Yeah, the free market will take care of the situation.
Just don't complain after you learn that the free market solution is to stop investing in corporations that would employ you, and move overseas to places where they can get some profit.
I don't understand why people keep discussing that stuf. Yeah, unions are important, so are the companies. You just can't make one of them hostage to the other. You know, we should put that principle in a kind of legal document that would be ard to change... I sugest the name "constitution" for it.
And that is the problem. You have your company, I bet it isn't big. You are assuming that market and sales departments on big companies are equivalent to what you do on your company, that's almost (but not completely) wrong.
Marketing and sales for you is discovering what you have to develop, how to present what you created, and how to get into customers. In that order of importance. On most big companies, the order of (perceived) importance is exactly the oposite, thus slackers can hide at the easiest job (getting people) while avoiding having all the technical dificulties of actualy understanding the products and consumers, and understanding the market, understanding the company's technical ability, and thinking on how to use the latter to satisfy the former.
Does that map make it possible to calculate the temperature of the dark matter?
As far as I can understand it, if we know the spatial distribution we can infer how much kinetic enery each particle have. But I'm not so sure about that, there may be something I'm overlooking, or the current map may be less precise than the infered values from computer simulations. Do anybody knows the answer?
No matter if you have some light sensing diodes, transistors or what not, add some heavy ionisation and your system will trigger all the time, as if it "saw" something...
It also doesn't matter that you use photoelectrical chemicals, like our eyes.
You are overestimating the problem radiation causes to a sensor. You can deal with it with some good averaging, like is applied on our eyes, or you can use more complex techiniques that will give even better results.
Now, the problem of radiation destroing the sensor is a big one. For solving that you'd even need specialized semiconductor fabrics. With some redundancy and shielding you can make they last longer, maybe that is good enough.
They better come with a plan that allows forcng RIM email users to buy Windows phones. The plan you creted allows them to force Windows phone users to use RIM email, what won't grant a big advantage to MS.
Not saying that they can't exploit a mail network. They certainly can, but they'll need to work harder than that.
So, you claim that Windows phones are common place because they will have 12% market share by [the end of?] this year? I notice a small difference on the time of those verbs... And I notice you are quite certain of things you don't know.
Don't wander that much. They'll send lots of contaminants down-river, and have lots of their peole die fixing the mess. They'll probably react faster than Japan and probably won't ask for help.
What I wonder is how long that reactor will last, if it is a real one, and what is down-river.
Also, most people don't have a use for books anyway. Reading is not for everybody, and if you need to send a letter, you can just dictate it to the telegraph man.
Some times a technology comes that changes humanity. Computers were recognized as one of those technologies by the first time they were proposed (and people laughted, because nobody could ever build such a thing). That is how obviously disruptive computers are. Now, you can keep claiming at/. (ironic, isn't it?) that computers aren't important for normal people, but they are, and people need more than the communication channels that go to their computers, they need general porpouse computers.
The fact that they don't make much current use of that technology doesn't mean they don't need. All the problems of information overloading are here to show that they need.
Who invented what is trivia that can only have any meaning once you start studying whatever else that same person invented, how he tought and who related to him. Otherwise, names are boring.
Don't you think it is interesting how machines evolved in mechanical complexity untill people started creating specialized computers? Or that the first general porpouse computer actualy created was built by the same person that created the concept of a general porpouse computer? Or how valves changed to support computers before the transistors were invented? Or the CISC architecture "arms race" that brought us such a complex and slow beast like the x86 (and how RISC changed that)? The fate of Lisp Machines? How the Internet came to be? You don't need names for most of those things.
Compared to the scientific data out there, this content will be orders of magnitude bigger. And, yes, researchers are already drowned in useless data (several kinds of those, like irrelevant, unreliable, undecipherable).
It would be in everybody's interest to keep that new data separated. Then, people could use some search algorithms to walk through it. How to traverse that amount of data would be reason to publish several papers.
The best way of getting people interested in anything is to teach them history. Really. Marketers even use that "feature" of our species to sell, you just look for marketing advice and you'll see how many advice you to tell your history. People are interested on history (fake or real), and that is one of the few things that nearly everybody likes.
Now, you probably thinking about boring classes you had at school... If they were boring, they probably didn't consist of much history, but of fact memorization. Probably even disconnected facts. Yeah, that sucks, but don't assume connected facts are as boring as those.
That is why they ask you for doing meaningless work. That way they can make it quite clear that the results are useless, and you are just being tested.
Anyway, if it is as little work as you can do during an interview, and their developers are stoped there whatching how you do, instead of coding themselves, why do you think the company has anything to gain by asking some random person to do it? (Of course, that is true for routine coding, but not true for anything that requires lots of inspiration but little perspiration.)
Well, nothing wrong with selecting candidates by scripts, but there are three problems with the approach:
1 - If you selected 200 people for live interview, you pre-screening is very wrong.
2 - If you are doing an interview by script, you should also judge the ansers by script, so you shouldn't be doing open-ended questions (or at least no so open-ended that the only usefull metric you get from them is the posture of the candidate).
3 - Because of reason #1, the candidate expects the interview to be done by the best people that can judge him. If the best you have is that, he will not be impressed.
As I said, sometimes smart people ask such kind of questions, and there is no problem doing tht when it makes some sense. Most of the times, it just makes no sense.
What the candidate will gain from the job is obvious after a short run of questions. If he is not satisfied with that, he can make his mind. If the candidate is any good, forcing him to shorten his interest list so he can communicate it to you in an answer will hurt, and nearly everybody looking for a job are looking for things that they can't know your company will provide before working there (except for the salary).
About the second question, everybody will answer they hope to progresss with the organisation. Do you know what kind of technologies you'll want to know 5 years from now? (Do you even know what will be there?) Do you know how much you'll want as a salary 5 years from now? (Do you know how the economy will be?)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the free market will take care of the situation.
Just don't complain after you learn that the free market solution is to stop investing in corporations that would employ you, and move overseas to places where they can get some profit.
I don't understand why people keep discussing that stuf. Yeah, unions are important, so are the companies. You just can't make one of them hostage to the other. You know, we should put that principle in a kind of legal document that would be ard to change... I sugest the name "constitution" for it.
And that is the problem. You have your company, I bet it isn't big. You are assuming that market and sales departments on big companies are equivalent to what you do on your company, that's almost (but not completely) wrong.
Marketing and sales for you is discovering what you have to develop, how to present what you created, and how to get into customers. In that order of importance. On most big companies, the order of (perceived) importance is exactly the oposite, thus slackers can hide at the easiest job (getting people) while avoiding having all the technical dificulties of actualy understanding the products and consumers, and understanding the market, understanding the company's technical ability, and thinking on how to use the latter to satisfy the former.
Does that map make it possible to calculate the temperature of the dark matter?
As far as I can understand it, if we know the spatial distribution we can infer how much kinetic enery each particle have. But I'm not so sure about that, there may be something I'm overlooking, or the current map may be less precise than the infered values from computer simulations. Do anybody knows the answer?
Your eployer won't ask for the money back, with interest, plus participation on what you brought with the money.
It is either a loan or an investiment. RIAA has it both ways. (With also some accounting tricks.)
It also doesn't matter that you use photoelectrical chemicals, like our eyes.
You are overestimating the problem radiation causes to a sensor. You can deal with it with some good averaging, like is applied on our eyes, or you can use more complex techiniques that will give even better results.
Now, the problem of radiation destroing the sensor is a big one. For solving that you'd even need specialized semiconductor fabrics. With some redundancy and shielding you can make they last longer, maybe that is good enough.
They better come with a plan that allows forcng RIM email users to buy Windows phones. The plan you creted allows them to force Windows phone users to use RIM email, what won't grant a big advantage to MS.
Not saying that they can't exploit a mail network. They certainly can, but they'll need to work harder than that.
So, you claim that Windows phones are common place because they will have 12% market share by [the end of?] this year? I notice a small difference on the time of those verbs... And I notice you are quite certain of things you don't know.
Don't wander that much. They'll send lots of contaminants down-river, and have lots of their peole die fixing the mess. They'll probably react faster than Japan and probably won't ask for help.
What I wonder is how long that reactor will last, if it is a real one, and what is down-river.
Quantum tunneling.
Did you mean the inferior design of the plants they brought from the US? Or are not talking about the one that blew?
Do you realize that people aren't required to trust ICANN, right?
Also, most people don't have a use for books anyway. Reading is not for everybody, and if you need to send a letter, you can just dictate it to the telegraph man.
Some times a technology comes that changes humanity. Computers were recognized as one of those technologies by the first time they were proposed (and people laughted, because nobody could ever build such a thing). That is how obviously disruptive computers are. Now, you can keep claiming at /. (ironic, isn't it?) that computers aren't important for normal people, but they are, and people need more than the communication channels that go to their computers, they need general porpouse computers.
The fact that they don't make much current use of that technology doesn't mean they don't need. All the problems of information overloading are here to show that they need.
There will be one good consequence of SOPA: The US will lose control of DNS.
Who invented what is trivia that can only have any meaning once you start studying whatever else that same person invented, how he tought and who related to him. Otherwise, names are boring.
Don't you think it is interesting how machines evolved in mechanical complexity untill people started creating specialized computers? Or that the first general porpouse computer actualy created was built by the same person that created the concept of a general porpouse computer? Or how valves changed to support computers before the transistors were invented? Or the CISC architecture "arms race" that brought us such a complex and slow beast like the x86 (and how RISC changed that)? The fate of Lisp Machines? How the Internet came to be? You don't need names for most of those things.
Compared to the scientific data out there, this content will be orders of magnitude bigger. And, yes, researchers are already drowned in useless data (several kinds of those, like irrelevant, unreliable, undecipherable).
It would be in everybody's interest to keep that new data separated. Then, people could use some search algorithms to walk through it. How to traverse that amount of data would be reason to publish several papers.
That is because giving that data away won't contribute to your career, but holding it until publishing will.
This problem is an easy to fix one.
Latin America has Chile, that become rich applying the neoliberal agenda with a small dose of criticism.
Capitalism didn't fail. Democracy did. And a particular implementation of it, it is probably not an inherent failure.
If the US and EU are experiencing that depression it is because of government fraud. And that isn't a feature of Capitalism.
Worldwide people should start rethinking their government.
We got our data from mail.
You shouldn't underestimate the bandwidth of a van full of tapes, et al... But those paper magazines surely had a low data capacity.
The best way of getting people interested in anything is to teach them history. Really. Marketers even use that "feature" of our species to sell, you just look for marketing advice and you'll see how many advice you to tell your history. People are interested on history (fake or real), and that is one of the few things that nearly everybody likes.
Now, you probably thinking about boring classes you had at school... If they were boring, they probably didn't consist of much history, but of fact memorization. Probably even disconnected facts. Yeah, that sucks, but don't assume connected facts are as boring as those.
And your car have bad mirrors.
Inside a big company, yes it is.
All the other characteristics (status, rspect, etc) follow paycheck amount.
That is why they ask you for doing meaningless work. That way they can make it quite clear that the results are useless, and you are just being tested.
Anyway, if it is as little work as you can do during an interview, and their developers are stoped there whatching how you do, instead of coding themselves, why do you think the company has anything to gain by asking some random person to do it? (Of course, that is true for routine coding, but not true for anything that requires lots of inspiration but little perspiration.)
Well, nothing wrong with selecting candidates by scripts, but there are three problems with the approach:
1 - If you selected 200 people for live interview, you pre-screening is very wrong.
2 - If you are doing an interview by script, you should also judge the ansers by script, so you shouldn't be doing open-ended questions (or at least no so open-ended that the only usefull metric you get from them is the posture of the candidate).
3 - Because of reason #1, the candidate expects the interview to be done by the best people that can judge him. If the best you have is that, he will not be impressed.
As I said, sometimes smart people ask such kind of questions, and there is no problem doing tht when it makes some sense. Most of the times, it just makes no sense.
Well, the few times I interviwed people, I did.
What the candidate will gain from the job is obvious after a short run of questions. If he is not satisfied with that, he can make his mind. If the candidate is any good, forcing him to shorten his interest list so he can communicate it to you in an answer will hurt, and nearly everybody looking for a job are looking for things that they can't know your company will provide before working there (except for the salary).
About the second question, everybody will answer they hope to progresss with the organisation. Do you know what kind of technologies you'll want to know 5 years from now? (Do you even know what will be there?) Do you know how much you'll want as a salary 5 years from now? (Do you know how the economy will be?)