To be fair, employers should NOT HIRE PEOPLE WITH DOTCOMS [callipygian.com] on their resumes.
I throw all resumes with "dotcom" jobs on them in the trash. I wish all other employers would, too. That's the only fair way to hire qualified people in silicon valley. Don't reward the people who screwed the economy, and the high-tech industry up.
One problem with the reasoning you use on your site... you reference an "actual" resume, noting all the flaws in it, but when I googled for that resume (using exact phrases from your example), I found it to be quite impressive (and yes, I am almost certain it is the same resume since all the dates plus almost all of the phrasing matches).
You really took that resume out of context. In fact, all of the bad things you say to look out for, this resume does not do. For instance:
Hyper-inflated titles: I don't see anything wrong with the titles listed... in fact, they are rather mundane titles that most non-dotcom tech companies use. In addition, you added the title CTO to your example when it wasn't listed on the actual one.
No college education listed: the actual resume lists his college education, majors, distinctions, and GPA... what more do you want?
Vague descriptions of work: that's because you removed all of the specific descriptions in your example resume. This resume goes into quite a bit of detail and cites many specific numbers on what this guy contributed.
Enumeration of skills isn't backed up by experience: again, that's because you removed all of the specific descriptions (and some of the other positions this guy had) in your example resume.
I realize you are trying to make a point, but if you're going to claim this is from an actual resume, then take it from an actual resume. Otherwise, this is just weakening your argument. I actually took you seriously for a bit until I found the actual resume.
Take the #10 bus from downtown Seattle, you can catch it going west on Madison St., north on 1st Ave, then east on Pike at 4th and 6th, and east at 9th and Pine St. Take this bus to the end of the line, about a 15-20 minute ride. You will pass the cemetery just before the last stop. Enter through the main gate and proceed straight ahead, up the hill. You will see a flag pole to your left,near the top of the hill. The grave is about 50 ft. north and a little east of the flag pole. Look for two 4 ft. side-by-side head stones with a small bench in front of them. Bus service is very frequent on all days except sundays.
It has a large floor-to-cieling set of windows and is affectionately called the "fishbowl" due to your abilty to observe the students in the lab from the Infinate Corridor.
BTW, the fishbowl doesn't exist anymore. It was replaced with the new "Student Services Center" in 1997. However, they did create another fishbowl cluster down the extension of the infinite corridor in building 16.
I saw an actual demonstration of these by McLurkin a few months ago. What actually impressed me the most about these things was that he used music and sounds to indicate what each robot was doing. He had about 20 of these things running around on the floor, and it's amazing that by just listening to them, you can figure out what's going on. One example was the use of a musical scale to indicate the distance a given robot is from its leader. He said it was a great debug tool in that you can actually hear when there's something wrong... faster than looking at a screenful of log files.
_They_ did not give permission for anyone else to manufacture a product which will work with their printers. That would mean licensing which is not taking place.
But Lexmark doesn't have a patent on their cartridges, so this doesn't apply. Anyone should be able to manufacture a competing product.
Do most of the people in Venezuela plug their clocks into power sockets? Hello? Does that make much sense? Most clocks run on batteries. I think the article attempts to mislead.
I don't know where you're from, but certainly in the US, I believe at least a majority of clocks run off the electrical outlet. If the frequency were to fall behind, these clocks would lag as well. Just about everyone's alarm clock falls in this category. Also, this includes clocks like the ones on your VCR and microwave.
It passed the Senate but never passed the House of Representatives... It's cited by spammers in order to trick you that the spam is legitimate and that you can't do anything about it. See link here.
By the way, I still have two or three encrypted WordPerfect 5.1 files from many years ago laying around that I forgot the password for. Pretty unimportant personal stuff, but it would be nice to be able to open them again. I can't imagine that they used strong encryption back then (it was done with the built-in WP 'add password' tool). Anyone know of any tools that I could use to crack the encryption?
Trouble is Windows runs on i386 and uh uh uh, it runs on i386 and uh uh uh. Well, it only runs on souped up versions of the 80386, and I'll bet it'll never run on anything else.
Completely untrue. Microsoft has builds of Windows in ia64 and even AMD's 64-bit architecture. They certainly will be released with Windows Server 2003.
There are some apparent curiosities with current interconnection arrangements. If I am connected to a smaller ISP and I send an email to my friend at one of the four larger ISPs, the larger ISP will generally charge my smaller ISP for sending the email. However, when my friend at the larger ISP sends me a return email, my smaller ISP will have to pay the larger ISP once again.
Umm... this was the way BGP (Border Gateway Protocol: the protocol that basically routes the entire Internet, more info here) was designed to work. It's what gives ISPs incentive to cooperate yet still compete with one another. I don't see how the Australian government can do anything to change this since under BGP, there is no incentive to charge depending on which way information is flowing.
BGP already provides some of these benefits for smaller ISPs by allowing peering relationships. Let's say there is a parent ISP A, with smaller ISPs B and C in a transit relationship to A (in other words, they pay A). If B wants to send to C, it normally has to go through A, and both B and C end up paying for it. If there is significant traffic between B and C, they may decide to set up a peering relationship, sending packets directly between one another and bypassing A. Many peering relationships are set up such that B and C don't pay each other anything, since they both end up saving money by bypassing A.
Also, if you think about it, if A charges B for anything going from B to A and B charges A for anything going from A to B, you end up cancelling much of the money they make from one another. Granted, the larger ISP will most likely come out ahead, but it still needs to pay its bills. So it raise prices anyway in order to recoup the money that was cancelled out. In effect, the amount that the larger ISP charges will be unchanged, but there is extra work involved in keeping track of all this information. To make an analogy, does it make sense for you to charge your ISP for packets that go one way and not the other? No, you're paying them for the connection that they provide.
Finally, how do we determine in what situations do charges apply? If an e-mail goes from A to B, it seems logical that A should pay. But if B makes a request for a web page and the web page is transferred from A to B, should A still pay? If we make different payment rules for different protocols, this will become a mess.
In summary, I don't see how this regulation will effect anything except to make everyones lives harder.
Re:Various complaints about the blurb
on
The Taste of Pain
·
· Score: 1
The human genome project, as yet, has not produced a stirring new mandate for nature vs. nurture. In fact, since human beings have less than half as many different individual genes as was expected (we have less than 50,000; before the genome came out 100,000 was the most popular prediction) a great deal of our complexity/diversity must arise from something other genetics.
Quoting gene numbers is essentially meaningless since currently no one has any idea what kind of effects a single gene might have. Many genes have already been found to have effects on other genes, so increasing the number of genes doesn't necessarily imply a linear increase in the complexity of an organism. In fact, it may very well be an exponential relationship.
You are welcome to your shortsighted opinion of the stupidity of creationists, but you yourself seem to completely ignore the fact that evolution is a theory, one disputed by a lot of scientific evidence. The laws of thermodynamics for instance.
I hate when creationists bring this argument in, because it only emphasizes their ignorance. Their argument says that because of the second law of themodynamics, processes always progress towards greater entropy (disorder). QED... Evolution is disproved.
WRONG!!! Second law of themodynamics says processes progress towards greater entropy in a closed system. The earth is nowhere near a closed system. By putting energy in a system, you can decrease entropy and the energy of the sun is a great contributor.
Second of all, the oil/water thing is more of an Italian dressing, I believe; and First of all, we don't call it french dressing any more, we call it Freedom Dressing.
But Italian dressing isn't an emulsion since the oil and water separate rather quickly (and thus you have to mix it before use). French dressing is an emulsion since the oil and water mix. That was the point of the reference in the article.
Ah ok... my bad... I can't find the edition number listed anywhere, but your explanation makes sense.
Though this still doesn't say anything about the validity of that ACM footnote, since the citation used 43 as the edition number (October 25 is in the 43 week of the year). Again, if he had the original article, he wouldn't have made that mistake.
The interview claims to be from FOCUS Number 43, but if you look at the FOCUS Magazine site, the current issue is Number 8. Unless they did some major restructuring, I don't know of any places that go back on their numbering.
The most believable link I've come across is one that points to some ACM proceedings where the attribution is footnote #25.
I found the link to the ACM article. Funny... you think if the author had access to the original article he wouldn't have put down the author as "Unknown."
25
Unknown. "Interview with Bill Gates". FOCUS, (43):206-212, October 23 1995.
The author of this article most likely found the same site we're talking about now and took the citation information right from it.
Rather than just repeatedly claiming that you've seen the original interview here, here, here, and here, perhaps add some validity to your claim and post the original article from which this came, or at least show some credible evidence that this thing is real.
It's all good and fun to bash Billy, but some of the things in this interview do sound rather farcical.
Slashdot Mirror
You really took that resume out of context. In fact, all of the bad things you say to look out for, this resume does not do. For instance:
- Hyper-inflated titles: I don't see anything wrong with the titles listed... in fact, they are rather mundane titles that most non-dotcom tech companies use. In addition, you added the title CTO to your example when it wasn't listed on the actual one.
- No college education listed: the actual resume lists his college education, majors, distinctions, and GPA... what more do you want?
- Vague descriptions of work: that's because you removed all of the specific descriptions in your example resume. This resume goes into quite a bit of detail and cites many specific numbers on what this guy contributed.
- Enumeration of skills isn't backed up by experience: again, that's because you removed all of the specific descriptions (and some of the other positions this guy had) in your example resume.
I realize you are trying to make a point, but if you're going to claim this is from an actual resume, then take it from an actual resume. Otherwise, this is just weakening your argument. I actually took you seriously for a bit until I found the actual resume.Lakeview Cemetery
1554 15th. Ave. E
Seattle, WA
Take the #10 bus from downtown Seattle, you can catch it going west on Madison St., north on 1st Ave, then east on Pike at 4th and 6th, and east at 9th and Pine St. Take this bus to the end of the line, about a 15-20 minute ride. You will pass the cemetery just before the last stop. Enter through the main gate and proceed straight ahead, up the hill. You will see a flag pole to your left,near the top of the hill. The grave is about 50 ft. north and a little east of the flag pole. Look for two 4 ft. side-by-side head stones with a small bench in front of them. Bus service is very frequent on all days except sundays.
Nuke shelter? Why not live in the missile silo itself? :)
I saw an actual demonstration of these by McLurkin a few months ago. What actually impressed me the most about these things was that he used music and sounds to indicate what each robot was doing. He had about 20 of these things running around on the floor, and it's amazing that by just listening to them, you can figure out what's going on. One example was the use of a musical scale to indicate the distance a given robot is from its leader. He said it was a great debug tool in that you can actually hear when there's something wrong... faster than looking at a screenful of log files.
If you have physical access already, who needs rm when you have a sledgehammer? :)
It passed the Senate but never passed the House of Representatives... It's cited by spammers in order to trick you that the spam is legitimate and that you can't do anything about it. See link here.
A man who died a virgin has to keep himself busy somehow. :)
BGP already provides some of these benefits for smaller ISPs by allowing peering relationships. Let's say there is a parent ISP A, with smaller ISPs B and C in a transit relationship to A (in other words, they pay A). If B wants to send to C, it normally has to go through A, and both B and C end up paying for it. If there is significant traffic between B and C, they may decide to set up a peering relationship, sending packets directly between one another and bypassing A. Many peering relationships are set up such that B and C don't pay each other anything, since they both end up saving money by bypassing A.
Also, if you think about it, if A charges B for anything going from B to A and B charges A for anything going from A to B, you end up cancelling much of the money they make from one another. Granted, the larger ISP will most likely come out ahead, but it still needs to pay its bills. So it raise prices anyway in order to recoup the money that was cancelled out. In effect, the amount that the larger ISP charges will be unchanged, but there is extra work involved in keeping track of all this information. To make an analogy, does it make sense for you to charge your ISP for packets that go one way and not the other? No, you're paying them for the connection that they provide.
Finally, how do we determine in what situations do charges apply? If an e-mail goes from A to B, it seems logical that A should pay. But if B makes a request for a web page and the web page is transferred from A to B, should A still pay? If we make different payment rules for different protocols, this will become a mess.
In summary, I don't see how this regulation will effect anything except to make everyones lives harder.
WRONG!!! Second law of themodynamics says processes progress towards greater entropy in a closed system. The earth is nowhere near a closed system. By putting energy in a system, you can decrease entropy and the energy of the sun is a great contributor.
I'm not completely discounting the validity of the article, just that little things like this make me skeptical.
Though this still doesn't say anything about the validity of that ACM footnote, since the citation used 43 as the edition number (October 25 is in the 43 week of the year). Again, if he had the original article, he wouldn't have made that mistake.
The interview claims to be from FOCUS Number 43, but if you look at the FOCUS Magazine site, the current issue is Number 8. Unless they did some major restructuring, I don't know of any places that go back on their numbering.
It's all good and fun to bash Billy, but some of the things in this interview do sound rather farcical.