Interview
in [Java Help]
|
From: Arved Sandstrom on 7 Oct 2009 20:44 Dave Searles wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> Dave Searles wrote: >>> Dagon wrote: >>>> Right. Want ads are nearly unusable. So? >>> >>> So, my point is, with this economy my job could easily go poof next >>> week, and if want ads remain unusable, I won't be able to get another >>> one, at least not quickly enough that the loss of income won't start >>> to cause problematic consequences first. >> >> A developer has bigger problems in their job search strategy if they >> are relying on want ads in the first place. That includes employment >> websites. > > Excuse me? Is that some sort of a personal attack being implied there? [ SNIP ] No. I've simply noticed that you're talking about the deficiencies of IT job ads. And while most of them do leave a lot to be desired, I felt that it's worth pointing out that if a developer - *any* developer - relies on job ads, that their job search strategy is in trouble. Which is true. AHS
From: Arne Vajhøj on 7 Oct 2009 21:53 Alan Morgan wrote: > In article <hahd8t$h9$10(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> Alan Morgan wrote: >>> In article <4ac825d1$0$1954$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, >>> Kevin McMurtrie <kevinmcm(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>>> In article <ha83np$3g6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>>> - Misc: Your cellphone rang >>>>> So it's held against you if someone else happens to pick a (probably >>>>> unknown-to-them) particular period of time in which to decide to want to >>>>> talk to you? How ridiculous. >>>> [personal attack deleted] >>> Agreed. >> Wrong. > > Actually, I'm pretty confident that I do agree with him, but I welcome > evidence to the contrary. Some people will try to argue that 2+2=5 no matter how ridiculous it appears. Arne
From: Peter Duniho on 7 Oct 2009 22:54 On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:53:29 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > Some people will try to argue that 2+2=5 no matter how ridiculous it > appears. Hey! I resemble that remark!
From: Dave Searles on 8 Oct 2009 01:25 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Dave Searles wrote: >> Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>> Dave Searles wrote: >>>> Dagon wrote: >>>>> Right. Want ads are nearly unusable. So? >>>> >>>> So, my point is, with this economy my job could easily go poof next >>>> week, and if want ads remain unusable, I won't be able to get >>>> another one, at least not quickly enough that the loss of income >>>> won't start to cause problematic consequences first. >>> >>> A developer has bigger problems in their job search strategy if they >>> are relying on want ads in the first place. That includes employment >>> websites. >> >> Excuse me? Is that some sort of a personal attack being implied there? > [ SNIP ] > > No. I've simply noticed that you're talking about the deficiencies of IT > job ads. And while most of them do leave a lot to be desired, I felt > that it's worth pointing out that if a developer - *any* developer - > relies on job ads, that their job search strategy is in trouble. Which > is true. The way it was phrased, it sounded less like you were saying "job ads are fucked up" than you were saying "a developer should find jobs by some other, mysterious and unspecified way, and if they are using want ads instead, they're an idiot". The key differences being: 1. Who's the idiot -- in one case, there are idiot job marketers, and in the other, idiot developers plus some clever stratagem to weed them out in the hiring process. 2. The existence of an alternative -- in one case, one gets an IT job the same way one gets any other, though the process sucks; in the other, the "normal" way is just a Turing tar-pit for weeding out those not "in the know" about the secret *other* way that everyone in this thread that's in the know is implicitly sworn not to reveal to non-insiders. Oh, and you're implied to be in the know and I, despite my *current* job, am implied to nonetheless be an outsider. Of course, only option 1 seems reasonable to the non-paranoid mind here, yet the way your previous statement was phrased, it seemed to hint that you believed number 2 applied...
From: Dave Searles on 8 Oct 2009 01:25
Arne Vajh�j wrote: > Alan Morgan wrote: >> In article <hahd8t$h9$10(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>> Alan Morgan wrote: >>>> In article <4ac825d1$0$1954$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, >>>> Kevin McMurtrie <kevinmcm(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>>>> In article <ha83np$3g6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> - Misc: Your cellphone rang >>>>>> So it's held against you if someone else happens to pick a >>>>>> (probably unknown-to-them) particular period of time in which to >>>>>> decide to want to talk to you? How ridiculous. >>>>> [personal attack deleted] >>>> Agreed. >>> Wrong. >> >> Actually, I'm pretty confident that I do agree with him, but I welcome >> evidence to the contrary. Since he was wrong, if you agree with him, you're wrong. > [personal attack deleted] Wrong. |