The manufacturers could easily do it given financial incentive.
They could do it given market demand. As it is, the market wants cheaper and/or more fashionable, and "Indestructible" isn't sexy enough to show off your metrosexual design tastes.
Shift lock is for old people. I can type entire sentences with a baby finger on the shift key.
No conscious effort, easier than hitting a separate toggle key (CAPS LOCK or SHIFT LOCK) and almost certainly learned during my main Angband playing days.
As you suggest though, infinitely more useful for programming - and 'finger on shift' operation is even more convenient as you just lift for digits.
Oh hell no. Waxing is easy, trivial if you get someone to do it for you. An epilator is fucking nasty. Pull out each of your hairs, one by one? No thank you.
I'm still pondering laser hair removal. Sadly I think I'm going too grey for it to be effective these days.
Either it's your data or it's the company's. What the fuck does the underlying device have to do with that? Why the hell didn't you and the company agree on this long ago, back when you were first employed in that role?
Life is pretty fucking simple: - the company's data belongs to the company - the individual's data belongs to the individual - customers' data belongs to the customers and is protected by law
So don't allow customer data onto insecure personal devices, decide whether you'll allow company data onto those devices and accept that your employees will have data you don't control on them.
Shit, I work for a bank, I can think of a dozen ways of permitting end user computing in the office without breaking any FSA regulations, the law or unreasonably jeopardising the company.
I don't expect to be in my current role in five years time. If I recruit someone that I can't groom into doing my job within five years, either they're shit or I am.
I kind of don't try and recruit someone into a five year plan. I recruit someone that will resolve an existing shortage. I do however have this arrogant assumption that I'm going to hire a great person, and so it's going to really benefit my company if that person grows, progresses and achieves their own goals without leaving the company.
So it's useful to understand what those goals are, and whether the company's likely to help achieve them. It's more honest to ask the question and use it to inform the candidate than it is to try and pretend a specific five year plan will run to completion.
heh. Approximate rule of thumb: Never recruit an architect that doesn't use the whiteboard during the interview.
Obviously that's utter bullshit, but twice now I've been recruited partially because I got up and started using diagrams to convey the concepts I was explaining.
(Yes, the interviewers specifically mentioned that)
It doesn't have to be a whiteboard. A sketch program on your iPad, a sheet of white A4 paper, shifting around the glasses on the bar; what counts is demonstrating the ability to explain shit in a simple manner.
That may be unnecessary in your job, but explaining an outage? Shit, I'd start by drawing a picture of the components involved and point at the one that broke. "This is where the problem lies, so to resolve it we need to.."
I'm not hiring a developer to write his new Kinect entangled-skeleton tracking driver that can follow people through a game of twister. However, that developer probably wants a job that lets him use and improve his C++ or C#, that gives him interesting problems to solve, that lets him leave at 4pm on a Thursday to go to his local maker community group.
I am hiring a developer to solve problems, I want him to use and improve his C++ or C#, I don't give a shit what his working hours are as long as he hits sensible deadlines.
What's wrong with discussing this at interview? Why wouldn't I hire this guy ahead of someone that doesn't even own a computer at home, has no actual interest in programming, wont engage with the team and other people around him?
We're talking stereotypes, the real world is more nuanced than this. But if I can't talk to someone then it's pretty fucking hard to work with them.
the ones that are best aren't necessarily going to be good at answering bullshit questions like that.
Which is fine, you ask a lot of questions that overlap on the areas you're probing. If I'm looking for technical skills I ask technical questions.
However, if I'm assessing someone's suitability to work in my team, on the tasks we undertake, in the conditions our employer will provide, with the external relationships, opportunities and constraints we deal with, I need to ask questions around that. Career expectations, desires and goals come into that and it would awfully remiss of me not to explore those.
unless the job is specifically working with people
All jobs I recruit for are specifically working with people. You can be the greatest configurer of firewalls on the planet, the finest compiler writer known to mankind or be able to debug NASA deep space probes in real time on your calculator, you're still going to have to work with people and I really want evidence that you can do so in a professional and friendly manner.
I work for a living, because I enjoy the lifestyle the income gives me.
So what sort of work to do? - work I enjoy, will find interesting, have fun with - work that bores me shitless
Hint: I don't want to employ someone that turns up for the money. I want someone that's actively interested in some aspect of the job, can talk passionately about it, will have fun doing it. It makes the whole team happier.
There's a degree of interview technique required (on both sides). Avoiding an 'over qualified' label is often merely a case of expressing a career direction you'd like to take, and identifying some of the skills you'd like to learn that will help take you there.
In one swoop you've shown self-awareness, a reasonable level of ambition and a willingness to learn. As an interview I also now get to discuss how you might gain those skills within the role.
I've been a candidate before where the interviewer has flatly stated, "I'm not sure we'd be able to offer you " in relation to a specific soft skill - but then offered me a job anyway. It came down to them knowing that they aren't my ideal job, and me deciding whether they ticked enough boxes or not - the job certainly was appropriate in many regards, so just how much did I value that one skill (and could I find other ways of gaining it, outside of work). I don't go into the wrong job and they don't hire someone that's going to walk straight back out again.
So admit that you're not sure about the next five years, but you'd like to build for the future by gaining this technical skill, that soft skill, those management skills.
Throw in some out of work stuff - you want a job that's got international travel or that's got an easy commute. Use your knowledge of the organisation - if it's a consultancy that recognises high flyers, suggest you want to work somewhere that rewards a strong contribution. If it's a family business, hint that you want to work somewhere that you can feel you belong.
Just don't lie. Lying will either get your rejected, or get you a job that you aren't qualified for or wont enjoy. One is fraud, both are stupidity.
If I'm interviewing someone and they tell me they want a stable environment while their new baby grows to school age, I can understand and respect that. If I'm recruiting into a company that's going to demand 60 hour working weeks that response triggers a follow-up question on how they'd reconcile work-life balance.
It's that interchange of information that matters, that helps you choose the right candidate and that assures them they're joining the right company in the right role.
Based on your views on recruitment here, I do have no respect for you.
Interviews are not a battle, an argument, an interrogation. They're a conversation, a discussion, an opportunity to find out about the other party and assess whether a good relationship can be built.
Acting like a cunt makes for a pretty clear assessment.
When I interview people I want people that are keen to learn, improve and expand.
This means they just wont be happy staying in the job I'm recruiting for. So if someone tells me they don't want career progression, I'm going to probe and find out why.
I want to employ people who will grow in the role, and move into other roles in the organisation. Sure, I don't want them to move on in six months, but I don't want them around in six years.
Who the fuck ever hires someone _without_ asking "What do you want from this job?"
If the answer is "Money" then for any technical job, they aren't the right person. The right person wants a job to have specific characteristics, where "Money" may be the need for _a_ job, but the other characteristics are why they've applied for _this_ job.
"What are you goals for the future" is merely exploring some of those characteristics. Are you expecting to gain team leadership experience, do you intend to learn certain technologies, are you hoping for progression with the organisation?
Not only do such answers provide insight into the candidate, they also help assess whether the role will meet your needs (and recruitment's too bloody expensive to hire people likely to leave because the job doesn't meet their needs). Not only that, but it gives the interviewer a chance to explain how the role will meet those career expectations.
Interviews go both ways. I'm interviewing a company that's interviewing me, and if they aren't up for scratch, I turn them down.
Why through their entire post did they not once tackle one of the prime reasons to get DSLR's, and that's image quality?
erm. Because there's no discernable difference?
Same size sensor, same sensor technology, same quality of lenses, same quality of software.. exactly where is your extra DSLR image quality coming from?
Hell, people covet a Leica M9 and it's mirrorless with a full sized sensor and it supports a full range of Leica lenses. Are those good enough, long lasting enough, available enough for you?
(They're not cheap enough, at a guess, because they're bloody expensive. Selling well though.)
Slashdot Mirror
The manufacturers could easily do it given financial incentive.
They could do it given market demand. As it is, the market wants cheaper and/or more fashionable, and "Indestructible" isn't sexy enough to show off your metrosexual design tastes.
Shift lock is for old people. I can type entire sentences with a baby finger on the shift key.
No conscious effort, easier than hitting a separate toggle key (CAPS LOCK or SHIFT LOCK) and almost certainly learned during my main Angband playing days.
As you suggest though, infinitely more useful for programming - and 'finger on shift' operation is even more convenient as you just lift for digits.
Oh hell no. Waxing is easy, trivial if you get someone to do it for you. An epilator is fucking nasty. Pull out each of your hairs, one by one? No thank you.
I'm still pondering laser hair removal. Sadly I think I'm going too grey for it to be effective these days.
Your assumption is often false. People stupid enough to commit fraud are often stupid enough not to do it well.
You're clearly not an XKCD reader.
8 seconds on Google.. "Lavender & Savanna's sexy sponge bath - XXX Pics", "MILF gives a sponge bath, PUSSY FUCKED AND EATEN", "Sponge Bath Handjob" and (one that's almost safe for work):
http://www.funkypair.com/spongebathbetty.aspx
From a business perspectice, it's insecure. The business aren't in control and so customer data should not go.on it.
It may however be sufficiently secure for company docs.
Either it's your data or it's the company's. What the fuck does the underlying device have to do with that? Why the hell didn't you and the company agree on this long ago, back when you were first employed in that role?
Those issues are not end user computing related.
Life is pretty fucking simple:
- the company's data belongs to the company
- the individual's data belongs to the individual
- customers' data belongs to the customers and is protected by law
So don't allow customer data onto insecure personal devices, decide whether you'll allow company data onto those devices and accept that your employees will have data you don't control on them.
Shit, I work for a bank, I can think of a dozen ways of permitting end user computing in the office without breaking any FSA regulations, the law or unreasonably jeopardising the company.
You must drive in very different conditions to me. I couldn't get 70,000 miles off any set of tyres.
largely because it is so light
Sorry, wtf? A car with two engines and a large battery pack is "so light"? Compared to what? An articulated truck?
ease of parking
Yeah, I can see how being a hybrid helps there.
Are you utterly fucking stupid or is it only the way you review cars that makes it seem that way?
Buy an interrail ticket, tour Europe. You'll gain far more than from a summer camp.
Take a laptop, you can still program..
I don't expect to be in my current role in five years time. If I recruit someone that I can't groom into doing my job within five years, either they're shit or I am.
Best to stop this line of enquiry there ;)
I kind of don't try and recruit someone into a five year plan. I recruit someone that will resolve an existing shortage. I do however have this arrogant assumption that I'm going to hire a great person, and so it's going to really benefit my company if that person grows, progresses and achieves their own goals without leaving the company.
So it's useful to understand what those goals are, and whether the company's likely to help achieve them. It's more honest to ask the question and use it to inform the candidate than it is to try and pretend a specific five year plan will run to completion.
heh. Approximate rule of thumb: Never recruit an architect that doesn't use the whiteboard during the interview.
Obviously that's utter bullshit, but twice now I've been recruited partially because I got up and started using diagrams to convey the concepts I was explaining.
(Yes, the interviewers specifically mentioned that)
It doesn't have to be a whiteboard. A sketch program on your iPad, a sheet of white A4 paper, shifting around the glasses on the bar; what counts is demonstrating the ability to explain shit in a simple manner.
That may be unnecessary in your job, but explaining an outage? Shit, I'd start by drawing a picture of the components involved and point at the one that broke. "This is where the problem lies, so to resolve it we need to .."
I'm not hiring a developer to write his new Kinect entangled-skeleton tracking driver that can follow people through a game of twister. However, that developer probably wants a job that lets him use and improve his C++ or C#, that gives him interesting problems to solve, that lets him leave at 4pm on a Thursday to go to his local maker community group.
I am hiring a developer to solve problems, I want him to use and improve his C++ or C#, I don't give a shit what his working hours are as long as he hits sensible deadlines.
What's wrong with discussing this at interview? Why wouldn't I hire this guy ahead of someone that doesn't even own a computer at home, has no actual interest in programming, wont engage with the team and other people around him?
We're talking stereotypes, the real world is more nuanced than this. But if I can't talk to someone then it's pretty fucking hard to work with them.
the ones that are best aren't necessarily going to be good at answering bullshit questions like that.
Which is fine, you ask a lot of questions that overlap on the areas you're probing. If I'm looking for technical skills I ask technical questions.
However, if I'm assessing someone's suitability to work in my team, on the tasks we undertake, in the conditions our employer will provide, with the external relationships, opportunities and constraints we deal with, I need to ask questions around that. Career expectations, desires and goals come into that and it would awfully remiss of me not to explore those.
unless the job is specifically working with people
All jobs I recruit for are specifically working with people. You can be the greatest configurer of firewalls on the planet, the finest compiler writer known to mankind or be able to debug NASA deep space probes in real time on your calculator, you're still going to have to work with people and I really want evidence that you can do so in a professional and friendly manner.
I work for a living, because I enjoy the lifestyle the income gives me.
So what sort of work to do?
- work I enjoy, will find interesting, have fun with
- work that bores me shitless
Hint: I don't want to employ someone that turns up for the money. I want someone that's actively interested in some aspect of the job, can talk passionately about it, will have fun doing it. It makes the whole team happier.
There's a degree of interview technique required (on both sides). Avoiding an 'over qualified' label is often merely a case of expressing a career direction you'd like to take, and identifying some of the skills you'd like to learn that will help take you there.
In one swoop you've shown self-awareness, a reasonable level of ambition and a willingness to learn. As an interview I also now get to discuss how you might gain those skills within the role.
I've been a candidate before where the interviewer has flatly stated, "I'm not sure we'd be able to offer you " in relation to a specific soft skill - but then offered me a job anyway. It came down to them knowing that they aren't my ideal job, and me deciding whether they ticked enough boxes or not - the job certainly was appropriate in many regards, so just how much did I value that one skill (and could I find other ways of gaining it, outside of work). I don't go into the wrong job and they don't hire someone that's going to walk straight back out again.
So admit that you're not sure about the next five years, but you'd like to build for the future by gaining this technical skill, that soft skill, those management skills.
Throw in some out of work stuff - you want a job that's got international travel or that's got an easy commute. Use your knowledge of the organisation - if it's a consultancy that recognises high flyers, suggest you want to work somewhere that rewards a strong contribution. If it's a family business, hint that you want to work somewhere that you can feel you belong.
Just don't lie. Lying will either get your rejected, or get you a job that you aren't qualified for or wont enjoy. One is fraud, both are stupidity.
If I'm interviewing someone and they tell me they want a stable environment while their new baby grows to school age, I can understand and respect that. If I'm recruiting into a company that's going to demand 60 hour working weeks that response triggers a follow-up question on how they'd reconcile work-life balance.
It's that interchange of information that matters, that helps you choose the right candidate and that assures them they're joining the right company in the right role.
Based on your views on recruitment here, I do have no respect for you.
Interviews are not a battle, an argument, an interrogation. They're a conversation, a discussion, an opportunity to find out about the other party and assess whether a good relationship can be built.
Acting like a cunt makes for a pretty clear assessment.
When I interview people I want people that are keen to learn, improve and expand.
This means they just wont be happy staying in the job I'm recruiting for. So if someone tells me they don't want career progression, I'm going to probe and find out why.
I want to employ people who will grow in the role, and move into other roles in the organisation. Sure, I don't want them to move on in six months, but I don't want them around in six years.
Who the fuck ever hires someone _without_ asking "What do you want from this job?"
If the answer is "Money" then for any technical job, they aren't the right person. The right person wants a job to have specific characteristics, where "Money" may be the need for _a_ job, but the other characteristics are why they've applied for _this_ job.
"What are you goals for the future" is merely exploring some of those characteristics. Are you expecting to gain team leadership experience, do you intend to learn certain technologies, are you hoping for progression with the organisation?
Not only do such answers provide insight into the candidate, they also help assess whether the role will meet your needs (and recruitment's too bloody expensive to hire people likely to leave because the job doesn't meet their needs). Not only that, but it gives the interviewer a chance to explain how the role will meet those career expectations.
Interviews go both ways. I'm interviewing a company that's interviewing me, and if they aren't up for scratch, I turn them down.
This guy does not appear to be an "executive" under any reasonable definition of the word.
How about Dictionary.com's very first definition:
exÂecÂuÂtiveâ â[ig-zek-yuh-tiv]
noun
1.
a person or group of persons having administrative or supervisory authority in an organization.
It's quite hard to be a manager with no supervisory authority.
"Executive" is a catch-all term that the media use to include senior management - and in the UK, £68k is senior management.
They can also insist that you do not join (e.g.) a competitor during that notice period.
I've known more than one person get a paid holiday due to leaving a company that didn't want them to move on immediately.
Why through their entire post did they not once tackle one of the prime reasons to get DSLR's, and that's image quality?
erm. Because there's no discernable difference?
Same size sensor, same sensor technology, same quality of lenses, same quality of software.. exactly where is your extra DSLR image quality coming from?
Hell, people covet a Leica M9 and it's mirrorless with a full sized sensor and it supports a full range of Leica lenses. Are those good enough, long lasting enough, available enough for you?
(They're not cheap enough, at a guess, because they're bloody expensive. Selling well though.)