It's difficult to say exactly what I mean, but I get the impression that some recruiters think that employees should be grateful for even being considered for a post. Even though a job is a contract (ie, mutual agreement) between employee and employer, it's treated more like a prize or honour and the employees concerns are the last thing to be considered (like in your example, you should be lucky that they have lowered themselves to offer you a post)
That's a shame because the really good programmers I know of (not myself of course) have very low opinions of the recruitment industry. Many completely refuse to work with them in any way at all. It could be a useful industry if the recruiters spent some time learning about IT beyond a superficial categorisation of skills. I've yet to meet someone here in the UK who considers open source work to be of any value: the only valid work is commercial. Academic work is okay but only as a starting point because it's not real knowledge; voluntary work (like OSS) is worth nothing here.
This article reminds me of a course that used to be run at Bristol University called, "The physics of a Black Forest gateau" by Peter Barham. By all accounts, it was tremendously popular and always fully booked, so much so that other culinary treats were dealt with in the same manner (http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2005/874.html)
In my experience, a lot of PHBs are only too happy to have information. They don't really care if it's valid information or not, just so long as it's there and that it sounds good.
It was a massive wake-up call to realise how many middle-managers and the like will quite happily swallow any old crap as long as they perceive that it's authoritative. Has anyone ever tried to tell them about how bad the information is? (real question btw - I'm interested in seeing if other readers experiences were as bleak as mine).
Excellent point, although I'm not sure it's just the business school types. Having to chase funding (many academics and scientists spend 40-50% of their time on this) doesn't help because grants are more likely to be awarded if an immediate and viable application can be demonstrated.
That means that pure research is harder to pursue because of grant competitions. It's very sad because applied research may end up only being relevant to very specific groups. Pure research can also provide some of the most startling insights into the world and create real leaps in knowledge.
I had this argument with my father: he said that a lot of scientific research is pointless and doesn't help anybody ("research for its own sake") until I pointed out the number of things that we take for granted these days that were based on theoretical research.
Re:This is also the Pirate Party's stance
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
This assumes that the 21st ailment is one that big pharma are actually interested in developing drugs for. As opposed to slimming pills, hair-loss treatments, etc. And for those conditions that are life-threatening, the development of "dependence" drugs rather than complete cures. Making patients dependent upon continual doses to reduce condition severity is better than absolute cures when it comes to monetizing IP.
Quoth OP: "Whatever way you look at it, it's just a matter of someone putting in enough time and/or effort to get in there."
And this type of comment seems to be the best motivation for any crackers.
But then, of course, in the less prestigious institutions, the pay and conditions are far lower. I'm not sure what you mean by greater security either: I live on contracts (and they can be ended early too). Very few of us actually get a permanent job and tenure is a dream from fantasy land. Plus advancement is extremely difficult here. So many researchers I know have left for industry and not come back because the pay and conditions are far worse (though I know of two who have come back but only after they made enough to retire - it's about status, not money). Doing a research post in academia is a fools game unless you have the very best contacts and even then it's hard.
Good grief! You mean she actually has to work and look after her money like the rest of us do? Poor little mite... Maybe we should start up a charity to look after washed-up old celebs who blew their massive earnings up their noses and on fast cars. We could call it the Righteously Indignant Artistes Association.
I would disagree - it's not just those with religious beliefs (and not all with religious beliefs). Quite a few people make that sort of categorical error, even some scientists. How often do people try to define the distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom only to move the goalposts (again) when they are shown to be wrong?
In my work in statistics (in education), validity has to be shown every time analysis is done. It's never a once and for all thing. This is a real drag for research, but it helps to show that what you say has a degree of validity. In my field, any expert witness offering evidence-based testimony would be required to complete the task of showing validity right from the start, otherwise the results and conclusion are not worth paying attention to.
Yeah but the drawback is that we would have fewer politici...
Ah, I see. Excellent point sir!
And perhaps they could form a committee to clear mines so lots get blown up instead of just one?
Actually, we in the UK are the 51st state. Australians can be the 52nd if they want...
Quoth the OP: "Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now."
I think that was because a few kiwis left NZ for Australia a few years ago. What was it the NZ PM said? Something like, "it should raise the IQ of both countries."
Quoth: "I think it's also important to have tech challenges like the Concorde and the Apollo program." But the accountants who run everything have near vision - they cannot see beyond the next budget returns, ie, long term investment advancing not just the company but the entire country (bear in mind the close relationship between some companies and government) Such things gave countries like the USA the technological lead and (I would argue) helped improve the economy (by other countries wanting buying things off you). In the UK, we had good ideas, but sold them off (eg, TSR-2, or lots of ideas by Barnes Wallis) and made very little out of them.
It was surprising that Concorde made it, but then a particular politician (Tony Benn - a communist at the time?) had a strong interest in making it succeed (ie, the political will was there). And boy, did we celebrate and feel proud when it flew knowing that only us and France had this unique toy. For once, we could fool ourselves into thinking we were better than the Americans!:-D Not for long though.
Like you said, it is the challenges that seem impossible that make the real advances in society, in the country, in the world - not new buzzphrases in boardrooms. (didn't "blue skies" originally refer to X-planes research? Now it simply means novel) Any muscle atrophies without strain and to grow strong, it needs to be exercised in the right way.
The 1969 moon landing is still regarded as the most momentous event in human history by many people today because it was the first time a human touched the ground of another planet. Looking back from a position of cynicism, marketroids and consensus politics, it seems even more momentous.
"Altough I've had more than my share of 9-hours long bus travels, if it compares...:-)" - not really. Stewardesses don't give you free beers on the bus - and complete engine failure doesn't bring almost certain death - just delay!:-)
Thanks very much for the links. I wonder if Asian nations have thought about allying themselves loosely with China (because of its economic success)? Such moves could create an Asian economic union bigger than anything else in the world.
And is the GDP of China increasing faster than the US? This is a genuine question - I suspect it is and will lead to China overtaking the US in pretty much all economics terms, but I'm not an economist. And if that happens, as you say, the US will be the one to take the hit harder.
It looks like a rip-off of various Bavarian castles or Castell Coch in Wales. Germany and Wales ought to sue the Disney for copyright infringement! It's outrageous that someone's IP should be monetised by these "renegade" nations!;-)
I know this is a tremendously bland answer, but I would buy a bag of my own marbles (they don't cost much) and take some exercise dropping one out of each window as I ascend.
it's actually quite effective: I get lots of exercise, the challenge of climbing to the top of a tall building without a lift, a lovely view when I get to the top, and a reliable answer without having to think or worry too much. Plus, I give the questioner their original two marbles back intact. Magic, see?
Unimpressive for a computer scientist, but then I'm a psychologist who enjoys exercise and challenges.
Actually I wouldn't drop any out. Imagine the damages in court if a marble hit someone?
Slashdot Mirror
It's difficult to say exactly what I mean, but I get the impression that some recruiters think that employees should be grateful for even being considered for a post. Even though a job is a contract (ie, mutual agreement) between employee and employer, it's treated more like a prize or honour and the employees concerns are the last thing to be considered (like in your example, you should be lucky that they have lowered themselves to offer you a post)
That's a shame because the really good programmers I know of (not myself of course) have very low opinions of the recruitment industry. Many completely refuse to work with them in any way at all. It could be a useful industry if the recruiters spent some time learning about IT beyond a superficial categorisation of skills. I've yet to meet someone here in the UK who considers open source work to be of any value: the only valid work is commercial. Academic work is okay but only as a starting point because it's not real knowledge; voluntary work (like OSS) is worth nothing here.
This article reminds me of a course that used to be run at Bristol University called, "The physics of a Black Forest gateau" by Peter Barham. By all accounts, it was tremendously popular and always fully booked, so much so that other culinary treats were dealt with in the same manner (http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2005/874.html)
In my experience, a lot of PHBs are only too happy to have information. They don't really care if it's valid information or not, just so long as it's there and that it sounds good.
It was a massive wake-up call to realise how many middle-managers and the like will quite happily swallow any old crap as long as they perceive that it's authoritative. Has anyone ever tried to tell them about how bad the information is? (real question btw - I'm interested in seeing if other readers experiences were as bleak as mine).
Excellent point, although I'm not sure it's just the business school types. Having to chase funding (many academics and scientists spend 40-50% of their time on this) doesn't help because grants are more likely to be awarded if an immediate and viable application can be demonstrated.
That means that pure research is harder to pursue because of grant competitions. It's very sad because applied research may end up only being relevant to very specific groups. Pure research can also provide some of the most startling insights into the world and create real leaps in knowledge.
I had this argument with my father: he said that a lot of scientific research is pointless and doesn't help anybody ("research for its own sake") until I pointed out the number of things that we take for granted these days that were based on theoretical research.
This assumes that the 21st ailment is one that big pharma are actually interested in developing drugs for. As opposed to slimming pills, hair-loss treatments, etc. And for those conditions that are life-threatening, the development of "dependence" drugs rather than complete cures. Making patients dependent upon continual doses to reduce condition severity is better than absolute cures when it comes to monetizing IP.
Quoth OP: "Whatever way you look at it, it's just a matter of someone putting in enough time and/or effort to get in there." And this type of comment seems to be the best motivation for any crackers.
A free monkey?
Ok, keep talking, I'm interested...
But then, of course, in the less prestigious institutions, the pay and conditions are far lower. I'm not sure what you mean by greater security either: I live on contracts (and they can be ended early too). Very few of us actually get a permanent job and tenure is a dream from fantasy land. Plus advancement is extremely difficult here. So many researchers I know have left for industry and not come back because the pay and conditions are far worse (though I know of two who have come back but only after they made enough to retire - it's about status, not money). Doing a research post in academia is a fools game unless you have the very best contacts and even then it's hard.
Hey! Those cheesy effects were part of the original shows charm! ;-)
Anything that crappy had to have a heart in it...
Quoth: "Likewise Englishman is outdated. The correct term is Northern European Imperialist."
North-western European ex-imperialist if you please. Or mochyn saes (pronounced Sy-ss) if you're Welsh.
Good grief! You mean she actually has to work and look after her money like the rest of us do? Poor little mite... Maybe we should start up a charity to look after washed-up old celebs who blew their massive earnings up their noses and on fast cars. We could call it the Righteously Indignant Artistes Association.
Oral sex? Bill Gates?
I have just gone off my breakfast. I'll need counselling for this thank you very much.
I would disagree - it's not just those with religious beliefs (and not all with religious beliefs). Quite a few people make that sort of categorical error, even some scientists. How often do people try to define the distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom only to move the goalposts (again) when they are shown to be wrong?
This is not completely off-topic, but almost.
In my work in statistics (in education), validity has to be shown every time analysis is done. It's never a once and for all thing. This is a real drag for research, but it helps to show that what you say has a degree of validity. In my field, any expert witness offering evidence-based testimony would be required to complete the task of showing validity right from the start, otherwise the results and conclusion are not worth paying attention to.
Better beginning with Xerox. Though of course you could always go back to Englebart. I'm sure he did lots of stuff first.
Are you sure you don't mean 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0?
Yeah but the drawback is that we would have fewer politici... Ah, I see. Excellent point sir! And perhaps they could form a committee to clear mines so lots get blown up instead of just one?
"They want your money"
Sounds better with no qualifiers.
Actually, we in the UK are the 51st state. Australians can be the 52nd if they want...
Quoth the OP: "Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now."
I think that was because a few kiwis left NZ for Australia a few years ago. What was it the NZ PM said? Something like, "it should raise the IQ of both countries."
Quoth: "I think it's also important to have tech challenges like the Concorde and the Apollo program." But the accountants who run everything have near vision - they cannot see beyond the next budget returns, ie, long term investment advancing not just the company but the entire country (bear in mind the close relationship between some companies and government) Such things gave countries like the USA the technological lead and (I would argue) helped improve the economy (by other countries wanting buying things off you). In the UK, we had good ideas, but sold them off (eg, TSR-2, or lots of ideas by Barnes Wallis) and made very little out of them.
:-D Not for long though.
:-)" - not really. Stewardesses don't give you free beers on the bus - and complete engine failure doesn't bring almost certain death - just delay! :-)
It was surprising that Concorde made it, but then a particular politician (Tony Benn - a communist at the time?) had a strong interest in making it succeed (ie, the political will was there). And boy, did we celebrate and feel proud when it flew knowing that only us and France had this unique toy. For once, we could fool ourselves into thinking we were better than the Americans!
Like you said, it is the challenges that seem impossible that make the real advances in society, in the country, in the world - not new buzzphrases in boardrooms. (didn't "blue skies" originally refer to X-planes research? Now it simply means novel) Any muscle atrophies without strain and to grow strong, it needs to be exercised in the right way.
The 1969 moon landing is still regarded as the most momentous event in human history by many people today because it was the first time a human touched the ground of another planet. Looking back from a position of cynicism, marketroids and consensus politics, it seems even more momentous.
"Altough I've had more than my share of 9-hours long bus travels, if it compares...
Thanks very much for the links. I wonder if Asian nations have thought about allying themselves loosely with China (because of its economic success)? Such moves could create an Asian economic union bigger than anything else in the world.
And is the GDP of China increasing faster than the US? This is a genuine question - I suspect it is and will lead to China overtaking the US in pretty much all economics terms, but I'm not an economist. And if that happens, as you say, the US will be the one to take the hit harder.
It looks like a rip-off of various Bavarian castles or Castell Coch in Wales. Germany and Wales ought to sue the Disney for copyright infringement! It's outrageous that someone's IP should be monetised by these "renegade" nations! ;-)
I have created my own key.
C0 88 56 63 C5 56 41 D8 5B E3 74 9D 02 11 F9 09
It's protected by a basic encryption and nobody else has my permission to break it.
If anyone tries to get me to take it down, does this mean I can apply the DCMA to them for breaking my encryption without authorisation?
I know this is a tremendously bland answer, but I would buy a bag of my own marbles (they don't cost much) and take some exercise dropping one out of each window as I ascend.
it's actually quite effective: I get lots of exercise, the challenge of climbing to the top of a tall building without a lift, a lovely view when I get to the top, and a reliable answer without having to think or worry too much. Plus, I give the questioner their original two marbles back intact. Magic, see?
Unimpressive for a computer scientist, but then I'm a psychologist who enjoys exercise and challenges.
Actually I wouldn't drop any out. Imagine the damages in court if a marble hit someone?