It could be a timed test. Sure, you could still cheat, but it would be muc harder to research on Google if you only have 10 seconds to pick the answer that you should know...
If an employer is serious about hiring, I fully expect them to be involved in the hiring process from the start.
Quite often, the reason that you're hiring is because you're very busy, and recruiting new employees is extremely time consuming. So it's sometimes just practical to use external resources to do it. Don't forget that most recruiters will charge between 20 and 33% of the full-time salary for placing a full-time employee. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is a lot of money! Therefore, for the hiring company it must be worth it in some situations otherwise they wouldn't do it.
I have hired many developers and other staff. If you can find a good recruiter (which is very hard) then this relationship will save you time and find you better candidates than you could yourself, unless of course you weren't busy and had all day to search resumes and deal with floods of emails! I've hired both ways and I much prefer using a (good) recruiter. Using a recruiter doesn't mean you're not involved in the hiring process. You explain the position, the skills, the needs to the recruiter. You get resumes from them and you go through an iterative process of describing why the resumes weren't appropriate and what you're looking for that is different. Then once you have that part down and you have a number of candidates, you just let the recruiter deal with arranging interviews and making offers, and so on. This all goes back to the recruiter being a great time-saver. Again, if you're not busy, then go ahead and do it yourself - it's not hard.
Having said that, being on the other side of the equation sucks. If you're looking for a job, all you get is automated emails regarding wholly inappropriate jobs in the wrong city. They say things like: "We found your resume online and this job blah blah.... Please send your resume if you're interested". Well, if you found my resume online, why the fuck do you need me to send my resume!? Just ignore the emails, in the same way recruiters will ignore yours if they're not interested in you, even if you've already spoken a number of times.
On a related note, I wonder how long it'll be until the job recruiters are outsourcing their positions overseas so even THEY are barely involved.
I suspect that this is already occurring. I have had a number of calls about inappropriate positions from recruiters with very Indian sounding accents. One was called "Peter". I suspect that they have outsourced the mass CALL-EM-ALL part of the job because the mass EMAIL-EM-ALL campaign doesn't work as well as a person-to-person contact.
Seriously -- other than as a new game platform, why would the average person buy a new computer?
Some people buy a new computer because the old one gets slow and fills up with junk. Too many applications, popups, spyware apps, files... The thought of reinstalling Windows or adding more space just doesn't enter into the thought process.
Here is a paper from Princeton university where they document how they broke some SDMI watermarking schemes a few years ago. There was some kind of "challenge" and the paper describes how they won the challenge (I think) and also how the watermarking schemes worked and therefore how they broke them.
From what I have read, which is not a huge amount, the watermarks are able to survive quite a beating. I believe this is partly due to the very limited amount of information that is being encoded (in the order of a few bits here and there) and also because the information is stored in signals that most encoding technologies do not modify (echo's for example).
If you want to read more, check out this FAQ by the people that broke the SDMI digital watermark a few years ago. They also have the actual paper, which I read too, but have since forgotten.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Americans don't want low taxes, they want LOWER taxes.
It doesn't matter where you are at, how high they used to be, what level is a good level - all that is academic bullshit. In most people's minds, taxes can either go higher or lower, and most seem to prefer the latter.
I agree with what you say, but I would also add that Kerry was a terrible candidate. I'm not sure if they had a better candidate, and I would certainly have preferred him over Bush, but the fact remains that he was politic equivalent of a piece of white bread.
The problem isn't that the big bang is contrary to science. After all, it is feasible to believe that a creator started the big bang, made all the laws of physics, etc. The problem is that these scientific theories are contrary to the *bible* which some people believe to be the literal truth.
I propose a rewrite of the Bible. I would call it the "New Updated Literal Truth, 3rd Edition" and it would have all that pesky science in it, and then say that God made it all... In addition, I would probably put it online so that the truth could be modified more easily.
As a conservative, I'm guessing that you're either fiscally conservative, socially conservative (hello Jesus), or both.
If I were a fiscal conservative I would be wholly against going back to the moon as a complete waste of money. Surely that few billion could be another tax cut, or maybe fix the budget a little. And as a social/religious conservative, I would struggle to find guidance from the Bible regarding space travel.
All this "science" that takes place in space is doubtless useful, but the expense is just astronomical (pun intended) compared with regular terrestrial science. "YAY, we found evidence of some bacteria on mars that indicates the existence of ice a long fucking time ago, and so maybe they had oceans n' stuff, and like aliens lived there, and so we're not, like, alone in this universe. Cool."
My personal opinion, which I'm sure others will disagree with, is that NASA should be shut down and the funding used for research grants and prize money to solve certain problems. I'd rather spend a billion dollars solving the remaining problems of the "hydrogen economy", or cure cancer. Nah, fuck it. Let's go to fucking mars instead.
"Don't be evil." is a pretty clear message. Helping the Chinese government supress free thought and freedom sounds pretty evil to me, and given that I'm not evil, I don't think it's a great move. But hey, who cares if there's money in it, right?
I agree. People support Google *because* they believe it to be a company that might actually have morals! "Don't be evil" seems to give a pretty clear message of that. If their motto was "make money at all costs" then the supporters of that company would not be shocked that their company was doing this kind of activity.
Because Google are doing something that seems contrary one of their fundamental principles, the supporters of that company have a right to bitch about it.
If Google was operating in Kaplakastan, and it was legal there to chop off the hands of an employee that was 5 minutes late, would that be OK too?
If American oil companies went over Nigeria to extract oil, feeding money to the government and corrupt officials, while taking land from the native people, would that be OK too? Just following local rules...
We don't *have* to be OK with this. We can stand up and say "Google, this doesn't follow your company motto and this is not what we expect from you. I am selling your stock".
You're right - it is a very interesting thing. In my case, I worked really hard and did really well at my job. Subsequently, I was promoted several times! I'm so lucky!
Also, when I was young I chose to spend a lot of time programming and learning about computers. I decided as a teenager that computing was where the work was going to be and that I wanted to part of that. Again, I was so lucky!
It pisses me off when people say to me "you're so lucky to be in technology - it pays so well". I always respond that I chose to be in technology *because* it paid well and I believed that it was a good career for me to be succesful in.
Given that you're in finance, you *may* agree with me that it would be a better use of education time to teach financial planning than teach calculus.
Pretty much everyone will have a use for these skills as they navigate their way through credit cards, interest rates, minimum payments, mortgages, and so on. I would guess that less than 1% have a use for calculus. Those that do, can learn it at university while they study engineering/physics/math.
I agree. They don't save any money at all, and when they *do* scrape together a little nest egg, they'll blow it all on a new car they leased and will never own. I live in LA and I see it all the time.
People in their 20s and 30s are the worst (yes, I'm in that age group). They grow up in a middle-class existence with decent money, occasional vacations, and a nice house. They come out into the world piled with student loans (not their fault I suppose) and the first thing they do is continue their previous lifestyle, on the credit card. Must have flashy car. MUST HAVE FUCKING IPOD AND ALL ACCESSORIES! Must be *seen* to be doing well.
The amount of debt young people have is stupid. And I'm fed up of people blaming "commercialism" or advertising. Christ, have some control over yourself for once and stop blaming other people!
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, perhaps the 99% of parents who have no idea what "administrative privileges" actually means. Just a thought...
Luxury!
It could be a timed test. Sure, you could still cheat, but it would be muc harder to research on Google if you only have 10 seconds to pick the answer that you should know...
Most people that work in LA *dream* of spending 45 minutes in a commute.
Most recruiters that I've been contacted by seem like failed sales people. Some are good, but not most...
Quite often, the reason that you're hiring is because you're very busy, and recruiting new employees is extremely time consuming. So it's sometimes just practical to use external resources to do it. Don't forget that most recruiters will charge between 20 and 33% of the full-time salary for placing a full-time employee. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is a lot of money! Therefore, for the hiring company it must be worth it in some situations otherwise they wouldn't do it.
I have hired many developers and other staff. If you can find a good recruiter (which is very hard) then this relationship will save you time and find you better candidates than you could yourself, unless of course you weren't busy and had all day to search resumes and deal with floods of emails! I've hired both ways and I much prefer using a (good) recruiter. Using a recruiter doesn't mean you're not involved in the hiring process. You explain the position, the skills, the needs to the recruiter. You get resumes from them and you go through an iterative process of describing why the resumes weren't appropriate and what you're looking for that is different. Then once you have that part down and you have a number of candidates, you just let the recruiter deal with arranging interviews and making offers, and so on. This all goes back to the recruiter being a great time-saver. Again, if you're not busy, then go ahead and do it yourself - it's not hard.
Having said that, being on the other side of the equation sucks. If you're looking for a job, all you get is automated emails regarding wholly inappropriate jobs in the wrong city. They say things like: "We found your resume online and this job blah blah .... Please send your resume if you're interested". Well, if you found my resume online, why the fuck do you need me to send my resume!? Just ignore the emails, in the same way recruiters will ignore yours if they're not interested in you, even if you've already spoken a number of times.
On a related note, I wonder how long it'll be until the job recruiters are outsourcing their positions overseas so even THEY are barely involved.
I suspect that this is already occurring. I have had a number of calls about inappropriate positions from recruiters with very Indian sounding accents. One was called "Peter". I suspect that they have outsourced the mass CALL-EM-ALL part of the job because the mass EMAIL-EM-ALL campaign doesn't work as well as a person-to-person contact.
Some people buy a new computer because the old one gets slow and fills up with junk. Too many applications, popups, spyware apps, files... The thought of reinstalling Windows or adding more space just doesn't enter into the thought process.
http://www.usenix.org/events/sec01/craver.pdf
If you want to read more, check out this FAQ by the people that broke the SDMI digital watermark a few years ago. They also have the actual paper, which I read too, but have since forgotten.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/sdmi/faq.html
http://www.usenix.org/events/sec01/craver.pdf
I'm sure those that have studied this, have PhDs and patents didn't think of that... ;)
If it *looks* better, it *is* better. This is how a lot of people think. This is of benefit enough...
Well, that would depend on if you work for a drug company or not!
It doesn't matter where you are at, how high they used to be, what level is a good level - all that is academic bullshit. In most people's minds, taxes can either go higher or lower, and most seem to prefer the latter.
I agree with what you say, but I would also add that Kerry was a terrible candidate. I'm not sure if they had a better candidate, and I would certainly have preferred him over Bush, but the fact remains that he was politic equivalent of a piece of white bread.
I propose a rewrite of the Bible. I would call it the "New Updated Literal Truth, 3rd Edition" and it would have all that pesky science in it, and then say that God made it all... In addition, I would probably put it online so that the truth could be modified more easily.
If I were a fiscal conservative I would be wholly against going back to the moon as a complete waste of money. Surely that few billion could be another tax cut, or maybe fix the budget a little. And as a social/religious conservative, I would struggle to find guidance from the Bible regarding space travel.
All this "science" that takes place in space is doubtless useful, but the expense is just astronomical (pun intended) compared with regular terrestrial science. "YAY, we found evidence of some bacteria on mars that indicates the existence of ice a long fucking time ago, and so maybe they had oceans n' stuff, and like aliens lived there, and so we're not, like, alone in this universe. Cool."
My personal opinion, which I'm sure others will disagree with, is that NASA should be shut down and the funding used for research grants and prize money to solve certain problems. I'd rather spend a billion dollars solving the remaining problems of the "hydrogen economy", or cure cancer. Nah, fuck it. Let's go to fucking mars instead.
End Rant.
You are forgiven. I'm sure you're a decent person, underneath it all, and I wish you all the best.
I sold it, idiot.
Pathetic.
I agree. People support Google *because* they believe it to be a company that might actually have morals! "Don't be evil" seems to give a pretty clear message of that. If their motto was "make money at all costs" then the supporters of that company would not be shocked that their company was doing this kind of activity.
Because Google are doing something that seems contrary one of their fundamental principles, the supporters of that company have a right to bitch about it.
If Google was operating in Kaplakastan, and it was legal there to chop off the hands of an employee that was 5 minutes late, would that be OK too?
If American oil companies went over Nigeria to extract oil, feeding money to the government and corrupt officials, while taking land from the native people, would that be OK too? Just following local rules...
We don't *have* to be OK with this. We can stand up and say "Google, this doesn't follow your company motto and this is not what we expect from you. I am selling your stock".
Also, when I was young I chose to spend a lot of time programming and learning about computers. I decided as a teenager that computing was where the work was going to be and that I wanted to part of that. Again, I was so lucky!
It pisses me off when people say to me "you're so lucky to be in technology - it pays so well". I always respond that I chose to be in technology *because* it paid well and I believed that it was a good career for me to be succesful in.
Pretty much everyone will have a use for these skills as they navigate their way through credit cards, interest rates, minimum payments, mortgages, and so on. I would guess that less than 1% have a use for calculus. Those that do, can learn it at university while they study engineering/physics/math.
Yes, the French have figured out how to create and maintain a 10% unemployment rate!
People in their 20s and 30s are the worst (yes, I'm in that age group). They grow up in a middle-class existence with decent money, occasional vacations, and a nice house. They come out into the world piled with student loans (not their fault I suppose) and the first thing they do is continue their previous lifestyle, on the credit card. Must have flashy car. MUST HAVE FUCKING IPOD AND ALL ACCESSORIES! Must be *seen* to be doing well.
The amount of debt young people have is stupid. And I'm fed up of people blaming "commercialism" or advertising. Christ, have some control over yourself for once and stop blaming other people!