Learning how to socialize is the most important part of school.
No, learning the material is the most important part of school.
University is not suppose to be some giant cocktail party.
I am not dismissing the value of socializing at university, particularly
when it involves exchanging ideas of scholastic relevance. It's just not
the main main. At any rate,
my guess is that the kid's communication skills are already excellent (probably
in five languages).
I don't mind someone doing it all in one year - this guy really belongs in graduate
school. Hopefully he'll relax and interact more there, where the conversations
are slightly more stimulating than undergraduate ones, involving more than just
beer and babes.
May I suggest that one of the causes of your bad experiences is
an hostility towards authority. Being an employee is not for everyone -
you might be better off as an entrepreneur. You could then try out
your hiring policies.
I never once said that someone could not be both a good follower and a good leader. Indeed, the two
often go together. I said you shouldn't ask someone who can't follow to follow, or ask somone
who can't lead to lead. Seems like common sense to me.
I don't know what experiences you've had in business, but you
should really discuss it with your therapist.
Your posts are some of the most cynical, embittered, and vitriolic I've read
in some time.
And you never answered my question: How would you go about selecting employees? Toss of the coin, perchance?
My but we're negative today! Even, dare I say it, a bit trollish.
But I have a perverse fondness for trolls, so I'll respond:
Leaders don't get hired. Modern corporate management is incompetent to employ leaders.
That's a tad cynical, but when I talk about leadership, I'm not talking about Winston
Churchill here. If we are trying to hire someone for a non-leadership role, it would be a
mistake to choose someone who is incapable of following. Likewise,
if we are hiring someone for a supervisory position, it's a mistake to choose someone
who doesn't have at least minimal leadership skills.
The possibility the employer is a fucking asscrack isn't even considered, naturally.
Most of the reference names are provided by the candidate him/herself. The candidate
is not likely to
give references who are down on them. It is, however, good to find your own reference from someone you know and trust.
Also never use just one reference - minimum of three. That way, it becomes pretty obvious
if one reference has an agenda.
Remember, it's not to the company's benefit to slag candidates unjustly. We need
accurate assessments.
Why management can't just hire people and get the job done is truly beyond me.
Typically you have a number of candidates for a single position. For certain jobs,
choosing the right candidate versus the wrong one can mean millions of dollars (seriously).
You need some way to try to make the right decision. References
are one tool (not the only one you should use, but I think the most valuable)
to help you make that right decision.
I'm truly interested - how do you suggest hiring be done?
Anytime I feel the delusion coming on that I live in a
intelligent, rational society, free of the ignorant superstitions
of the past, I just think about "Head On".
It makes the true nature of our civilization crystal clear. How will
we ever survive?
All good questions, although I would probably pass on the last one.
We have a list of about 20 questions. Some are mundane ("What was
your working relation with the candidate? How long did you know them? Under
what circumstances did the candidate leave the company? How good of a C++
programmer was the candidate? How good of a speaker/writer was the candidate?")
You should also ask what new initiatives the employee introduced. Were they a
leader or a follower? This is important in knowing how to handle the employee
after they have been hired.
Some of the important questions are about how well the candidate gets along
with other employees. Being brilliant at puzzles is nearly useless if you
are the world's biggest jerk. I would not want to work for a company where
the ability to solve puzzles is the overriding hiring criteria.
Some of the most revealing are "What are the candidate's strongest points?",
"What is the candidate's weakest points?", "What types of jobs is this candidate
NOT suited for?". If there are no weak points, I would view the information
with skepticism.
And at the end "Is there anything else you would like to add?" That one often
has a surprizing answer.
Our department has a fairly coherent hiring procedure. It's based on a single observation:
How well a candidate did in their previous jobs is an excellent predictor of
how well they will do on their next job.
Blindingly obvious, when you think about it. It is certainly a sounder basis for hiring
than the candidate's ability to solve Sudoku.
This means that references count for
a lot. They should be structured - in other words, you should have prepared questions.
You don't just chat.
The good news is that references tend to remarkably honest about
candidates (and there are ways of telling if they are). The bad news is that people are
getting more reluctant, for legal reasons, to give reference interviews.
They put toxic herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides on crops all of the time,
whether the plant is GM or not. You just can't put ones on that kill the actual crop,
and you can't put them on too soon before harvesting.
It's interesting that they refer to a food product that is, to
an extraordinarily high degree of probably, perfectly safe for consumption,
as a "contaminant".
And other people think 9/11 was planned and executed by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile people fight to make creationism part of the high school
science curriculum.
And many consider homeopathic medicines, also known as "water",
as effective treatments.
Gives me a migraine. Where did I put my "head-on"?
Ain't no one going to read this reply two days after the original post, but cosmic radiation
is very much a concern even just going to Mars. I've read a number of articles in
reputable science magazines that say so. Here's one from
New Scientist.
I heard shielding really doesn't work. The most effective shielding is hydrogen (for technical
reasons I don't understand), probably in the form of water. But it takes like 10 m (33 feet) of water to provide a decent shield - way too much to carry into space.
Robotic exploration could be done at a fraction of the cost of human exploration.
Keeping people alive and returning them to earth is a very difficult proposition.
Of course, it doesn't quite have the romance. My attitude, however, is screw the
romance - we could achieve far more, far faster, and at far less cost with robots.
Human settlement, of course, requires humans. But we're a long way from that.
Both solar flares and cosmic radiation are serious (and potentially deadly)
barriers to space exploration. Near the earth things aren't too bad, but a journey
to Mars presents a serious problem. See
this.
Last I heard, there were no practical ways to deal with radiation in space.
Does this mean NASA doesn't consider radiation to be a problem, or think
it has a workable solution? Is so, what is it?
And isn't it irresponsible to begin contracting if they don't have
a solution?
Agreed. Stallman has stated that proprietary software is unethical, and he doesn't much care
for the people and companies who make their living off of it.
What's interesting is that many (probably a strong majority) of people who develop
free software developed their skills (and their bank accounts)
building proprietary software for big, evil
corporations. And much GPL software has been (and continues to be) donated or financially supported by these companies. And much GPL software is modelled on successful proprietary software
(e.g., UNIX and Linux).
Thus free software has benefited greatly from proprietary software, and of course
vice versa.
I much prefer Linus T's view, which appears to be that free and proprietary software
complement, rather than conflict with, each other. At any rate, people should be able to take any approach they wish. That's my definition of freedom.
I don't really need a solution cause I don't really have a problem. I am happy to avoid
GPL software in code that I wish to remain fully proprietary. My example was only given to
demonstrate the viral nature of the GPL.
Having said that, I am skeptical that dynamic linking is a way to avoid "GPL infection".
I wouldn't want to test the courts on that one.
Ahh...I see. So you're referring to your practise of seeking out people with colds, deliberately coming into close contact with them, and then complaining when you have a cold too?
No one's complaining about anything, moron. I'm not making any judgement
here at all about what is or is not proper behaviour. I'm simply saying that referring to the GPL
as "viral" is not a bad analogy.
Go pick a fight with someone who actually might disagree with you. And quit being a prick.
Thanks for the snarky reply. I am well aware that a non-GPL license for FFTW can be purchased from MIT. I was referring to people using the GPL version.
Let me explain the analogy. If someone has a cold (if some code is licensed under that GPL), and they
come into close contact with another person (the code is linked with some other code), then that other person also
gets a cold (the other code is also now licensed under the GPL).
Not a perfect analogy, but not bad. Feel free to propose a better one.
And so far as people paying for what they want to use, I never said different.
Perhaps you should ease up on the crusading.
If I have a 10 million line program, and it links to and calls FFTW (a GPL Fourier Transform package made up of
a few thousands lines of code), my 10 million line program is now under the GPL. I cannot offer that program
to outside organizations without also offering to make all 10 million lines of source available to them.
"Viral" is not a bad description of this effect.
I'm not saying this effect is good or bad, but it MUST be accurately understood.
The authors downplayed this too much, and appealing to anti-MS sentiments was manipulative.
Judging from the previews, the snakes were some Hollywood producer's idea of what a
venomous snake should look and act like - i.e., not even close. I think there was actually
a good movie in there somewhere, waiting to slither out, but it would have required
more realism and fewer lousy special effects.
Tufte has been described as the Strunk and White of display. That's ironic, since
the title of his first book, "The Visual Display Of Quantitative Information", must
have Strunk and White rolling in their graves. Visual display? What other kind
of display is there?
How about "Displaying Quantitative Information"? That's got more snap to it.
Okay, I'm being a picky here. But good communication requires just that.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not dismissing the value of socializing at university, particularly when it involves exchanging ideas of scholastic relevance. It's just not the main main. At any rate, my guess is that the kid's communication skills are already excellent (probably in five languages).
I don't mind someone doing it all in one year - this guy really belongs in graduate school. Hopefully he'll relax and interact more there, where the conversations are slightly more stimulating than undergraduate ones, involving more than just beer and babes.
Keeley vs Danni
Democrats versus Republicans
Creationism versus evolution
Open software versus proprietary
These are all sure to create vicious back-and-forth arguments that'll put the responses over that magical 300 number.
Ain't no getting around it. There is no money tree.
This is not a criticism - it's just curiosity. I am wondering if there is anything a bank can do to prevent or discourage phishing.
And remember the third law of sociodynamics: No matter how a dispute turns out, the lawyers always win.
Just throwing it out there.
I don't know what experiences you've had in business, but you should really discuss it with your therapist. Your posts are some of the most cynical, embittered, and vitriolic I've read in some time.
And you never answered my question: How would you go about selecting employees? Toss of the coin, perchance?
That's a tad cynical, but when I talk about leadership, I'm not talking about Winston Churchill here. If we are trying to hire someone for a non-leadership role, it would be a mistake to choose someone who is incapable of following. Likewise, if we are hiring someone for a supervisory position, it's a mistake to choose someone who doesn't have at least minimal leadership skills.
Most of the reference names are provided by the candidate him/herself. The candidate is not likely to give references who are down on them. It is, however, good to find your own reference from someone you know and trust. Also never use just one reference - minimum of three. That way, it becomes pretty obvious if one reference has an agenda.
Typically you have a number of candidates for a single position. For certain jobs, choosing the right candidate versus the wrong one can mean millions of dollars (seriously). You need some way to try to make the right decision. References are one tool (not the only one you should use, but I think the most valuable) to help you make that right decision.Remember, it's not to the company's benefit to slag candidates unjustly. We need accurate assessments.
I'm truly interested - how do you suggest hiring be done?
It makes the true nature of our civilization crystal clear. How will we ever survive?
We have a list of about 20 questions. Some are mundane ("What was your working relation with the candidate? How long did you know them? Under what circumstances did the candidate leave the company? How good of a C++ programmer was the candidate? How good of a speaker/writer was the candidate?")
You should also ask what new initiatives the employee introduced. Were they a leader or a follower? This is important in knowing how to handle the employee after they have been hired.
Some of the important questions are about how well the candidate gets along with other employees. Being brilliant at puzzles is nearly useless if you are the world's biggest jerk. I would not want to work for a company where the ability to solve puzzles is the overriding hiring criteria.
Some of the most revealing are "What are the candidate's strongest points?", "What is the candidate's weakest points?", "What types of jobs is this candidate NOT suited for?". If there are no weak points, I would view the information with skepticism.
And at the end "Is there anything else you would like to add?" That one often has a surprizing answer.
Blindingly obvious, when you think about it. It is certainly a sounder basis for hiring than the candidate's ability to solve Sudoku.
This means that references count for a lot. They should be structured - in other words, you should have prepared questions. You don't just chat.
The good news is that references tend to remarkably honest about candidates (and there are ways of telling if they are). The bad news is that people are getting more reluctant, for legal reasons, to give reference interviews.
They put toxic herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides on crops all of the time, whether the plant is GM or not. You just can't put ones on that kill the actual crop, and you can't put them on too soon before harvesting.
And other people think 9/11 was planned and executed by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile people fight to make creationism part of the high school science curriculum.
And many consider homeopathic medicines, also known as "water", as effective treatments.
Gives me a migraine. Where did I put my "head-on"?
And he's been on The Simpsons. Don't get better than that.
Ain't no one going to read this reply two days after the original post, but cosmic radiation is very much a concern even just going to Mars. I've read a number of articles in reputable science magazines that say so. Here's one from New Scientist.
I heard shielding really doesn't work. The most effective shielding is hydrogen (for technical reasons I don't understand), probably in the form of water. But it takes like 10 m (33 feet) of water to provide a decent shield - way too much to carry into space.
Robotic exploration could be done at a fraction of the cost of human exploration. Keeping people alive and returning them to earth is a very difficult proposition.
Of course, it doesn't quite have the romance. My attitude, however, is screw the romance - we could achieve far more, far faster, and at far less cost with robots.
Human settlement, of course, requires humans. But we're a long way from that.
Last I heard, there were no practical ways to deal with radiation in space.
Does this mean NASA doesn't consider radiation to be a problem, or think it has a workable solution? Is so, what is it? And isn't it irresponsible to begin contracting if they don't have a solution?
What's interesting is that many (probably a strong majority) of people who develop free software developed their skills (and their bank accounts) building proprietary software for big, evil corporations. And much GPL software has been (and continues to be) donated or financially supported by these companies. And much GPL software is modelled on successful proprietary software (e.g., UNIX and Linux).
Thus free software has benefited greatly from proprietary software, and of course vice versa.
I much prefer Linus T's view, which appears to be that free and proprietary software complement, rather than conflict with, each other. At any rate, people should be able to take any approach they wish. That's my definition of freedom.
I don't really need a solution cause I don't really have a problem. I am happy to avoid GPL software in code that I wish to remain fully proprietary. My example was only given to demonstrate the viral nature of the GPL.
Having said that, I am skeptical that dynamic linking is a way to avoid "GPL infection". I wouldn't want to test the courts on that one.
Go pick a fight with someone who actually might disagree with you. And quit being a prick.
Let me explain the analogy. If someone has a cold (if some code is licensed under that GPL), and they come into close contact with another person (the code is linked with some other code), then that other person also gets a cold (the other code is also now licensed under the GPL).
Not a perfect analogy, but not bad. Feel free to propose a better one.
And so far as people paying for what they want to use, I never said different. Perhaps you should ease up on the crusading.
If I have a 10 million line program, and it links to and calls FFTW (a GPL Fourier Transform package made up of a few thousands lines of code), my 10 million line program is now under the GPL. I cannot offer that program to outside organizations without also offering to make all 10 million lines of source available to them. "Viral" is not a bad description of this effect.
I'm not saying this effect is good or bad, but it MUST be accurately understood.
The authors downplayed this too much, and appealing to anti-MS sentiments was manipulative.
We've already been bitten by "Anaconda".
How about "Displaying Quantitative Information"? That's got more snap to it.
Okay, I'm being a picky here. But good communication requires just that.