You'd be shocked at the number of people that can graduate college that can't answer a question like: "implement $(randomly selected function in the C string library) on this white board. Use whatever language you like. It doesn't even have to be a real language if you can explain it to me and it's coherent"
As I wrote previously, that is completely opposite to how people write code in the real world. You don't take the first thing off the top of your head and start writing it down, especially without a good IDE. Testing someone on a whiteboard is the equivalent of making someone use Notepad to code. Sure, you should be able to do it, but who the hell actually does?
And unless you recently finished a CS class, then remembering a good implementation of any random C function is not going to be on the top of your head. So, it's all but guaranteed that the MS interviewer will rip apart the answer because it wasn't very good because it came about through a completely bad process. Big surprise.
You'd be shocked at the number of people that just draw a blank when you say: "describe how you'd test a coffee maker"
That's because the first thing they think is, "Wow, what a stupid question." And then, "What? Oh, he's actually serious." Then, "do I really want to work here if that is the best interview question they can come up with?"
Answering bullshit questions like that only tests the candidate's ability to answer bullshit questions. Oh, and it tests the willingness of the candidate to sit there and take stupid, insulting questions without getting up, punching you in the face, and walking out the door. Given Ballmer's temperament, that's probably a good thing for people who work with him, but that's bad for anyone else in the company.
...what would you suggest asking potential candidates for developers? For testers?
Having actually conducted several interviews for senior developers, you need to do two things: see if you like them and see if they can actually do the job. You look over their resume and verify what's listed there. You ask them about their previous positions and one major problem they encountered in each place. I then like to ask relevant questions that have come up recently in my own work. How do you version control a database? How would you deal with multiple submissions of a web page? The questions are high-level, don't require writing on a whiteboard, and are difficult enough to tell whether they're bullshitting their way through an answer or not. If they actually have something decent to say, I like them, and their resume looks good, then I recommend them for the position.
Salaries for good IT folks is far above any equivalent non-managerial salaried position.
In what field? Look at medicine and you see some nurses, my dad for example, making $240,000 a year. He's not a manager. The average nurse with his qualifications makes $100,000. Why? There really is a shortage in his field. There absolutely is no shortage in IT. And in fact, no independent study has ever confirmed a shortage, not even during the IT boom.
The reason I no longer agree is that I've begun realizing that approximately 90-95% of "IT" folks are unqualified, bad, and/or just plain shouldn't be in IT... This includes all those I've interviewed, which number well into the hundreds.
You can find that, or people with opinions like that, in every field, including the previous nursing example. And frankly, I don't care what you say, but idiots can't make it through a good CS program. Everyone in our field with a CS degree from a good school is bright and intelligent.
However, most CS grads are not good with communications skills, so they couldn't convince you of their skills. Wow, big surprise.
I belive this whole fiasco is an attempt to keep the job market saturated and aviod the type of unity that would mandate 40 hour weeks with well paid salaries and benifits. It is an attempt to stop the supply verses demand issues from creating a workers market were theycan demand certain things or cause costs to artificialy rise.
Actually, you've got that backwards. Bill Gates wants to tamper with the market as it currently stands by increasing the supply of H1-B workers. That would artificially increase the supply of labor, thereby decreasing wages.
And yes, you are absolutely correct that this is about creating disunity in the IT workforce. Just the threat of H1-B workers keeps wages down by making you and everyone else think twice about asking for a raise. If Gates really wanted more US IT workers, then he would be arguing for increasing their wages. That increase in IT wages would create US student interest in IT like we saw during the IT boom.
Microsoft doesn't have a problem finding applicants. Microsoft has a problem finding _qualified_ applicants. We interview _way_ more people than we hire. And I don't even want to think about the people that _don't_ make it to me and don't even pass the HR and phone-screening stages of the process.
Oh bullshit. You're just being too picky. When HR screens all those candidates, then they already qualify for the position on paper. The interview process is there to insure that the candidate would fit the team. But, all the MS teams do is ask bullshit interview questions. Why are manhole covers round? How do I implement a list?... Those questions don't find good candidates. They find candidates that can bullshit their way through interviews by taking the first answer off the top of their head and running with it. That's the complete opposite of how good code is written and the complete opposite of a good candidate. And, that's probably why MS code is the lump of steaming shit that it is.
I read it differently. Bill Gates wants more H1-B workers which he can, unofficially, work at those kind of hours.
Exactly. Bill has not changed his tune over the last decade. Even during the middle of the last recession when American IT workers were getting laid off right and left and no one could find work, Bill still talked about the lack of technical workers. It was certainly a lie then and it's probably a lie now.
If there were a large deficit of IT professionals, we would be seeing salaries go through the roof. We're not seeing that yet. Salaries are still on par with where they were during the recession. That's not the least bit surprising with the massive layoffs from IBM and HP last year.
Obviously Anonymous hasn't taken the time to actually read the article. The authorities should actually -gasp- investigate and not take either side at their word.
There is nothing free about our market. Our trade agreements are not free either. Both are loaded with protections for business in the form of restrictions in copyright, intellectual property, and patent laws.
A truly free market would have none of these protections in place. True free market agreements would also not have these protections.
In the end, we just have a normal market. And those are just normal trade agreements.
Well, then let the robots do the designing. They can iterate over all the possible things that could go wrong in deep space over 500 years and design the spacecraft.
Either way, it's far more likely that a sentient robot would be far more resilient for such a trip and would survive it in far better condition than a human given similar shielding and protection.
Gee, let's see... You have the highly maneuverable MiG with some hotshot pilot attempting to bring down a big, slow surveillance plane that flys by the China shore on a regular basis. It'd have to be done in such a way to make it appear unintentional while still not doing much damage to either plane. The fighter would have to get close enough to hit the right surface on the big, slow surveillance plane, but just nick it so it doesn't do too much damage. And it'd have to be done in the right conditions.
With enough planning and training and simulation, it would be possible, although dangerous. Given that these fighters were harassing the surveillance planes for months, they could wait for the exact right time. It'd definitely be worth the information gained.
They seem to have forgotten option 4: wait for robots to take over the world and then send them out to colonize the galaxy. An intelligent robot would not need tons of material or labor to travel the galaxy, not when they can switch off and on at will. They can switch off when they leave the solar system, spend 500 years in deep space, and switch back on when they reach their destination. It's the exact same concept as freezing people to travel, but without the life support and insane shielding.
Transpose US and China in your post and it sounds equally plausible...
What, the US wants Chinese trade and military secrets? That might be true if China weren't running behind the US in either.
What, the US is attacking Chinese military internet sites? That might be true, but we haven't heard Beijing complain. And somehow, I doubt they would hesitate to make a complaint about us were we actually acting against them. However, we are hearing complaints from the US regarding Chinese action.
What, the US is working behind the scenes to subvert Chinese influence and control? Possibly, to a certain extent. That's almost completely negated by the US sending tons of business their way.
First, the corporate goons and their neocon lackeys ship the jobs and tech stuff to them - now they want to paint them as the great enemy and boogeymen?
Wow, nothing like a broad overgeneralization to prove you don't have a point. Read the article before attempting to shoot it down. Otherwise, you just sound like an idiot.
In April of 2001, a Chinese fighter jet "accidentally" hit a US Navy surveillance plane flying over international waters, forcing that plane to make an emergency landing in China. The crew was detained for 11 days. Chinese technicians examined in detail the plane's highly sensitive equipment that could monitor electronic communications and aircraft movements. The plane was not released back to the US until July 3rd.
And of those online in China, only 36 million have broadband connections. Further, black markets and pirated software are not just limited to China. In fact, they're all over. So, with the prevalence of pirated software worldwide, why are the majority of the attacks coming from one place? Why are the attacks from that one place going to US military targets? And why are the attacks so sophisticated?
It is widely known that the Chinese want our secrets and technology, especially those surrounding the military. It is widely known that the Chinese actually do copy and steal US trade and military secrets and technology. And it is widely known that as friendly as the Chinese act toward the US, that the Chinese work behind the scenes to subvert US influence and control.
Yes, and of those, only 137 million Chinese are online. In contrast, the US has about 185 million online. So, the fact that the majority of the attacks are coming from China is indeed significant. That is particularly true given the sophistication of the attacks cited and the military targets they are going after.
It isn't malice to lock up these child child-pornographers; its the LAW.
Bullshit. If these two were 5-year-olds that were NOT having sex, but just taking pictures of themselves, then you would not call the cops in. You'd take the camera away, destroy the film, and tell them not to do that again.
We are treating these 16-year-olds differently because they ARE old enough to know what they're doing. And since they're old enough to know what they're doing, they can be tried as adults. That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves.
Are you proposing that laws should be selectively enforced on an adhoc basis?
To a certain degree, yes. The cops and judges did their jobs and performed their roles as the system intended. However, the DA is there to make sure that justice is served. The DA is granted the right to select which cases are prosecuted and which are not. The DA should have shut this one down as soon as he heard of it.
if they're just photographing the view of your house from the street, I fail to see how they're doing anything invasive of one's privacy
Wow, that's the exact same defense used by peeping toms. We have laws against that kind of shit. And if they come anywhere near my house, I'm calling the cops and pressing charges.
Actually, I'm in favor of some god damn privacy and not having every single detail of my private life for sale to corporations and the government.
Further, there is an obvious difference here between you taking a picture and just happening to photograph part of your neighbor's house in the background versus some random stranger standing directly in front of your house and taking pictures of anything they see. One person is perfectly legal and the other is a peeping tom. We have laws against that shit.
If they come anywhere near my house, then I'm phoning the police and pressing charges.
Comparing them to authoritarian government systems is silly and irrelevant at best.
The companies are the ones that compare themselves to government systems, specifically democracy. You may call me a troll all you want, but the fact is that democracies do not behave in the manner of these companies.
The system of government that takes the work of millions and allocates all profits to a small, centralized minority is not democracy. It is not even communism. The best comparison on an economic level is fascism, or even better, fascism's base authoritarianism.
The central control having complete power in this example is the company itself. Youtube accepts content generated and submitted by a huge community of regular people, assumes copyright ownership for itself, earns money based on that content, and never passes those profits to the community who created the content.
The company acts as dictator, setting the terms for what it will accept or not. If it doesn't like something, then it unilaterally removes that content, going against the idea of democratic rule.
In fact, this model is copied all over the net, from Youtube to Digg. This is done in the name of "democracy", but there is nothing democratic about this. Digg even goes a step further to suppressing opposition and criticism by removing content critical of Digg.
What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
Who cares? These communities were built on ideas of "democracy", yet haven't shared a single dime to the people actually doing the work. Taking the work of a million people and distributing the profits to a small group who control everything is not democracy, it's fascism.
Sharing the profits with the workers who actually create the content the people want to see is ultimately a good thing. If a fight breaks out over who gets paid more, then that's a better thing.
It'll mean true democracy is actually working for once with these websites instead of the current fascism labeled as democracy.
Windows is one of those products that people and businesses will migrate to regardless of horrible reviews, it's just a question of when. Businesses have been burned enough by bleeding edge software that they don't want the first version of any product, even those with great reviews. So, they'll think of migrating when the first update comes out, aka SP1. Presumably, most of the bugs will be worked out by then.
In this case, Microsoft seems to know the psychology of their customers and has taken action to get to that first update ASAP, regardless of whether that's enough time for all the bugs to work out. That means more money for MS, but likely a bad SP1.
Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS. "I think i'll wait till they relase SP1 for Vista before I upgrade" better wait for SP2!
The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be shocked at the number of people that can graduate college that can't answer a question like: "implement $(randomly selected function in the C string library) on this white board. Use whatever language you like. It doesn't even have to be a real language if you can explain it to me and it's coherent"
...what would you suggest asking potential candidates for developers? For testers?
As I wrote previously, that is completely opposite to how people write code in the real world. You don't take the first thing off the top of your head and start writing it down, especially without a good IDE. Testing someone on a whiteboard is the equivalent of making someone use Notepad to code. Sure, you should be able to do it, but who the hell actually does?
And unless you recently finished a CS class, then remembering a good implementation of any random C function is not going to be on the top of your head. So, it's all but guaranteed that the MS interviewer will rip apart the answer because it wasn't very good because it came about through a completely bad process. Big surprise.
You'd be shocked at the number of people that just draw a blank when you say: "describe how you'd test a coffee maker"
That's because the first thing they think is, "Wow, what a stupid question." And then, "What? Oh, he's actually serious." Then, "do I really want to work here if that is the best interview question they can come up with?"
Answering bullshit questions like that only tests the candidate's ability to answer bullshit questions. Oh, and it tests the willingness of the candidate to sit there and take stupid, insulting questions without getting up, punching you in the face, and walking out the door. Given Ballmer's temperament, that's probably a good thing for people who work with him, but that's bad for anyone else in the company.
Having actually conducted several interviews for senior developers, you need to do two things: see if you like them and see if they can actually do the job. You look over their resume and verify what's listed there. You ask them about their previous positions and one major problem they encountered in each place. I then like to ask relevant questions that have come up recently in my own work. How do you version control a database? How would you deal with multiple submissions of a web page? The questions are high-level, don't require writing on a whiteboard, and are difficult enough to tell whether they're bullshitting their way through an answer or not. If they actually have something decent to say, I like them, and their resume looks good, then I recommend them for the position.
Salaries for good IT folks is far above any equivalent non-managerial salaried position.
In what field? Look at medicine and you see some nurses, my dad for example, making $240,000 a year. He's not a manager. The average nurse with his qualifications makes $100,000. Why? There really is a shortage in his field. There absolutely is no shortage in IT. And in fact, no independent study has ever confirmed a shortage, not even during the IT boom.
The reason I no longer agree is that I've begun realizing that approximately 90-95% of "IT" folks are unqualified, bad, and/or just plain shouldn't be in IT... This includes all those I've interviewed, which number well into the hundreds.
You can find that, or people with opinions like that, in every field, including the previous nursing example. And frankly, I don't care what you say, but idiots can't make it through a good CS program. Everyone in our field with a CS degree from a good school is bright and intelligent.
However, most CS grads are not good with communications skills, so they couldn't convince you of their skills. Wow, big surprise.
I belive this whole fiasco is an attempt to keep the job market saturated and aviod the type of unity that would mandate 40 hour weeks with well paid salaries and benifits. It is an attempt to stop the supply verses demand issues from creating a workers market were theycan demand certain things or cause costs to artificialy rise.
Actually, you've got that backwards. Bill Gates wants to tamper with the market as it currently stands by increasing the supply of H1-B workers. That would artificially increase the supply of labor, thereby decreasing wages.
And yes, you are absolutely correct that this is about creating disunity in the IT workforce. Just the threat of H1-B workers keeps wages down by making you and everyone else think twice about asking for a raise. If Gates really wanted more US IT workers, then he would be arguing for increasing their wages. That increase in IT wages would create US student interest in IT like we saw during the IT boom.
Microsoft doesn't have a problem finding applicants. Microsoft has a problem finding _qualified_ applicants. We interview _way_ more people than we hire. And I don't even want to think about the people that _don't_ make it to me and don't even pass the HR and phone-screening stages of the process.
Oh bullshit. You're just being too picky. When HR screens all those candidates, then they already qualify for the position on paper. The interview process is there to insure that the candidate would fit the team. But, all the MS teams do is ask bullshit interview questions. Why are manhole covers round? How do I implement a list?... Those questions don't find good candidates. They find candidates that can bullshit their way through interviews by taking the first answer off the top of their head and running with it. That's the complete opposite of how good code is written and the complete opposite of a good candidate. And, that's probably why MS code is the lump of steaming shit that it is.
I read it differently. Bill Gates wants more H1-B workers which he can, unofficially, work at those kind of hours.
Exactly. Bill has not changed his tune over the last decade. Even during the middle of the last recession when American IT workers were getting laid off right and left and no one could find work, Bill still talked about the lack of technical workers. It was certainly a lie then and it's probably a lie now.
If there were a large deficit of IT professionals, we would be seeing salaries go through the roof. We're not seeing that yet. Salaries are still on par with where they were during the recession. That's not the least bit surprising with the massive layoffs from IBM and HP last year.
Obviously Anonymous hasn't taken the time to actually read the article. The authorities should actually -gasp- investigate and not take either side at their word.
Yay for the free market :P
There is nothing free about our market. Our trade agreements are not free either. Both are loaded with protections for business in the form of restrictions in copyright, intellectual property, and patent laws.
A truly free market would have none of these protections in place. True free market agreements would also not have these protections.
In the end, we just have a normal market. And those are just normal trade agreements.
Well, then let the robots do the designing. They can iterate over all the possible things that could go wrong in deep space over 500 years and design the spacecraft.
Either way, it's far more likely that a sentient robot would be far more resilient for such a trip and would survive it in far better condition than a human given similar shielding and protection.
I postulate an intelligent robot and you quibble about the on switch. Somehow, I don't think that would be the problem.
Gee, let's see... You have the highly maneuverable MiG with some hotshot pilot attempting to bring down a big, slow surveillance plane that flys by the China shore on a regular basis. It'd have to be done in such a way to make it appear unintentional while still not doing much damage to either plane. The fighter would have to get close enough to hit the right surface on the big, slow surveillance plane, but just nick it so it doesn't do too much damage. And it'd have to be done in the right conditions.
With enough planning and training and simulation, it would be possible, although dangerous. Given that these fighters were harassing the surveillance planes for months, they could wait for the exact right time. It'd definitely be worth the information gained.
They seem to have forgotten option 4: wait for robots to take over the world and then send them out to colonize the galaxy. An intelligent robot would not need tons of material or labor to travel the galaxy, not when they can switch off and on at will. They can switch off when they leave the solar system, spend 500 years in deep space, and switch back on when they reach their destination. It's the exact same concept as freezing people to travel, but without the life support and insane shielding.
Transpose US and China in your post and it sounds equally plausible...
What, the US wants Chinese trade and military secrets? That might be true if China weren't running behind the US in either.
What, the US is attacking Chinese military internet sites? That might be true, but we haven't heard Beijing complain. And somehow, I doubt they would hesitate to make a complaint about us were we actually acting against them. However, we are hearing complaints from the US regarding Chinese action.
What, the US is working behind the scenes to subvert Chinese influence and control? Possibly, to a certain extent. That's almost completely negated by the US sending tons of business their way.
First, the corporate goons and their neocon lackeys ship the jobs and tech stuff to them - now they want to paint them as the great enemy and boogeymen?
Wow, nothing like a broad overgeneralization to prove you don't have a point. Read the article before attempting to shoot it down. Otherwise, you just sound like an idiot.
Hee hee you sound like you're astroturfing, it furthers the policy of the New World Order to keep the pathetic FUD regarding China
a ne/ y /index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/01/us.china.pl
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/18/ep3.ceremon
In April of 2001, a Chinese fighter jet "accidentally" hit a US Navy surveillance plane flying over international waters, forcing that plane to make an emergency landing in China. The crew was detained for 11 days. Chinese technicians examined in detail the plane's highly sensitive equipment that could monitor electronic communications and aircraft movements. The plane was not released back to the US until July 3rd.
And of those online in China, only 36 million have broadband connections. Further, black markets and pirated software are not just limited to China. In fact, they're all over. So, with the prevalence of pirated software worldwide, why are the majority of the attacks coming from one place? Why are the attacks from that one place going to US military targets? And why are the attacks so sophisticated?
It is widely known that the Chinese want our secrets and technology, especially those surrounding the military. It is widely known that the Chinese actually do copy and steal US trade and military secrets and technology. And it is widely known that as friendly as the Chinese act toward the US, that the Chinese work behind the scenes to subvert US influence and control.
Given the number of sophisticated attacks coming from a single country against US military targets, especially coming from a country that has been militarily hostile to us in the recent past, then I'd say we probably are getting attacked.
China has more than a billion people.
Yes, and of those, only 137 million Chinese are online. In contrast, the US has about 185 million online. So, the fact that the majority of the attacks are coming from China is indeed significant. That is particularly true given the sophistication of the attacks cited and the military targets they are going after.
It isn't malice to lock up these child child-pornographers; its the LAW.
Bullshit. If these two were 5-year-olds that were NOT having sex, but just taking pictures of themselves, then you would not call the cops in. You'd take the camera away, destroy the film, and tell them not to do that again.
We are treating these 16-year-olds differently because they ARE old enough to know what they're doing. And since they're old enough to know what they're doing, they can be tried as adults. That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves.
Are you proposing that laws should be selectively enforced on an adhoc basis?
To a certain degree, yes. The cops and judges did their jobs and performed their roles as the system intended. However, the DA is there to make sure that justice is served. The DA is granted the right to select which cases are prosecuted and which are not. The DA should have shut this one down as soon as he heard of it.
Actually, life insurance will payout if you're over 2 years into your policy.
if they're just photographing the view of your house from the street, I fail to see how they're doing anything invasive of one's privacy
Wow, that's the exact same defense used by peeping toms. We have laws against that kind of shit. And if they come anywhere near my house, I'm calling the cops and pressing charges.
Actually, I'm in favor of some god damn privacy and not having every single detail of my private life for sale to corporations and the government.
Further, there is an obvious difference here between you taking a picture and just happening to photograph part of your neighbor's house in the background versus some random stranger standing directly in front of your house and taking pictures of anything they see. One person is perfectly legal and the other is a peeping tom. We have laws against that shit.
If they come anywhere near my house, then I'm phoning the police and pressing charges.
Comparing them to authoritarian government systems is silly and irrelevant at best.
The companies are the ones that compare themselves to government systems, specifically democracy. You may call me a troll all you want, but the fact is that democracies do not behave in the manner of these companies.
The system of government that takes the work of millions and allocates all profits to a small, centralized minority is not democracy. It is not even communism. The best comparison on an economic level is fascism, or even better, fascism's base authoritarianism.
The central control having complete power in this example is the company itself. Youtube accepts content generated and submitted by a huge community of regular people, assumes copyright ownership for itself, earns money based on that content, and never passes those profits to the community who created the content.
The company acts as dictator, setting the terms for what it will accept or not. If it doesn't like something, then it unilaterally removes that content, going against the idea of democratic rule.
In fact, this model is copied all over the net, from Youtube to Digg. This is done in the name of "democracy", but there is nothing democratic about this. Digg even goes a step further to suppressing opposition and criticism by removing content critical of Digg.
What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
Who cares? These communities were built on ideas of "democracy", yet haven't shared a single dime to the people actually doing the work. Taking the work of a million people and distributing the profits to a small group who control everything is not democracy, it's fascism.
Sharing the profits with the workers who actually create the content the people want to see is ultimately a good thing. If a fight breaks out over who gets paid more, then that's a better thing.
It'll mean true democracy is actually working for once with these websites instead of the current fascism labeled as democracy.
Windows is one of those products that people and businesses will migrate to regardless of horrible reviews, it's just a question of when. Businesses have been burned enough by bleeding edge software that they don't want the first version of any product, even those with great reviews. So, they'll think of migrating when the first update comes out, aka SP1. Presumably, most of the bugs will be worked out by then.
In this case, Microsoft seems to know the psychology of their customers and has taken action to get to that first update ASAP, regardless of whether that's enough time for all the bugs to work out. That means more money for MS, but likely a bad SP1.
Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS. "I think i'll wait till they relase SP1 for Vista before I upgrade" better wait for SP2!
The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.