This isn't anything new, and it certainly isn't restricted to IT... I've been in engineering for going-on 10 years, and if my interviewer didn't ask me any 'test' questions, I'd be highly suspicious of the interview!
The most common thing that the interviewer is looking for is NOT necessarily coding conventions, or your ability to program in C++, Java, or whatever language you're dealing with. For almost all languages, there's at least one book out there that teaches syntax, and given that your interviewer knows you went to college, they know that you can read... so they're not going to care that much about syntax.
The ruling majority of the time, they're looking for problem solving abilities. So, if they ask you 'how would you do blah blah blah', respond with 'Would you like real code, or do you mind if I just use pseudo-code?' Their answer gives you insight into what they're looking for, and you can aim your response accordingly.
One of the most enjoyable interviews I'd ever had was at my current employer... the interviewer presented me with a simple engineering problem. Then, asked me to come up with as many solutions as possible... It was a great way for both of us to feel out the other, because they could see my problem-solving strategies, and I could see theirs (by coming up with a solution they hadn't thought of).
I mean really? The man is the poster child for why you SHOULD get into IT... I don't think anyone looks at Bill Gates, with his billions of dollars, happy family, and from an outsider's point of view "good life," and says "Nope... don't want to be a nerd like that!"
People think it's boring because, generally speaking, it can get VERY monotonous. If you don't like programming (regardless of how you define the word), you won't like IT. If you don't like long hours trying to figure out why something isn't working on 1 out of 1000 machines, you probably won't like IT either. I'm not going to get into a "You might be a redneck if..." stream here, but I think you get my point.
If the corporate world is honestly having problems finding IT people, they should either (A) Outsource to a reliable partner, or (B) offer more money. Long story short, IT is like any other job on the planet, if you offer people enough money, they'll gladly do it.
A velocity is NOT a change in location over a change in time... it is a change in PERCEIVED location over a change in PERCEIVED time, hense dx/dt should actually be more like dpx/dpt. If I'm going the same speed, in the same direction, a car will appear to be going 0 kph when it is actually going 120. So, two people can have two different perceived change in locations.
Relativity states that two people can experience two different perceived times, and while this might appear strange, WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN. So, The astronaut experiences 3 days worth of time, but we experience 3.01 days (rough numbers). From the Astronauts perception, he/she has gone through time FASTER than us. How would be measure this? dt/dt? No... dpt/dpt:
3 Astronaut Perceived Time Units / 3.01 Earth Perceived Time Units
And there's your measurement of time travel: Perceived Time Units. Why don't they cancel out? Well think of a Perceived Time Unit as an infinity... infinity/infinity != 1.
So, if we were to get REALLY close to a massive gravitational object, and then somehow break away from it, while the perceived time for the passenger would appear to be 5 minutes, the perceived time for all the people who weren't on the vehicle would be 500 years (Again, rough numbers). Did the person travel through time? Well... no, not really, but they APPEARED to travel through time.
Now, even if this idiot were to come forward and say "Appeared to have travelled through time isn't the same thing!" Then I'd still want to smack him around a bit... No one has any firm grasp on EXACTLY what time is... we just have some ideas on how we can muck with it. In order to truly understand time we would need to remove ourselves from it and look at it from the outside... and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure no one has figured out a way to do that yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't anything new, and it certainly isn't restricted to IT... I've been in engineering for going-on 10 years, and if my interviewer didn't ask me any 'test' questions, I'd be highly suspicious of the interview!
The most common thing that the interviewer is looking for is NOT necessarily coding conventions, or your ability to program in C++, Java, or whatever language you're dealing with. For almost all languages, there's at least one book out there that teaches syntax, and given that your interviewer knows you went to college, they know that you can read... so they're not going to care that much about syntax.
The ruling majority of the time, they're looking for problem solving abilities. So, if they ask you 'how would you do blah blah blah', respond with 'Would you like real code, or do you mind if I just use pseudo-code?' Their answer gives you insight into what they're looking for, and you can aim your response accordingly.
One of the most enjoyable interviews I'd ever had was at my current employer... the interviewer presented me with a simple engineering problem. Then, asked me to come up with as many solutions as possible... It was a great way for both of us to feel out the other, because they could see my problem-solving strategies, and I could see theirs (by coming up with a solution they hadn't thought of).
I mean really? The man is the poster child for why you SHOULD get into IT... I don't think anyone looks at Bill Gates, with his billions of dollars, happy family, and from an outsider's point of view "good life," and says "Nope... don't want to be a nerd like that!"
People think it's boring because, generally speaking, it can get VERY monotonous. If you don't like programming (regardless of how you define the word), you won't like IT. If you don't like long hours trying to figure out why something isn't working on 1 out of 1000 machines, you probably won't like IT either. I'm not going to get into a "You might be a redneck if..." stream here, but I think you get my point.
If the corporate world is honestly having problems finding IT people, they should either (A) Outsource to a reliable partner, or (B) offer more money. Long story short, IT is like any other job on the planet, if you offer people enough money, they'll gladly do it.
It couldn't be pirates... global warming is still on the rise...
A velocity is NOT a change in location over a change in time... it is a change in PERCEIVED location over a change in PERCEIVED time, hense dx/dt should actually be more like dpx/dpt. If I'm going the same speed, in the same direction, a car will appear to be going 0 kph when it is actually going 120. So, two people can have two different perceived change in locations.
Relativity states that two people can experience two different perceived times, and while this might appear strange, WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN. So, The astronaut experiences 3 days worth of time, but we experience 3.01 days (rough numbers). From the Astronauts perception, he/she has gone through time FASTER than us. How would be measure this? dt/dt? No... dpt/dpt:
3 Astronaut Perceived Time Units / 3.01 Earth Perceived Time Units
And there's your measurement of time travel: Perceived Time Units. Why don't they cancel out? Well think of a Perceived Time Unit as an infinity... infinity/infinity != 1.
So, if we were to get REALLY close to a massive gravitational object, and then somehow break away from it, while the perceived time for the passenger would appear to be 5 minutes, the perceived time for all the people who weren't on the vehicle would be 500 years (Again, rough numbers). Did the person travel through time? Well... no, not really, but they APPEARED to travel through time.
Now, even if this idiot were to come forward and say "Appeared to have travelled through time isn't the same thing!" Then I'd still want to smack him around a bit... No one has any firm grasp on EXACTLY what time is... we just have some ideas on how we can muck with it. In order to truly understand time we would need to remove ourselves from it and look at it from the outside... and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure no one has figured out a way to do that yet.