 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It's pretty close. You have to drive down winding country roads and
> through several villages with low speed limits, but the actual distance
> isn't that far.
I'd say go interview even if you *don't* want the job. That's the best
kind of interview. It lets you think about your interview strategies
without the stress of actually wanting the job and being afraid to mess
up. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> LOL! I suppose I could explain that it's a Turing-complete scene
>> description language for photorealistic image and animation
>> construction / scripting... that could sound impressive. ;-)
>
> Actually, I only found out about POV when I was applying for a job that
> mentioned it. I forget the name of the company, but they did realtime
> and pre-rendered work for car companies etc. Of course I looked up
> everything that was mentioned on the job advert, and well here I am :-)
Definitely mention POV. Almost everyone I've spoken to in graphics &
programming has heard of it.
Mentioning POV on my CV was one of the things that got me my current job.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>>> No, how on Earth do you imagine that they could find out your salary?
>>> They call my employer and ask them? It's not rocket science.
>> There is no way your employer would give out such information to
>> anyone outside the company. Even to internal employees they would
>> never give out such information, unless authorised to do so by someone
>> quite senior.
> Well, it depends on how badly they don't want me to leave, doesn't it?
Not really, giving out confidential information on employees to anyone
who phones up and asks for it is almost certainly illegal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Not really, giving out confidential information on employees to anyone
> who phones up and asks for it is almost certainly illegal.
It used to be someone could call up and say "John is looking for a job
here and claims he makes $X. Is that about right?" I think enough
people got sued in the USA to make it not worth a company's risk to give
out any sort of recommendation, review, etc anymore. All my references
are essentially personal references these days - people who I used to
work for who have also moved on to new things.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>>> This is again untrue. The scripts don't "correct" anything,
>>> You never wrote a script that fixed something?
>> Nope.
>
> So, the script that checks the CDs, or that does the pings... what did
> you do with the output of those? Toss it away after looking at it,
> going "Hmmm, interesting." Or did you (for example) give the ping
> report to the ISP to get them to diagnose the problem from their end?
The ping data I tossed away. What I really *should* do at some point is
set it up to run constantly in the background, so it will generate
enough data for me to draw some kind of useful conclusion. (E.g., do the
repeated email outages I'm seeing correlate with a loss of Internet
connectivity, or just VPN connectivity? Or is it just the email server
itself? Obviously it never actually fails when I'm testing out my script!)
>>> Suggestion: don't put on your resume that there are a whole bunch of
>>> other more-experienced people available, either. They know that too. :-)
>>
>> Right, so... why are they going to hire me again??
>
> Because you're there, and the experienced people are happy where they
> are? :)
Hmm. This requires several assumptions about the concentration of people
having the necessary skills verses the multiplicity (and churn factor)
of suitable positions of employment...
http://xkcd.com/309/
>> Ooo, AmigaGuide, an obsolete markup language that predates HTML 1.0 by
>> several years. They *really* need to know about that! :-P
>
> It shows your breadth of knowledge. If you have the room, put it in. If
> you don't, of course leave it out.
So you think I should just put together the biggest god-damned list
possible? Just to show off what an uber-nerd I am?
Won't that look like I just did a Google search and wrote down anything
that looks technical?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Nov-08 11:32, Invisible wrote:
> For the last few days, backup jobs have been failing, and I don't know
> why. I just spent the morning poking around to try to find out why.
>
> Hey, guess what? Several of the backup settings have magically changed
> themselves to something completely different values.
>
> I wonder, who could have done that? Perhaps it was the fairies? Yes,
> that must be it. It was changed by faries.
>
> I'm completely sure that none of this has anything at all to do with the
> new global backup procedure document that comes into effect on the 1st
> of December. (Notice today's date: 18 *November*. Hence, our current
> procedure document is still in force and must be followed to the letter.)
>
> Obviously I have no proof of who changed those settings. But I have a
> pretty good idea.
>
> I'm really angry right now. I've spent all this time doing workarounds
> to try to get the backups to work and writing all these extra log
> entries to record my actions, and the cause of the problem all along was
> some twat in America who ****ed around with MY backup settings without
> bothering to tell me! >:-[
We told you before that if such things happen and you don't know for
sure who did it, you *have to* report the incident as if it is someone
hacking your computers. You also have to report to your boss that there
is a legal problem because you are not able to create the backups as
specified in the documents.
Though I have the feeling that you did not do that last times and you
won't do it now.
> I utterly fail to see how I can be held legally responsible for this
> stuff when I apparently have no control over it. How can I face a jail
> sentence for somebody else's actions?
Because it is your job to notice and take action to prevent it
happening. In your case the course of action is to restore the original
settings and block remote access to the settings. If you can't do it in
software you have to disable the network physically. A sort of workable
solution that might just not interfere with standard working procedures
is to announce to the company that your local facility will be off-line
sunday afternoon to create the legally required backups.
I'm sorry, but if you only complain here but take no action that makes
you responsible. In your position you have to pass that on as fast as
possible to your boss.
> In what universe is that fair??
Who is talking about fair?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So you think I should just put together the biggest god-damned list
> possible? Just to show off what an uber-nerd I am?
Don't be silly.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All this reminded me of an "amusing" resignation letter I saw on qdb...
*searches*
Can't find it, but this one is relevant too :P
<+GaidinBDJ> What format should a resignation letter be if the letter is
neither required nor expected?
<smadge1> SMS
*searches more*
Ah! bash.org, not qdb.us. Here you go:
http://www.bash.org/?719376
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
news:web.49258c122a1d5b9565d3b2410@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote:
>> Damn, I'd beat their door down for that job.
>>
>> ~Steve~
>
> Yeah! But with a salary of 30,000 - 35,000 there will be 4000 people
> applying
> for the job.
No, wrong. There will be 8,000 people applying for the job in todays
present climate. ;)
But, our young mascot should be in the shortlist because I have faith in
him and I need that tenner that he promised me.
~Steve~
> Stephen
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And it's always a *terrible* idea to accept that. Because then they'll be
> looking for a replacement for you, knowing you are looking to leave.
> You get booted out on their schedule, not yours.
Don't know about the USA, but they certainly can't do that to you here.
There's no way they can "boot you out" without really solid reasoning as to
why you are not suitable for the job, it just never happens here unless
someone has done something really bad. If they boot you out and then employ
someone else to do your job the company will be in BIG trouble.
The usual tactic to get rid of someone is to put them into a boring job and
don't give them any pay rises ... oh wait hang on a minute ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
