former employer rehire you?
Make sure the way you exit provides the best possible answers to these questions. You'll regret it if not.
When I was in a similar situation, I got the next job first and then I wrote two resignation letters: the one wanted to send, which is still fun to read, and the cordial one I did send. The object is not so much to avoid burning bridges but to let them stew in the regret of not to being able to hold on to such a desirable employee. Flip the bird on the way out and it'll only give you more trouble later.
"THE disorganization led to a poisonous culture in the broadband unit, former executives said, with the only available means for advancement often being to attack the technologies and strategies of other executives..."
Wow. Doesn't sound like any place I've ever worked. Nope...
The originators of this scripting language chose to imbue it with a name of a totally different langauge for marketing purposes. They are now reaping the rewards of that decision.
Does that mean JBoss will sue them for $1B and send threatening letters to 1500 of their customers?
The intellectual enjoyment of self-consistent systems,that have surprising beautiful patterns. Oh, and cool ways to calculate stuff in the physcal sciences.
So the program to encrypt it with a password is...wait for it...
PACKASSASKPASS.exe
Say that 10 times fast.
> Not everybody...
Not everybody can RTFA either. That includes you.
Looks like China is rolling out a scaled-down version -- to catch spitters. Which country will be the first to go after nose-picking?
Don't worry, Homeland Security will be in charge of that.
> relatively new concept
IANAL but stipulating the terms by which a copyrighted work or derived works can be redistributed isn't all that new, is it?
You mean like this?
OK, try these. True of false:
An HTTP 1.1 request with entity headers MUST convey an entity body.
An HTTP 1.1 response with entity headers MUST convey an entity body.
This is a long-winded way of saying that effort involved in the artful craft activity we call coding isn't neatly measured by the bureaucratic EN-coding by which we earn paychecks (uniform elapsed time periods). I think you've made a good summary of the frustrating thoughts most programmers have when faced with project management constraints. The frustrations of the business employing you are equally legitimate: to have some ability to forecast demand, budget resources, and predict delivery dates. The company's value to you is that predictable concrete paycheck. Your value to the company is that predictable concrete code output. There is very little else in the contract. In some places it is certainly the dehumanized picture you've painted. Yet I've always found that coding provides both good pay and reasonable opportunity for creative outlet, if you know where to push yourself. Divert in some direction that has real potential to add to your skill set in a way you can leverage in the near future (and is likely to be relevant at your current empoyer). It's a lot easier to justify slacking when it's increasing your future productivity rather than your current high score.
...would be a catchier name.
Quit lynx and run mozilla.
Good point. People recognize the value of a cool name and defend it accordingly. Something that soars in the sky vs. something that writhes in filth...