GPA doesn't matter much once you've got experience, but still... Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude or Summa Cum Laude fit nicely on the education section of a resume, right next to degree and specialization.
That's your problem right there. Instead of spending an extra 2 hours a day at work, and also expecting to do 2 hours of personal stuff at work, people with "important" jobs should just go home at 5pm sharp and do their shopping and banking at home.
It's more like an hour of personal stuff and three extra hours of work (including work from home), but you're quite right on the point of reclaiming our personal lives. I'm not sure why we put up with it.
There are some jobs that require a warm body to be in place, answering a phone or managing an assembly line. Your presence, in these cases, isn't optional. It's not like I'm not being an elitist prick about this; it's simply a fact that many jobs (like help desk) require more rigid schedules. If the job doesn't, as long as you're giving 40 or more hours and you're there to collaborate with co-workers, a decent employer ought to trust you enough to allow some flexibility in your work.
why are you banking, shopping, or correspondence at work?
The same reason you would expect a reasonable employer to let you see a dentist or take care of other personal things in a timely fashion. Basic respect.
I can understand how it would be unreasonable for people clocking out from the factory at 5:01 to expect anything beyond scheduled breaks. But for those of us with important, creative jobs, putting in over 60 hours every week, it's pretty heinous to expect us to save our personal lives entirely until we get home at 8:30. Considering that we go the extra mile in IT so often, it would be a little demeaning to treat us like we can't be responsible and reasonable with our Internet use. (Although we've all worked those shops.)
I would agree with this, except I would put classical music and/or binaural music above silence, as both have been shown to improve concentration and reduce learning and recall times.
Hmmm... I can't believe I've made it this far into the comments and nobody has mentioned trance (and related electronic genres). Unlike classical, you don't have the dynamics leaving you straining to hear over your co-workers one minute, deafened by a crescendo the next. The repetition and lack of lyrics keep it from being distracting. Just pick something fairly textured and it sublimates all those inane conversations going on around you (as you wonder why you're in the middle of a call center while idiots paid less than you have quiet, private offices so they can do serious intellectual work like making PowerPoint presentations).
I am really looking forward to the day when SETI announces evidence of an intelligent signal from deep space. Not only will it be exciting to learn about out interstellar neighbors, it will be great fun watching young earth creationists develop wild and elaborate denials of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Let's have very thorough background screenings of stargate workers this time, please.
First off, Barney Frank is a democrat, not a republican.
Second off, his live-in boyfriend was making an honest living also, by prostituting himself out to others.
Ah... But there's an important difference there. Democrats air their sins in public view (Bill's fear of Hillary notwithstanding) without shame, Republicans rant and rave about it in public while doing the buggery tap dance in the men's room at the airport or playing extreme tickling with male interns.
Now that's refreshing honesty, AC! Everyone else just claims he's a Kenyan, a Muslim, or some other [not-like-us] entity as a stand-in for their thinly-veiled racism.
Hmmm... We had a partial green power option from Florida Power & Light and I didn't mind paying a little extra, but maybe I was the only one --the program was canceled after a year or two.
You forgot the 5 points for every cow-orker that runs to the bathroom and throws up, and 10 points for every instance of a senseless argument breaking out between those cow-orkers.
I was unable to find a reference on orking, but it sounds like a pretty sick thing to do to a cow. These orkers certainly deserve the punish you mention.
Now... where can I find a video of a depraved person orking a cow?
The only "point" of evolution is survival. Evolution does not lead towards more intelligent creatures unless intelligence itself better ensures survival.
Exactly. This is the thing that always puzzles me about many people's pondering of extraterrestrial life. No doubt there's plenty of it out there --nothing about that seems very unlikely, but there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming requirement for sentient intelligence. Look what a good run the dinosaurs had without understanding how to build a fire or use an iPhone. Seems like the best meeting of Drake and Occam, IMHO.
That Was Close! As any good dead tree-purveying businessman will tell you, print is the only way to disseminate information. Now that they've pulled the issue, the dangerous information is effectively lost forever and humanity saved.
Sheesh... Why can't they act civilized and destroy education the way we do in the U.S. --by slowly leeching away all the funding, while blaming teachers and unions, and introducing magical thinking into science classes. Mission accomplished!
I don't think reason is under attack by religion specifically. It just seems to be popular to be a moron these days. The number of well-established scientific theories you disagree with is a matter for competitive sport.
I think the paradoxical regression from trust in science and knowledge to supernatural explanations of the world is mostly due to the mismatch between the pace of human knowledge and much slower growth of human intellectual capacity. And the phenomenon really isn't helped by the glut of mindless entertainment. When you have fun, easy to understand crap like reality television permeating your culture, why hurt your brain trying to untangle the complexities of the modern sciences?
Note that the argument about what people can talk about has nothing to do with cultural ideals of what women should/shouldn't look like, so the whole "let me justify my anti-free-speech position by declaring my opponents to be misogynist" angle isn't flying either.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. At the point I posted, most of the discussion seemed to reflect a callous "hey, if she ain't fat, what's the problem?" attitude. The conversation seemed to be missing the fact that anorexia is a deadly disease.
I'm no opponent of free speech --far from it, but I'm also cool with not shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Trying to curtail the glamorization of anorexia, is more a pro bono publico issue than a free speech issue --like limiting the free speech of the pedophile film director's idea of entertainment.
Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?
O.K. Apologies for being a little over-dramatic, but there are some parallels I'd like to point out.
1) Who makes the ban. In the case of professional sports, the ban comes from the professional sports organizations themselves and the fans. For your example, it comes from government.
2) Who is affected. Professional athletes only or everyone who wants to advertise a product or even parody an advertisement of a product.
See above. Professional models --and, as in sports, their impressionable fans/followers.
3) Harm to society. In the former case, athletes are being forced not to engage in a chemical arms race. Small number of people by a private group. Not much harm. In the thin model case, government is trying to change how society thinks and behaves through government force. Huge immediate harm. To be very blunt here, I do not think saving the lives of a few thousand women a year is worth the harm inflicted by this ban.
I think the alleged point of the congressional hearings and media flap on steroids in pro baseball was that it encouraged the acceptance of steroid use by young athletes. It seemed more people were having a "think-of-the-children" moment than displaying genuine concern for the plight of professional ball players.
And I am not surprised that you are unconcerned with the deaths of thousands of women.
4) Precedence. I know some people don't believe in the existence of the slippery slope, but it does remain that private groups imposing behavior restrictions on voluntary members or employees is nothing new. But once we have a ban on certain human behavior and communication due to one disease, that forms a precedent for the government to impose further bans for other tenuous health or public welfare excuses. A ban would also reward the doctors and organizations that advocated for it and empower them. I'd rather they be punished via marginalization for even daring to suggest just a vile scheme.
The political balance between regulation and freedom is tricky --and the first 100 tries usually fail. But if we didn't try, lawful civilization wouldn't exist. The fact we're not all paying over 90% in taxes is a thorough debunking of the slippery slope. The pendulum of human affairs always swings back when it's gone too far.
5) Potential for abuse. In addition to creating a negative precedent on crucial human activities, it also creates a huge avenue of abuse for government to impose its will on businesses and non-profits that advertise. It's an lever for coercion of government whim over a business or charity. It's another means for one business to gain advantage over another through more rigorous enforcement of the ban on the latter.
Again, I think we agree, ideally this should be the business and responsibility of the fashion industry, not government, to stop encouraging (sometimes demanding?) unhealthy behavior.
How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?
Because regulating drugs is rather different than regulating the display of photographs of clothed people based on their body type?
Sure, I'd agree it's significantly different, but at the root of it, it's a public health issue --and that's supposedly why pointy-headed politicians got all bent about steroids in baseball. The welfare of the professional players wasn't as much of a consideration as the message it sent aspiring young athletes. Both problems hinge on behaviors that are heavily influenced by culture.
Can you imagine having to submit every fashion photo to some government committee, which would then argue over whether each model was appropriately non-skinny?
No, nothing that ridiculous, but I can imagine something similar to what already happened with Spain's fashionistas. I don't think it's absurd at all to ask an industry to NOT encourage unhealthy employee behaviors.
Sigh... At the peril of feeding a troll (I really can't believe someone could honestly miss the point so completely)...
People need to get past their misogynist thinking
I think you do. You're confusing anorexia with a female only problem.
Congratulations sir, you win the more-PC-than-thou trophy! My bad, pointing out the obvious fact that "Anorexia nervosa occurs in females 10 times more than in males" and making the leap of thought that there is much more societal pressure for women to be thin --especially from men. If you won't take a few semesters of sociology and abnormal psychology, at least browse the article on Wikipedia.
This is an avoidable danger, like prohibiting the glorification of drugs in kids' shows.
Seriously? Which kids shows did that? Honestly, I'd really like to see a kid's show glorifying drugs.
Um... Yeah... That was my point. I think everybody understands that would be a bad idea.
Anyway, about 50% of the populace has tried some kind of illicit drug or other, so I think the battle's lost there. Those that do, do, those that don't, don't.
Again... You're missing the point. Protecting impressionable kids is a different topic than limiting the rights of adults. Whoosh!
Slashdot Mirror
GPA doesn't matter much once you've got experience, but still... Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude or Summa Cum Laude fit nicely on the education section of a resume, right next to degree and specialization.
That's your problem right there. Instead of spending an extra 2 hours a day at work, and also expecting to do 2 hours of personal stuff at work, people with "important" jobs should just go home at 5pm sharp and do their shopping and banking at home.
It's more like an hour of personal stuff and three extra hours of work (including work from home), but you're quite right on the point of reclaiming our personal lives. I'm not sure why we put up with it.
Your job has probably already been taken by robots. Sorry.
There are some jobs that require a warm body to be in place, answering a phone or managing an assembly line. Your presence, in these cases, isn't optional. It's not like I'm not being an elitist prick about this; it's simply a fact that many jobs (like help desk) require more rigid schedules. If the job doesn't, as long as you're giving 40 or more hours and you're there to collaborate with co-workers, a decent employer ought to trust you enough to allow some flexibility in your work.
why are you banking, shopping, or correspondence at work?
The same reason you would expect a reasonable employer to let you see a dentist or take care of other personal things in a timely fashion. Basic respect.
I can understand how it would be unreasonable for people clocking out from the factory at 5:01 to expect anything beyond scheduled breaks. But for those of us with important, creative jobs, putting in over 60 hours every week, it's pretty heinous to expect us to save our personal lives entirely until we get home at 8:30. Considering that we go the extra mile in IT so often, it would be a little demeaning to treat us like we can't be responsible and reasonable with our Internet use. (Although we've all worked those shops.)
Any particular suggestions?
Try Infected Mushroom, Shpongle, Ott, or Hallucinogen.
silence > music > office noise
I would agree with this, except I would put classical music and/or binaural music above silence, as both have been shown to improve concentration and reduce learning and recall times.
Hmmm... I can't believe I've made it this far into the comments and nobody has mentioned trance (and related electronic genres). Unlike classical, you don't have the dynamics leaving you straining to hear over your co-workers one minute, deafened by a crescendo the next. The repetition and lack of lyrics keep it from being distracting. Just pick something fairly textured and it sublimates all those inane conversations going on around you (as you wonder why you're in the middle of a call center while idiots paid less than you have quiet, private offices so they can do serious intellectual work like making PowerPoint presentations).
I am really looking forward to the day when SETI announces evidence of an intelligent signal from deep space. Not only will it be exciting to learn about out interstellar neighbors, it will be great fun watching young earth creationists develop wild and elaborate denials of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Let's have very thorough background screenings of stargate workers this time, please.
First off, Barney Frank is a democrat, not a republican.
Second off, his live-in boyfriend was making an honest living also, by prostituting himself out to others.
Ah... But there's an important difference there. Democrats air their sins in public view (Bill's fear of Hillary notwithstanding) without shame, Republicans rant and rave about it in public while doing the buggery tap dance in the men's room at the airport or playing extreme tickling with male interns.
Now that's refreshing honesty, AC! Everyone else just claims he's a Kenyan, a Muslim, or some other [not-like-us] entity as a stand-in for their thinly-veiled racism.
Hmmm... We had a partial green power option from Florida Power & Light and I didn't mind paying a little extra, but maybe I was the only one --the program was canceled after a year or two.
If you ask McDonalds customers if they'd like to see more salads and healthy choices they'll say, "Yes, of course!"
Textbook example of what social psychologists call social desirability and one of the most damning criticisms of the validity of surveys.
You forgot the 5 points for every cow-orker that runs to the bathroom and throws up, and 10 points for every instance of a senseless argument breaking out between those cow-orkers.
I was unable to find a reference on orking, but it sounds like a pretty sick thing to do to a cow. These orkers certainly deserve the punish you mention.
Now... where can I find a video of a depraved person orking a cow?
The only "point" of evolution is survival. Evolution does not lead towards more intelligent creatures unless intelligence itself better ensures survival.
Exactly. This is the thing that always puzzles me about many people's pondering of extraterrestrial life. No doubt there's plenty of it out there --nothing about that seems very unlikely, but there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming requirement for sentient intelligence. Look what a good run the dinosaurs had without understanding how to build a fire or use an iPhone. Seems like the best meeting of Drake and Occam, IMHO.
That Was Close! As any good dead tree-purveying businessman will tell you, print is the only way to disseminate information. Now that they've pulled the issue, the dangerous information is effectively lost forever and humanity saved.
Sheesh... Why can't they act civilized and destroy education the way we do in the U.S. --by slowly leeching away all the funding, while blaming teachers and unions, and introducing magical thinking into science classes. Mission accomplished!
I don't think reason is under attack by religion specifically. It just seems to be popular to be a moron these days. The number of well-established scientific theories you disagree with is a matter for competitive sport.
I think the paradoxical regression from trust in science and knowledge to supernatural explanations of the world is mostly due to the mismatch between the pace of human knowledge and much slower growth of human intellectual capacity. And the phenomenon really isn't helped by the glut of mindless entertainment. When you have fun, easy to understand crap like reality television permeating your culture, why hurt your brain trying to untangle the complexities of the modern sciences?
At last! Our psy-ops people have succeeded in creating the Ameglian Major Cow!
Hmmm... Hadn't heard of the guy. Are you sure SJVN isn't an obscure version of the Bible?
Looks like cancer has gotten wise to the plan: http://www.kurzweilai.net/cancer-cells-send-out-the-alarm-on-tumor-killing-virus
Seriously? What do you think is the difference between an apartment complex banning pets and the COUNTRY banning pets? Do you think there is none?
You think the government should be the regulator? Sure, they've dabbled, but that isn't what I'd propose at all.
Professional sports organizations do the right thing and discourage unhealthy behaviors, the fashion industry should do the same.
Note that the argument about what people can talk about has nothing to do with cultural ideals of what women should/shouldn't look like, so the whole "let me justify my anti-free-speech position by declaring my opponents to be misogynist" angle isn't flying either.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. At the point I posted, most of the discussion seemed to reflect a callous "hey, if she ain't fat, what's the problem?" attitude. The conversation seemed to be missing the fact that anorexia is a deadly disease.
I'm no opponent of free speech --far from it, but I'm also cool with not shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Trying to curtail the glamorization of anorexia, is more a pro bono publico issue than a free speech issue --like limiting the free speech of the pedophile film director's idea of entertainment.
Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?
O.K. Apologies for being a little over-dramatic, but there are some parallels I'd like to point out.
1) Who makes the ban. In the case of professional sports, the ban comes from the professional sports organizations themselves and the fans. For your example, it comes from government.
I'm with you, this shouldn't be government business, even though it was very popular with Congress and President Bush recently. A responsible industry should handle it themselves --Spain is a good example.
2) Who is affected. Professional athletes only or everyone who wants to advertise a product or even parody an advertisement of a product.
See above. Professional models --and, as in sports, their impressionable fans/followers.
3) Harm to society. In the former case, athletes are being forced not to engage in a chemical arms race. Small number of people by a private group. Not much harm. In the thin model case, government is trying to change how society thinks and behaves through government force. Huge immediate harm. To be very blunt here, I do not think saving the lives of a few thousand women a year is worth the harm inflicted by this ban.
I think the alleged point of the congressional hearings and media flap on steroids in pro baseball was that it encouraged the acceptance of steroid use by young athletes. It seemed more people were having a "think-of-the-children" moment than displaying genuine concern for the plight of professional ball players.
And I am not surprised that you are unconcerned with the deaths of thousands of women.
4) Precedence. I know some people don't believe in the existence of the slippery slope, but it does remain that private groups imposing behavior restrictions on voluntary members or employees is nothing new. But once we have a ban on certain human behavior and communication due to one disease, that forms a precedent for the government to impose further bans for other tenuous health or public welfare excuses. A ban would also reward the doctors and organizations that advocated for it and empower them. I'd rather they be punished via marginalization for even daring to suggest just a vile scheme.
The political balance between regulation and freedom is tricky --and the first 100 tries usually fail. But if we didn't try, lawful civilization wouldn't exist. The fact we're not all paying over 90% in taxes is a thorough debunking of the slippery slope. The pendulum of human affairs always swings back when it's gone too far.
5) Potential for abuse. In addition to creating a negative precedent on crucial human activities, it also creates a huge avenue of abuse for government to impose its will on businesses and non-profits that advertise. It's an lever for coercion of government whim over a business or charity. It's another means for one business to gain advantage over another through more rigorous enforcement of the ban on the latter.
Again, I think we agree, ideally this should be the business and responsibility of the fashion industry, not government, to stop encouraging (sometimes demanding?) unhealthy behavior.
Because regulating drugs is rather different than regulating the display of photographs of clothed people based on their body type?
Sure, I'd agree it's significantly different, but at the root of it, it's a public health issue --and that's supposedly why pointy-headed politicians got all bent about steroids in baseball. The welfare of the professional players wasn't as much of a consideration as the message it sent aspiring young athletes. Both problems hinge on behaviors that are heavily influenced by culture.
Can you imagine having to submit every fashion photo to some government committee, which would then argue over whether each model was appropriately non-skinny?
No, nothing that ridiculous, but I can imagine something similar to what already happened with Spain's fashionistas. I don't think it's absurd at all to ask an industry to NOT encourage unhealthy employee behaviors.
Sigh... At the peril of feeding a troll (I really can't believe someone could honestly miss the point so completely)...
People need to get past their misogynist thinking
I think you do. You're confusing anorexia with a female only problem.
Congratulations sir, you win the more-PC-than-thou trophy! My bad, pointing out the obvious fact that "Anorexia nervosa occurs in females 10 times more than in males" and making the leap of thought that there is much more societal pressure for women to be thin --especially from men. If you won't take a few semesters of sociology and abnormal psychology, at least browse the article on Wikipedia.
This is an avoidable danger, like prohibiting the glorification of drugs in kids' shows.
Seriously? Which kids shows did that? Honestly, I'd really like to see a kid's show glorifying drugs.
Um... Yeah... That was my point. I think everybody understands that would be a bad idea.
Anyway, about 50% of the populace has tried some kind of illicit drug or other, so I think the battle's lost there. Those that do, do, those that don't, don't.
Again... You're missing the point. Protecting impressionable kids is a different topic than limiting the rights of adults. Whoosh!