Even with my full name, address, ss#, and whatever other personal information an employer might get on a resume or application, there is absolutely no way they would ever be able to link my RL identity to my/. account. And, honestly, I go so far as to use different usernames on different sites depending on my reasons for being there and what "persona" I will likely be using. You couldn't, even by analyzing posting styles, figure out from my slashdot history what my username on various homebrewing forums is.
I don't see this as dishonest, just a sensible precaution. We all have different RL personas that we adopt depending on the situation. I conduct myself differently at work than I do when visiting my mom, and still in a different manner when hanging out with my friends at the bar. And trust me, the version of "me" that you'd find at a bar at 2am is not really the version of "me" that I'd like to project at a job interview. It's just part of living in civilized society, you need to act in a manner appropriate for the situation. There is a time and place to watch what you say, and a time and place to let your hair down and blow off steam, thus the need for bars, vacations, weekends, etc...
The difference between RL and online is that if I get sloppy drunk at the bar and say something stupid/offensive/embarrassing it won't show up on a Google search 5 years later.
Not everyone is that smart, though. Especially in their younger years. Hell, if the Internet had been easily available to the public when I was 16, I'm sure the web would be jammed full of really bad looking things tied directly to my full name.
All that being said, I have been seriously considering the idea of creating an online presence under my full, real name that can be easily and verifiably linked to me. This online persona will be carefully managed in the same "best foot forward" manner as a resume or cover letter is.
"If you can't act constructively to change what you don't like, "
I am doing exactly that.
How so?
One of my friends in college had views similar to yours. When it came time for him to go out into the job market, he refused to wear a tie to job interviews. His comment was "If they don't like me for who I am, then I don't want to work for him."
This was just over 15 years ago. He graduated with a BA in accounting, and passed the CPA exam. To this day he's still bouncing around working as unskilled labor for just over minimum wage.
Sorry, dude, you can bitch about "the man keeping you down" all you want, but the REALITY is that in order to get anywhere at all in this world, you have to be willing to play the game.
I'm sure there are employers out there who will reject an applicant over a drunken party picture, but you probably don't want to work there anyway if they're that uptight.
I wouldn't reject an applicant for such a picture if I actually had to google for it. However, I would *instantly* reject an applicant if the pictures were found by typing in a URL that they had included on their resume.
The latter scenario is a glaring example of flat-out stupidity, and I try not to hire stupid people. Especially the ones who make an actual effort to advertise their stupidity.
For myself, I don't view my office environment as a social setting (beyond what interaction is required to perform my job function). It's a place where I go to make the money I need in order to provide myself and my family with the type of lifestyle that we enjoy living.
By keeping my personal life, and any controversial views and/or habits separate from my professional life, I greatly expand my range of opportunities to provide myself and my family with a better and better lifestyle.
Most stoners are in fact completely useless when sober.
That's been my experience, as well. I've smoked a good amount of weed through my life, but it's always been a weekend/party thing for me.
What I would call a "stoner" are the people I've known who reach for their nightstand and smoke a bowl before their feet even hit the floor in the morning.
These people were, in fact, pretty much totally unable to perform even the simplest of tasks when they weren't high.
The same thing can happen with hardcore alcoholics. I know several people who seem completely normal and productive at a blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit, but who can barely walk or hold a conversation when they're completely dry.
It's a very sad thing, and no, I definitely wouldn't hire anyone who falls into either category.
And what about the people who never go out and have fun.
But what does that have to do with whether or not a person drinks? I know that this comes as a shocking revelation to many, many people, but it is entirely possible to have fun, lots of fun, on a regular basis, and never touch a drop of alcohol.
Doing a google search on my real name brings up absolutely nothing. I don't have, and never will have, myspace or facebook pages. The only pictures of myself that are online are on a single website where you have to have a paid membership to get beyond the "sign up for an account" page. It's a local social site, and a bit "fringe", so most people, even in this area, don't know it exists.
I'm pretty comfortable that even the best online sleuth will not only find no damaging information about me online, they'll find no information about me online at all.
Hell, I doubt that most people would even be able to make the correlation between my/. account and my digg account (different aliases).
Definitely Apple's fault. I'm no Microsoft fan, but come on. Is it really THAT difficult to imagine that iTunes might eventually get used with an iPod, and do testing on that scenario?
I'm firmly in the "Windows is crap" camp, and hate to pass up any good opportunity to bash Microsoft, but the fact is that in this case, the blame belongs 100% with Apple.
Nonsense. My obligation to assist an employer end at the exact moment that I cash my final paycheck.
If they require my services after I leave, we can discuss my consulting rates (which will be significantly higher than the salary they were paying me), but my help doesn't come for free. For anybody. Well, except maybe my mom, but then she did feed and clothe me for 18 years, so I figure that's fair.
UHF is the defacto and there are some (rare, thankfully) cheapies that are using VHF for now, and will convert over to UHF once the February time shifts by.
Quite the opposite here. All local stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on UHF, but will be moving back to their VHF frequencies once they shut off the analog signal that's currently there.
I haven't looked into it for awhile, but the last time I checked each and every station here in town (Des Moines, IA) that has traditionally broadcast on VHF will be moving their digital signal back to their old VHF frequency one the analog signal goes dark.
Thankfully, I did my research and discovered this before I invested in a high end antenna, so the one I have will cover me in any scenario.
So you're holding out for super-high-definition - technology that hasn't really breached the "experimental" phases yet? Well that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish right there and really has no bearing on the adoption rate of BluRay, seeing as BluRay is designed for 720/1080 sets.
That was my WHOLE POINT to begin with.
Time for a reading comprehension course. I wasn't talking about adoption of Blu-Ray, I was talking about there being no need to improve on it, since there will be no displays capable of higher resolution in widespread use any time in the near future.
I'm currently averaging about 1 TV every 3-4 years or so.
You'd save a lot of money if you just bought a higher quality TV in the first place. My 12 year old 36" CRT is still going strong. It was only demoted to bedroom duty because I'm a geek and wanted a bigger screen in the living room. Most people aren't like you and I, though. Most people shop for a TV when the old one finally dies, and yes, a 20 year lifespan for a TV is more than possible. I currently have a 26 year old TV in the kids room that is doing just fine.
Besides, I wasn't talking about people adopting current HD technology. I was talking about *widespread* adoption of TVs with MORE than 1080p resolution. I'll stand by my opinion that 20 years is a highly optimistic estimate for that.
That's certainly an option. One that I've tried, even. It turns out that I find the bars even more distracting than the stretching. But that's just me.
Personally, I'm just holding out for the digital conversion in February when, I'm hoping, 16:9 content will become increasingly more common.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I guess I should have been more clear.
What I meant was that with a simple software update the PS3 could be adapted to play movies from these hypothetical USB keys that we're picking up at the local Blockbuster in the alternate universe that people are describing.
And, as I pointed out, the idea still doesn't make sense.
For a long time, there has been resistance to purchasing HD televisions due to the lack of HD content to display on them. In fact, due to the stretching, standard content actually looks *worse* on an HD set.
But now there are several things going on that will change that. We have the digital transition happening in February, we have cable and sat companies finally ramping up the amount of HD content they provide, and we now have an HD format for movie rentals and purchases.
I'd say that over the next few years, sales of HDTVs are finally set to skyrocket, for the reasons mentioned above. Along with that, people will begin to see Blu-Ray as a great option for their next movie player.
Most people aren't geeks. They don't understand what AppleTV is, and they sure as hell aren't going to connect a PC to their television just to watch a movie. They want a simple device that they can set on the shelf, just like they've had with their VCRs and DVD players.
Things are moving slowly, but Blu-Ray is sitting in a pretty good position right now.
Not to mention that there is absolutely no reason at all to improve on Blu-Ray anytime soon. The vast majority of people I know are still watching 480i CRT televisions. It's going to be 2 decades, bare minimum, before displays capable of more than Blu-Ray's 1080p gain a significant foothold in people's homes.
Well, the PS3 does have USB ports, and a simple software update could allow it to play movies from a flash drive.
Still, it's a crazy idea. The movie industry is all about profits, and it's ALWAYS going to be cheaper to make a little plastic disc than a small circuit board with memory chips.
I'm sure Blu-Ray will, in fact, be superceded at some point, but it won't be flash memory that does it.
Slashdot Mirror
True enough.
But I have definitely grown out of "stupid enough to capture that video to my computer and post it on youtube".
Same here.
Even with my full name, address, ss#, and whatever other personal information an employer might get on a resume or application, there is absolutely no way they would ever be able to link my RL identity to my /. account. And, honestly, I go so far as to use different usernames on different sites depending on my reasons for being there and what "persona" I will likely be using. You couldn't, even by analyzing posting styles, figure out from my slashdot history what my username on various homebrewing forums is.
I don't see this as dishonest, just a sensible precaution. We all have different RL personas that we adopt depending on the situation. I conduct myself differently at work than I do when visiting my mom, and still in a different manner when hanging out with my friends at the bar. And trust me, the version of "me" that you'd find at a bar at 2am is not really the version of "me" that I'd like to project at a job interview. It's just part of living in civilized society, you need to act in a manner appropriate for the situation. There is a time and place to watch what you say, and a time and place to let your hair down and blow off steam, thus the need for bars, vacations, weekends, etc...
The difference between RL and online is that if I get sloppy drunk at the bar and say something stupid/offensive/embarrassing it won't show up on a Google search 5 years later.
Not everyone is that smart, though. Especially in their younger years. Hell, if the Internet had been easily available to the public when I was 16, I'm sure the web would be jammed full of really bad looking things tied directly to my full name.
All that being said, I have been seriously considering the idea of creating an online presence under my full, real name that can be easily and verifiably linked to me. This online persona will be carefully managed in the same "best foot forward" manner as a resume or cover letter is.
"If you can't act constructively to change what you don't like, "
I am doing exactly that.
How so?
One of my friends in college had views similar to yours. When it came time for him to go out into the job market, he refused to wear a tie to job interviews. His comment was "If they don't like me for who I am, then I don't want to work for him."
This was just over 15 years ago. He graduated with a BA in accounting, and passed the CPA exam. To this day he's still bouncing around working as unskilled labor for just over minimum wage.
Sorry, dude, you can bitch about "the man keeping you down" all you want, but the REALITY is that in order to get anywhere at all in this world, you have to be willing to play the game.
I'm sure there are employers out there who will reject an applicant over a drunken party picture, but you probably don't want to work there anyway if they're that uptight.
I wouldn't reject an applicant for such a picture if I actually had to google for it. However, I would *instantly* reject an applicant if the pictures were found by typing in a URL that they had included on their resume.
The latter scenario is a glaring example of flat-out stupidity, and I try not to hire stupid people. Especially the ones who make an actual effort to advertise their stupidity.
It's great that it works for you.
For myself, I don't view my office environment as a social setting (beyond what interaction is required to perform my job function). It's a place where I go to make the money I need in order to provide myself and my family with the type of lifestyle that we enjoy living.
By keeping my personal life, and any controversial views and/or habits separate from my professional life, I greatly expand my range of opportunities to provide myself and my family with a better and better lifestyle.
Works for me....
Most stoners are in fact completely useless when sober.
That's been my experience, as well. I've smoked a good amount of weed through my life, but it's always been a weekend/party thing for me.
What I would call a "stoner" are the people I've known who reach for their nightstand and smoke a bowl before their feet even hit the floor in the morning.
These people were, in fact, pretty much totally unable to perform even the simplest of tasks when they weren't high.
The same thing can happen with hardcore alcoholics. I know several people who seem completely normal and productive at a blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit, but who can barely walk or hold a conversation when they're completely dry.
It's a very sad thing, and no, I definitely wouldn't hire anyone who falls into either category.
And what about the people who never go out and have fun.
But what does that have to do with whether or not a person drinks? I know that this comes as a shocking revelation to many, many people, but it is entirely possible to have fun, lots of fun, on a regular basis, and never touch a drop of alcohol.
Another ditto.
Doing a google search on my real name brings up absolutely nothing. I don't have, and never will have, myspace or facebook pages. The only pictures of myself that are online are on a single website where you have to have a paid membership to get beyond the "sign up for an account" page. It's a local social site, and a bit "fringe", so most people, even in this area, don't know it exists.
I'm pretty comfortable that even the best online sleuth will not only find no damaging information about me online, they'll find no information about me online at all.
Hell, I doubt that most people would even be able to make the correlation between my /. account and my digg account (different aliases).
What? We're not blaming Canada for everything anymore?
Oh, where's the "+1 Irony" moderation option when you need it?
Definitely Apple's fault. I'm no Microsoft fan, but come on. Is it really THAT difficult to imagine that iTunes might eventually get used with an iPod, and do testing on that scenario?
I'm firmly in the "Windows is crap" camp, and hate to pass up any good opportunity to bash Microsoft, but the fact is that in this case, the blame belongs 100% with Apple.
Nonsense. My obligation to assist an employer end at the exact moment that I cash my final paycheck.
If they require my services after I leave, we can discuss my consulting rates (which will be significantly higher than the salary they were paying me), but my help doesn't come for free. For anybody. Well, except maybe my mom, but then she did feed and clothe me for 18 years, so I figure that's fair.
UHF is the defacto and there are some (rare, thankfully) cheapies that are using VHF for now, and will convert over to UHF once the February time shifts by.
Quite the opposite here. All local stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on UHF, but will be moving back to their VHF frequencies once they shut off the analog signal that's currently there.
I haven't looked into it for awhile, but the last time I checked each and every station here in town (Des Moines, IA) that has traditionally broadcast on VHF will be moving their digital signal back to their old VHF frequency one the analog signal goes dark.
Thankfully, I did my research and discovered this before I invested in a high end antenna, so the one I have will cover me in any scenario.
You might, but I don't. I actually did my research BEFORE I dropped cash on an antenna.
Yep, totally pointless. After all, everyone knows that OSX and Windows, together, have practically no installed base whatsoever....
So you're holding out for super-high-definition - technology that hasn't really breached the "experimental" phases yet? Well that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish right there and really has no bearing on the adoption rate of BluRay, seeing as BluRay is designed for 720/1080 sets.
That was my WHOLE POINT to begin with.
Time for a reading comprehension course. I wasn't talking about adoption of Blu-Ray, I was talking about there being no need to improve on it, since there will be no displays capable of higher resolution in widespread use any time in the near future.
Not being a hockey fan, I guess I'm in need of some education. Just exactly how is the name slashdot "obviously about hockey"?
I'm currently averaging about 1 TV every 3-4 years or so.
You'd save a lot of money if you just bought a higher quality TV in the first place. My 12 year old 36" CRT is still going strong. It was only demoted to bedroom duty because I'm a geek and wanted a bigger screen in the living room. Most people aren't like you and I, though. Most people shop for a TV when the old one finally dies, and yes, a 20 year lifespan for a TV is more than possible. I currently have a 26 year old TV in the kids room that is doing just fine.
Besides, I wasn't talking about people adopting current HD technology. I was talking about *widespread* adoption of TVs with MORE than 1080p resolution. I'll stand by my opinion that 20 years is a highly optimistic estimate for that.
What would be wrong with that? Shorten the damned ceremony up a bit.
Just do what I do. Don't watch it.
That's certainly an option. One that I've tried, even. It turns out that I find the bars even more distracting than the stretching. But that's just me.
Personally, I'm just holding out for the digital conversion in February when, I'm hoping, 16:9 content will become increasingly more common.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I guess I should have been more clear.
What I meant was that with a simple software update the PS3 could be adapted to play movies from these hypothetical USB keys that we're picking up at the local Blockbuster in the alternate universe that people are describing.
And, as I pointed out, the idea still doesn't make sense.
This will all start slowly changing, now.
For a long time, there has been resistance to purchasing HD televisions due to the lack of HD content to display on them. In fact, due to the stretching, standard content actually looks *worse* on an HD set.
But now there are several things going on that will change that. We have the digital transition happening in February, we have cable and sat companies finally ramping up the amount of HD content they provide, and we now have an HD format for movie rentals and purchases.
I'd say that over the next few years, sales of HDTVs are finally set to skyrocket, for the reasons mentioned above. Along with that, people will begin to see Blu-Ray as a great option for their next movie player.
Most people aren't geeks. They don't understand what AppleTV is, and they sure as hell aren't going to connect a PC to their television just to watch a movie. They want a simple device that they can set on the shelf, just like they've had with their VCRs and DVD players.
Things are moving slowly, but Blu-Ray is sitting in a pretty good position right now.
Not to mention that there is absolutely no reason at all to improve on Blu-Ray anytime soon. The vast majority of people I know are still watching 480i CRT televisions. It's going to be 2 decades, bare minimum, before displays capable of more than Blu-Ray's 1080p gain a significant foothold in people's homes.
Well, the PS3 does have USB ports, and a simple software update could allow it to play movies from a flash drive.
Still, it's a crazy idea. The movie industry is all about profits, and it's ALWAYS going to be cheaper to make a little plastic disc than a small circuit board with memory chips.
I'm sure Blu-Ray will, in fact, be superceded at some point, but it won't be flash memory that does it.