...just pick out your favorite newspaper cartoon, press the armor on it, and presto! You're riding into battle with your favorite character. Forget "Death From Above". Nothing says combat like Peanuts or Foxtrot.
Alternatively, if you don't particularly care about being honest, you could always just say "I'm currently making $Y" and there will never, ever be any way they'll ever know the difference. However, I think the first approach is more straightforward and just as effective.
Actually, some companies will require an old W-2, pay stub, etc. as proof of prior income before starting work. This is particularly true for sales people because it provides a clear picture of the person's success at the last job.
If you claim a higher amount, particularly on a written application, and then show them a different value, it's almost always grounds for immediate dismissal or revocation of the offer.
a polite human being.
Seriously folks! How hard is it to turn off the ringer? Are we so daft these days that our phones have to be polite for us?
Also, how hard is it to not answer the frickin' phone in the first place when you're doing something else like watching a movie or (gasp!) talking to another human being?
I can understand emergencies or when you're waiting on time-sensitive information, but many rude people would not change their behavior one bit with such "polite" phones.
... here before and it all boils down to what you value. Do you value security and high pay over a potentially big reward (money, experience, personal satisfaction) that may or may not materialize? Would you be willing to leave a "good job" for something else that may be better or worse? How much do you believe in the start-up's chances and the people behind it?
One thing to consider is can you grow in your current job. Have you seriously discussed expanding your role or broadening your experience within the company? A good company will work with you to do that. After all, companies should (note, I said "should") value employees who want to grow and improve.
If your current employer is willing to do this, then I'd suggest staying with them. It sounds like you've got a good thing going on the compensation side.
If they give you the "you're too important where you are" bit, then you have start weighing all those things you value and determine whether staying or jumping ship is best for you. As has been said numerous times here before, only you can decide that.
Scientists have actually calculated that Dark Matter is, in actuality, Chuck Norris. He recently flew to the west coast, and this threw off the Pioneer 10 probe by 400,000 miles.
This should make finding dark matter incredibly easy. Just go to Texas and look behind you. That's where the Texas Ranger will be.....
I don't know what's worse. That joke or the fact that it shows I've at least watched some of the show.
I wonder....will the robot security guards watch robot football all night long when I visit my customers' plants on the midnight shift....or rather, when my robot visits the plant for me......
If I remember correctly, water reaches maximum density at 4 C. From 4 to 0 C, density decreases...and obviously, ice has a lower density than the liquid form.
You just *know* that someone will claim that people are sending coded messages (for WMDs, no doubt) through regular emails or phone conversations:
Analyst: "Sir! We just analyzed that last phone call from Mike in Idaho to his mother, the missionary feeding poor children in Afghanistan. If we use the new chemical-word-filter, he's clearly providing instructions on building some type of chemical weapon, one based on vinegar and what looks to be corn syrup...or maybe pecans." NSA supervisor: "We can't afford another 9/11. Engage the standard rendition plan and have them relocated." Analyst: But sir! Shouldn't we get a warrant or find some corroborating evidence? Supervisor gives a glaring, angry look. Analyst: Just kidding! ahahah...man, that gets you every time! Supervisor: Good one! I guess the beer's on me tonight.
Patriotic music plays as supervisor slaps analyst on the shoulder and both freeze in place with big smiles.
Google will come up with GoogleRate, a neat application that will automatically search for, record, archive, and then verify all these claims and predictions that everyone makes.
People will then be able to quickly find out how accurate companies, newspapers, etc. have been in the past when they now say that X will be popular this year or that the nano-wireless-widget market will grow from $2M to $100 billion over the next 5 years.
Not to start this debate again, but nobody has explained to me where the big bang gases came from that created the universe.
I'll make a deal with you. When you can explain to me where the creator/intelligent designer came from, I'll explain to you why your use of "gases" is incorrect.
If you really want to test them, ask for the names of 2 or 3 employees that you can talk to one-on-one. If you've already talked to some in an interview setting, ask if it's OK for you to talk to them some more later on (e.g., outside of work).
A good company will encourage this. You're trying to get a feel for the real deal. A bad company will most likely hesitate because people know that employees will tell you about all the BS going on. If the interviewer presses you for a reason, be honest: You're trying to see if the culture is a good fit for you and if you're a good fit for the culture. There's no point in either side sugar-coating things to only find out 3 months later that it's not a good fit.
Step 1 - Assemble numerous cells in the US.
Step 2 - Have all but one or two act as decoy cells. Keep decoy cells separate from the real cells with no contact whatsoever.
Step 3 - Members of decoy cells check out hundreds of books from librares, surf dozens and dozens of terrorist websites, etc., etc.
Step 4 - While Feds waste time chasing down book readers and web surfers, the real cells continue on with their plans.
Step 5 - As the US government expands powers and searches, create more decoy cells that create more needless searches and wild goose chases.
Step 6 - Repeat steps 3 to 5 as needed.
Step 7 - Obtain US citizenship and vote for politicians that expand the powers and searches in Step 5.
This is partially true, but I think your generalization is too broad. There are some things in organic chem you just have to memorize. Easy things like names of functional groups and stuff, but also some named reactions are just too complex to be able to just derive from basic principles. Especially knowing reaction conditions. Do you need heat, a catalyst, an oxidizer or reducer, or what? You have to memorize what Tollen's reagent is, and so on. I agree that it's important to understand the broader concepts, but there's no way around a lot of memorization in organic.
While your statement has some truth to it, the problem with the way organic chemistry is taught is that all this is done in a vacuum. People are made to memorize equations, reagents, naming conventions, etc., etc....and for what? Maybe if you're lucky enough, you "get it" or are currently taking other classes where you can see some applicability. For most, however, it is just memorization with little purpose behind it.
What's needed are applications. The first two times organic clicked for me was when I was taking a class on pesticides and when I talked to a paint chemist about how paint chemistry works. Finally, I had a couple of examples of how this stuffed worked and why it did what it did. A 1 hour conversation and two 50 minute lectures did more to teach me about organic chemistry than 2 full semesters of memorizing stuff.
My alma mater solved the same problem when it came to differential calculus for the chemical engineering students. The department took over teaching the subject, not only to kill two birds with one stone (e.g., teach diff-eq and modeling analysis at the same time) but also to teach the math under an applications framework. Students learned the subject much more easily and liked it much, much more.
Being a true geek, at least in the sense that most here would understand, can never be "mainstream." If it ain't sports or business or the like, it isn't mainstream.
For example, I was once out to dinner with several people in a business setting. The subject of high school sports came up. Five guys at the table spent the better part of an hour discussing divisions, rules, team rivalries, and the intricacies of who plays whom in what division/playoff/etc. They could discuss all the rule changes over the past 20 years and the pros/cons of it. You could have called them sports geeks, but that's a contradiction in terms in my opinion. Most people could at least follow the conversation or understand it or even have some remote interest in it.
Now imagine if that conversation instead was about FreeBSD vs. NetBSD vs. OpenBSD. Imagine if the conversation was about P2P software and the law. Imagine if 5 guys sat around discussing Ruby on Rails vs. Java. Imagine if 5 guys talked about modding a VW to hold a Mac. Most people would yawn or find it too technical or, well, geeky.
For that reason, true "geekdom" can never be mainstream.
So the government should help "less media saavy" parents by banning games....hmmm...You know, some parents don't know how to drive too well. I know! Let's ban driving to help them with their kids when they are old enough to drive.
Hmmm....you know, some parents don't know too much about nutrition. I know! Let's ban food to help them with their overweight kids.
Hmmm....you know, some parents don't understand computers and the Internet too well. I know! Let's ban the Internet to help them keep pornography away from their kids.
How about ones that are qualified to properly dispose of nuclear waste. Presumably, leading engineers and scientists. You know, the ones that could potentially design a place to put the waste into, where by the local envrioment takes as small of an impact as possible. I don't think politicians and random interest groups typically qualify for this task.
True, but by how much do non-nuclear trained people outnumber the experts? You can have the greatest plan in the world, but if the public is against it, it won't fly. While the system in the article may indeed be a bit overkill, it's vitally important to ask for public input, even if it includes untrained people. If you don't give people input, they'll feel that the "so called experts" are shoving a solution down their throat...and they'll complain to their elected officials or vote new ones in.
What would you rather have? Some untrained public input or a bunch of populist politicians riding rough-shod over science?....well, more so than now?
I had a customer that was very intent on becoming certified to the ISO-14000 standard, the "environmental" standard. Part of this includes writing 3 page procedures on how people should throw their aluminum cans in the recycle bin. Of course, one must track the 7 revisions to the document to comply with the standards.
Anyway, they had a big push for this. They implemented training for everyone, wrote policies and procedures for just about every action (such as recycling cans), and so on and so forth. To motivate the troops and show off their pride, they had dozens and dozens of signs made up that they placed all around the plant, talking about ISO 140001.
Yes, you read it correctly.
A few weeks after they put the signs up, I pointed out the error. I wondered if ISO-140001 was an order of magnitude better than ISO-14001.
On my next visit, they had painted over one of the zeros so that they were now promoting ISO-1400 1. I guess that's revision one of the 1400 standard.
What exactly is meant by spare time here? Is it downtime they have while on the job? Or is it developed at home on non-work time? This will greatly help determine whose code it is and what they can/can't do with it.
Keep in mind, however, that that's not all there is to it. Is the software currently deployed/hosted on company servers? Are they testing it at work or on work-related files/datasets/etc? Can be it be used for any company or is it designed so specifically that the average person would realize it was designed for the specific company? Even if they did this on their "own" time, if it uses enough company resources or is so closely tied to the company's business process, the company would have a very good chance at simply saying, "You volunteered this work but it's still out IP" and getting their way with it.
Ironic. Shakespear wasn't exactly known for being "highbrow" in his day. Some have speculated that if he were alive today, he'd be writing for professional wrestling.
The author takes his own personal experience and tries to extrapolate it to "thousands" of other students. What bullshit.
My first chemical engineering professor (Dr. Edmond Ko) set me on fire. He taught us how to solve problems. He even built up our confidence with his great proclamation: "I can solve any engineering problem. I simply apply the same principles, be it chemical engineering, mechanics, electrical engineering, whatever. Once I apply basic principles, I can look up any specific equations or methods I may need." He made us believe we could do the same.
Throughout my engineering studies, I had professors that blended humor, real world experience, and good 'ole basic problem solving to give me and my fellow students the tools to succeed. To this day, I still attribute my success to their efforts.
Did I have bad professors? Yes. I had the ones who had no heart for teaching, passed the buck to untrained TAs (who were just as frustrated as me), and couldn't teach a fish to swim. But they were few and far between.
Engineering is in trouble in the US not because of education but because of the business world. Why study engineering when some bonehead MBA can get a big bonus while still screwing things up? (And I have an MBA!) Why devote your skills and time to building a great product when your job is going to be shipped overseas anyway? I, like many other engineers, came out of college eager to apply my skills and help build new products and processes. It's been the business world, and its utter lack of respect for the abilities of engineers, that's crushed my love of engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
...just pick out your favorite newspaper cartoon, press the armor on it, and presto! You're riding into battle with your favorite character. Forget "Death From Above". Nothing says combat like Peanuts or Foxtrot.
Alternatively, if you don't particularly care about being honest, you could always just say "I'm currently making $Y" and there will never, ever be any way they'll ever know the difference. However, I think the first approach is more straightforward and just as effective.
Actually, some companies will require an old W-2, pay stub, etc. as proof of prior income before starting work. This is particularly true for sales people because it provides a clear picture of the person's success at the last job.
If you claim a higher amount, particularly on a written application, and then show them a different value, it's almost always grounds for immediate dismissal or revocation of the offer.
...mold and mildrew remover when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
a polite human being. Seriously folks! How hard is it to turn off the ringer? Are we so daft these days that our phones have to be polite for us?
Also, how hard is it to not answer the frickin' phone in the first place when you're doing something else like watching a movie or (gasp!) talking to another human being?
I can understand emergencies or when you're waiting on time-sensitive information, but many rude people would not change their behavior one bit with such "polite" phones.
... here before and it all boils down to what you value. Do you value security and high pay over a potentially big reward (money, experience, personal satisfaction) that may or may not materialize? Would you be willing to leave a "good job" for something else that may be better or worse? How much do you believe in the start-up's chances and the people behind it?
One thing to consider is can you grow in your current job. Have you seriously discussed expanding your role or broadening your experience within the company? A good company will work with you to do that. After all, companies should (note, I said "should") value employees who want to grow and improve.
If your current employer is willing to do this, then I'd suggest staying with them. It sounds like you've got a good thing going on the compensation side.
If they give you the "you're too important where you are" bit, then you have start weighing all those things you value and determine whether staying or jumping ship is best for you. As has been said numerous times here before, only you can decide that.
Scientists have actually calculated that Dark Matter is, in actuality, Chuck Norris. He recently flew to the west coast, and this threw off the Pioneer 10 probe by 400,000 miles.
This should make finding dark matter incredibly easy. Just go to Texas and look behind you. That's where the Texas Ranger will be.....
I don't know what's worse. That joke or the fact that it shows I've at least watched some of the show.
I wonder....will the robot security guards watch robot football all night long when I visit my customers' plants on the midnight shift....or rather, when my robot visits the plant for me......
If I remember correctly, water reaches maximum density at 4 C. From 4 to 0 C, density decreases...and obviously, ice has a lower density than the liquid form.
You just *know* that someone will claim that people are sending coded messages (for WMDs, no doubt) through regular emails or phone conversations:
Analyst: "Sir! We just analyzed that last phone call from Mike in Idaho to his mother, the missionary feeding poor children in Afghanistan. If we use the new chemical-word-filter, he's clearly providing instructions on building some type of chemical weapon, one based on vinegar and what looks to be corn syrup...or maybe pecans."
NSA supervisor: "We can't afford another 9/11. Engage the standard rendition plan and have them relocated."
Analyst: But sir! Shouldn't we get a warrant or find some corroborating evidence?
Supervisor gives a glaring, angry look.
Analyst: Just kidding! ahahah...man, that gets you every time!
Supervisor: Good one! I guess the beer's on me tonight.
Patriotic music plays as supervisor slaps analyst on the shoulder and both freeze in place with big smiles.
Google will come up with GoogleRate, a neat application that will automatically search for, record, archive, and then verify all these claims and predictions that everyone makes.
People will then be able to quickly find out how accurate companies, newspapers, etc. have been in the past when they now say that X will be popular this year or that the nano-wireless-widget market will grow from $2M to $100 billion over the next 5 years.
Not to start this debate again, but nobody has explained to me where the big bang gases came from that created the universe.
I'll make a deal with you. When you can explain to me where the creator/intelligent designer came from, I'll explain to you why your use of "gases" is incorrect.
If you really want to test them, ask for the names of 2 or 3 employees that you can talk to one-on-one. If you've already talked to some in an interview setting, ask if it's OK for you to talk to them some more later on (e.g., outside of work).
A good company will encourage this. You're trying to get a feel for the real deal. A bad company will most likely hesitate because people know that employees will tell you about all the BS going on. If the interviewer presses you for a reason, be honest: You're trying to see if the culture is a good fit for you and if you're a good fit for the culture. There's no point in either side sugar-coating things to only find out 3 months later that it's not a good fit.
Step 1 - Assemble numerous cells in the US.
Step 2 - Have all but one or two act as decoy cells. Keep decoy cells separate from the real cells with no contact whatsoever.
Step 3 - Members of decoy cells check out hundreds of books from librares, surf dozens and dozens of terrorist websites, etc., etc.
Step 4 - While Feds waste time chasing down book readers and web surfers, the real cells continue on with their plans.
Step 5 - As the US government expands powers and searches, create more decoy cells that create more needless searches and wild goose chases.
Step 6 - Repeat steps 3 to 5 as needed.
Step 7 - Obtain US citizenship and vote for politicians that expand the powers and searches in Step 5.
....and for one reason.
The word "synergy" was used.
Yech!
This is partially true, but I think your generalization is too broad. There are some things in organic chem you just have to memorize. Easy things like names of functional groups and stuff, but also some named reactions are just too complex to be able to just derive from basic principles. Especially knowing reaction conditions. Do you need heat, a catalyst, an oxidizer or reducer, or what? You have to memorize what Tollen's reagent is, and so on. I agree that it's important to understand the broader concepts, but there's no way around a lot of memorization in organic.
While your statement has some truth to it, the problem with the way organic chemistry is taught is that all this is done in a vacuum. People are made to memorize equations, reagents, naming conventions, etc., etc....and for what? Maybe if you're lucky enough, you "get it" or are currently taking other classes where you can see some applicability. For most, however, it is just memorization with little purpose behind it.
What's needed are applications. The first two times organic clicked for me was when I was taking a class on pesticides and when I talked to a paint chemist about how paint chemistry works. Finally, I had a couple of examples of how this stuffed worked and why it did what it did. A 1 hour conversation and two 50 minute lectures did more to teach me about organic chemistry than 2 full semesters of memorizing stuff.
My alma mater solved the same problem when it came to differential calculus for the chemical engineering students. The department took over teaching the subject, not only to kill two birds with one stone (e.g., teach diff-eq and modeling analysis at the same time) but also to teach the math under an applications framework. Students learned the subject much more easily and liked it much, much more.
Being a true geek, at least in the sense that most here would understand, can never be "mainstream." If it ain't sports or business or the like, it isn't mainstream.
For example, I was once out to dinner with several people in a business setting. The subject of high school sports came up. Five guys at the table spent the better part of an hour discussing divisions, rules, team rivalries, and the intricacies of who plays whom in what division/playoff/etc. They could discuss all the rule changes over the past 20 years and the pros/cons of it. You could have called them sports geeks, but that's a contradiction in terms in my opinion. Most people could at least follow the conversation or understand it or even have some remote interest in it.
Now imagine if that conversation instead was about FreeBSD vs. NetBSD vs. OpenBSD. Imagine if the conversation was about P2P software and the law. Imagine if 5 guys sat around discussing Ruby on Rails vs. Java. Imagine if 5 guys talked about modding a VW to hold a Mac. Most people would yawn or find it too technical or, well, geeky.
For that reason, true "geekdom" can never be mainstream.
...is what does Joel have against the band Looking Glass? Brandy (You're a fine girl) was a cool song. Everyone knows that!
So the government should help "less media saavy" parents by banning games....hmmm...You know, some parents don't know how to drive too well. I know! Let's ban driving to help them with their kids when they are old enough to drive.
Hmmm....you know, some parents don't know too much about nutrition. I know! Let's ban food to help them with their overweight kids.
Hmmm....you know, some parents don't understand computers and the Internet too well. I know! Let's ban the Internet to help them keep pornography away from their kids.
Let the Flying Spaghetti Monster jokes begin!
How about ones that are qualified to properly dispose of nuclear waste. Presumably, leading engineers and scientists. You know, the ones that could potentially design a place to put the waste into, where by the local envrioment takes as small of an impact as possible. I don't think politicians and random interest groups typically qualify for this task.
True, but by how much do non-nuclear trained people outnumber the experts? You can have the greatest plan in the world, but if the public is against it, it won't fly. While the system in the article may indeed be a bit overkill, it's vitally important to ask for public input, even if it includes untrained people. If you don't give people input, they'll feel that the "so called experts" are shoving a solution down their throat...and they'll complain to their elected officials or vote new ones in.
What would you rather have? Some untrained public input or a bunch of populist politicians riding rough-shod over science?....well, more so than now?
True story.
I had a customer that was very intent on becoming certified to the ISO-14000 standard, the "environmental" standard. Part of this includes writing 3 page procedures on how people should throw their aluminum cans in the recycle bin. Of course, one must track the 7 revisions to the document to comply with the standards.
Anyway, they had a big push for this. They implemented training for everyone, wrote policies and procedures for just about every action (such as recycling cans), and so on and so forth. To motivate the troops and show off their pride, they had dozens and dozens of signs made up that they placed all around the plant, talking about ISO 140001.
Yes, you read it correctly.
A few weeks after they put the signs up, I pointed out the error. I wondered if ISO-140001 was an order of magnitude better than ISO-14001.
On my next visit, they had painted over one of the zeros so that they were now promoting ISO-1400 1. I guess that's revision one of the 1400 standard.
What exactly is meant by spare time here? Is it downtime they have while on the job? Or is it developed at home on non-work time? This will greatly help determine whose code it is and what they can/can't do with it.
Keep in mind, however, that that's not all there is to it. Is the software currently deployed/hosted on company servers? Are they testing it at work or on work-related files/datasets/etc? Can be it be used for any company or is it designed so specifically that the average person would realize it was designed for the specific company? Even if they did this on their "own" time, if it uses enough company resources or is so closely tied to the company's business process, the company would have a very good chance at simply saying, "You volunteered this work but it's still out IP" and getting their way with it.
Ironic. Shakespear wasn't exactly known for being "highbrow" in his day. Some have speculated that if he were alive today, he'd be writing for professional wrestling.
Alas poor Hogan, I knew him well....
The author takes his own personal experience and tries to extrapolate it to "thousands" of other students. What bullshit.
My first chemical engineering professor (Dr. Edmond Ko) set me on fire. He taught us how to solve problems. He even built up our confidence with his great proclamation: "I can solve any engineering problem. I simply apply the same principles, be it chemical engineering, mechanics, electrical engineering, whatever. Once I apply basic principles, I can look up any specific equations or methods I may need." He made us believe we could do the same.
Throughout my engineering studies, I had professors that blended humor, real world experience, and good 'ole basic problem solving to give me and my fellow students the tools to succeed. To this day, I still attribute my success to their efforts.
Did I have bad professors? Yes. I had the ones who had no heart for teaching, passed the buck to untrained TAs (who were just as frustrated as me), and couldn't teach a fish to swim. But they were few and far between.
Engineering is in trouble in the US not because of education but because of the business world. Why study engineering when some bonehead MBA can get a big bonus while still screwing things up? (And I have an MBA!) Why devote your skills and time to building a great product when your job is going to be shipped overseas anyway? I, like many other engineers, came out of college eager to apply my skills and help build new products and processes. It's been the business world, and its utter lack of respect for the abilities of engineers, that's crushed my love of engineering.
Hmmm...merging MSN and AOL....
L'MOANS
SLAMON
SALMON (mmmm...tasty web portal)
MAN-LOS
MOLSAN (mmmm...brewed web portal...but subject to trademark fight...)