Claptrap. "I've found just the opposite to be the case 99% of the time". I know I didn't site any statistics or studies but your assertion is ludicrous. What you are saying is that 99% of recruited employees left higher paying jobs. It is you that has the confused belief system. To your other point I don't care what motivates "company HR people" my hypothesis is based on economic theory. Also, I live in Toronto where many people profess to be fairies and I have no reason not to believe them.
The practice of recruiting aligns positions more closely with skillsets. They also assist employees in getting fair market value and job satisfaction. The aggressive recruiting practice that is spoken of is a sign that market conditions are 'correcting' for employees. Further correcting in the job market will eventually make this practice too costly.
Bill Gates is extremely modest compared to the few peers he has. He has taken to charity like Mark Cuban has taken to the Mavericks (his charity). We should all hope he's as successful as Cuban.
As far as monopolies go, Microsoft's transgressions are minor. Comparatively, MS is honourable when compared to the practices of other Present and past monopolies such as Standard Oil, Major League Sports, DeBeers, Private Toll Operators etc. I believe MS has successfully walked the tightrope of being aggressively competitive and being a good corporate citizen.
Creating a market for pollution is a good method for there reduction. Accurately pricing pollutants based on their detriment and costs imposed on the public then charging companies for damages accordingly is fair. This method has its complications though for example. Do you charge oil companies or auto manufacturers for CO2 emissions?
We already are seeing signs of this with computer disposal fees that are being proposed. Why limit this to solely computer disposal?
I'm well aware of the company name but it's the "Get a MAC" campaign. When marketing ads state OS 10 users shouldn't be concerned with viruses they are not being TRUTHFUL are they?
...somewhere between the mantle and the inner core. I really don't believe that. I believe union's are good for dangerous jobs and probably save lives but outside of that, rare is the case a good one to form a union. I've worked in 15+ companies' permanent or contract and by far the worst IT departments were unionized. Lack of incentive and accountability were easily identified as the main factors contributing to the extreme ineptitude.
I'd love to hear if anyone has worked in a strongly unionized environment that thrived or met some measure of success.
I noticed the snake plant in the background and can only wonder if the name appealed to him. On the other hand a snake plant is a hearty plant that requires little attention and is a wise decision for an office plant.
"How many people here have telekinetic powers? Raise my hand."
I Totally agree!
Spying with physical, hard-coded equipment is far too inflexible to be effective. It would be discovered easily and could be used as a roadmap to a Chinese spy agency or as a channel to send misinformation.
Then again we are talking about a government and governments, Chinese or otherwise, don't always make wise decisions.
Gas station attendents (Petrolium Flow Coordinators) who apply for executive positions.
It is the job seekers that have made recruiters necessary. For even a moderately skilled position it isn't uncommon to have 95% of the resumes fall short of the minimum requirements. Hiring managers don't have the time to sift through gallons of resumes and leave it to a trusted pool of vendors to bring them a short list of qualfied people.
Job boards are not a good avenue to getting an average candidate meaningful employment. Job boards are full of lazy recruiters hoping for an exceptionally talented candidate to land on their lap and generally give people false hope. The ratio of applications to job fills is extremely low. They work for highly skill professionals that have highly desirable skills but then again those people don't tend or need to use job boards.
IMHO:
- only work with recruiters that take the time to get to know you
- apply directly to company sites (cheaper for them to hire you there)
- take short term contract positions and hope you can impress them enough to stay on
- network, network, network, join professional associations, volunteer, meet as many people as you can (think chaos theory)
Slashdot Mirror
Claptrap.
"I've found just the opposite to be the case 99% of the time". I know I didn't site any statistics or studies but your assertion is ludicrous. What you are saying is that 99% of recruited employees left higher paying jobs. It is you that has the confused belief system. To your other point I don't care what motivates "company HR people" my hypothesis is based on economic theory. Also, I live in Toronto where many people profess to be fairies and I have no reason not to believe them.
The practice of recruiting aligns positions more closely with skillsets. They also assist employees in getting fair market value and job satisfaction. The aggressive recruiting practice that is spoken of is a sign that market conditions are 'correcting' for employees. Further correcting in the job market will eventually make this practice too costly.
Bill Gates is extremely modest compared to the few peers he has. He has taken to charity like Mark Cuban has taken to the Mavericks (his charity). We should all hope he's as successful as Cuban. As far as monopolies go, Microsoft's transgressions are minor. Comparatively, MS is honourable when compared to the practices of other Present and past monopolies such as Standard Oil, Major League Sports, DeBeers, Private Toll Operators etc. I believe MS has successfully walked the tightrope of being aggressively competitive and being a good corporate citizen.
I see what he did was the antithesis of hacking, not that hacking has a definition any more. Apparently, writing books can earn you that title now.
How does discovering the Sony rootkit earn one the title of 'hacker'.
I think the view from the plane would be the targetted audience.
Creating a market for pollution is a good method for there reduction. Accurately pricing pollutants based on their detriment and costs imposed on the public then charging companies for damages accordingly is fair. This method has its complications though for example. Do you charge oil companies or auto manufacturers for CO2 emissions? We already are seeing signs of this with computer disposal fees that are being proposed. Why limit this to solely computer disposal?
I'm well aware of the company name but it's the "Get a MAC" campaign. When marketing ads state OS 10 users shouldn't be concerned with viruses they are not being TRUTHFUL are they?
Mac has employed 'truthiness' in these ads which is appearently the new standard Mac consumers ask.
...somewhere between the mantle and the inner core. I really don't believe that. I believe union's are good for dangerous jobs and probably save lives but outside of that, rare is the case a good one to form a union. I've worked in 15+ companies' permanent or contract and by far the worst IT departments were unionized. Lack of incentive and accountability were easily identified as the main factors contributing to the extreme ineptitude. I'd love to hear if anyone has worked in a strongly unionized environment that thrived or met some measure of success.
I noticed the snake plant in the background and can only wonder if the name appealed to him. On the other hand a snake plant is a hearty plant that requires little attention and is a wise decision for an office plant. "How many people here have telekinetic powers? Raise my hand."
I Totally agree! Spying with physical, hard-coded equipment is far too inflexible to be effective. It would be discovered easily and could be used as a roadmap to a Chinese spy agency or as a channel to send misinformation. Then again we are talking about a government and governments, Chinese or otherwise, don't always make wise decisions.
Gas station attendents (Petrolium Flow Coordinators) who apply for executive positions. It is the job seekers that have made recruiters necessary. For even a moderately skilled position it isn't uncommon to have 95% of the resumes fall short of the minimum requirements. Hiring managers don't have the time to sift through gallons of resumes and leave it to a trusted pool of vendors to bring them a short list of qualfied people. Job boards are not a good avenue to getting an average candidate meaningful employment. Job boards are full of lazy recruiters hoping for an exceptionally talented candidate to land on their lap and generally give people false hope. The ratio of applications to job fills is extremely low. They work for highly skill professionals that have highly desirable skills but then again those people don't tend or need to use job boards. IMHO: - only work with recruiters that take the time to get to know you - apply directly to company sites (cheaper for them to hire you there) - take short term contract positions and hope you can impress them enough to stay on - network, network, network, join professional associations, volunteer, meet as many people as you can (think chaos theory)