It appears that a complete list of all the hashes for the passwords of 
Linkedin users has been leaked.  Astonishingly Linkedin didn't bother to 
salt them, so it's possible to reverse-engineer the true passwords from 
them in many cases (apparently about 3.5 million have probably already 
been cracked).  If you have a Linkedin account you should change you 
password ASAP, and if you use that password on other sites linked to 
your name, you should probably change those too.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:11:40 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:

> It appears that a complete list of all the hashes for the passwords of
> Linkedin users has been leaked.  Astonishingly Linkedin didn't bother to
> salt them, so it's possible to reverse-engineer the true passwords from
> them in many cases (apparently about 3.5 million have probably already
> been cracked).  If you have a Linkedin account you should change you
> password ASAP, and if you use that password on other sites linked to
> your name, you should probably change those too.

Interestingly, though, the user accounts are not associated with the 
hashes in what was leaked.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6/6/2012 12:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Interestingly, though, the user accounts are not associated with the
> hashes in what was leaked.

While true, it's not too improbable that the people who originally had 
the passwords may have more information than just what was in the leaked 
file.  Best to be safe IMHO.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:42:40 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:

> On 6/6/2012 12:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Interestingly, though, the user accounts are not associated with the
>> hashes in what was leaked.
> 
> While true, it's not too improbable that the people who originally had
> the passwords may have more information than just what was in the leaked
> file.  Best to be safe IMHO.

Agreed, and a very good point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2012 08:11 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> If you have a Linkedin account you should change you
> password ASAP

Even if I haven't used it for years?

BTW, does anybody know what the /point/ of Linked-In actually is? I 
mean, you upload a whole heap of data onto it and then... what? What 
useful purpose does it serve?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:02:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 06/06/2012 08:11 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> If you have a Linkedin account you should change you password ASAP
> 
> Even if I haven't used it for years?
> 
> BTW, does anybody know what the /point/ of Linked-In actually is? I
> mean, you upload a whole heap of data onto it and then... what? What
> useful purpose does it serve?

It's helped me in my job search; the leads unfortunately didn't result in 
a full-time job, but yes, it's helpful.

Also good for keeping in touch with old coworkers and colleagues.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2012 10:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's helped me in my job search; the leads unfortunately didn't result in
> a full-time job, but yes, it's helpful.
>

It has not really helped me looking for a job. But someone I worked with 
last year said that it is the up and coming thing for job searching. I 
can see it being a more dominant site as recruiters use it more.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:24:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/06/2012 10:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's helped me in my job search; the leads unfortunately didn't result
>> in a full-time job, but yes, it's helpful.
>>
>>
> It has not really helped me looking for a job. But someone I worked with
> last year said that it is the up and coming thing for job searching. I
> can see it being a more dominant site as recruiters use it more.

Yeah, that's the other thing, having good data in it, it's being used 
more and more by recruiters to find candidates.

The funny thing is that while I had full-time employment, I would 
regularly get calls and requests from recruiters.

Now that I'm working for myself, that's dried up.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> It's helped me in my job search; the leads unfortunately didn't result
>>> in a full-time job, but yes, it's helpful.
>>>
>> It has not really helped me looking for a job. But someone I worked with
>> last year said that it is the up and coming thing for job searching. I
>> can see it being a more dominant site as recruiters use it more.
>
> Yeah, that's the other thing, having good data in it, it's being used
> more and more by recruiters to find candidates.

Thing is, people were saying 10 years ago that it was a great resource 
for getting hired, and today, 10 years later, that still doesn't seem to 
be the case.

I rather suspect it's only useful for /certain kinds/ of hires. That 
certain kind presumably excludes me.

> The funny thing is that while I had full-time employment, I would
> regularly get calls and requests from recruiters.
>
> Now that I'm working for myself, that's dried up.

More like "if you don't access it at least twice per day, you disappear 
off the bottom of the search results".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:56:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> It's helped me in my job search; the leads unfortunately didn't
>>>> result in a full-time job, but yes, it's helpful.
>>>>
>>> It has not really helped me looking for a job. But someone I worked
>>> with last year said that it is the up and coming thing for job
>>> searching. I can see it being a more dominant site as recruiters use
>>> it more.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the other thing, having good data in it, it's being used
>> more and more by recruiters to find candidates.
> 
> Thing is, people were saying 10 years ago that it was a great resource
> for getting hired, and today, 10 years later, that still doesn't seem to
> be the case.

It's not a passive thing - you don't put your CV info up there and then 
just sit back and wait.

So, what active things have you done?

>> The funny thing is that while I had full-time employment, I would
>> regularly get calls and requests from recruiters.
>>
>> Now that I'm working for myself, that's dried up.
> 
> More like "if you don't access it at least twice per day, you disappear
> off the bottom of the search results".

Not at all.  I access LinkedIn quite regularly, and am a member of a 
number of groups related to the fields I'm interested in - and I 
occasionally participate in discussions in those groups.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Thing is, people were saying 10 years ago that it was a great resource
>> for getting hired, and today, 10 years later, that still doesn't seem to
>> be the case.
>
> It's not a passive thing - you don't put your CV info up there and then
> just sit back and wait.
>
> So, what active things have you done?

Linked-In seems to have the same problem that all the early social 
networking sites had: Once you've filled out all the fields in your 
profile, there's nothing left to /do/.

The site is just a giant database of /stuff/. You can type in your 
stuff. You can query what stuff other people have typed in. And that's 
it. The site doesn't /do/ anything else. So once you've keyed in your 
data, there's basically no reason to ever visit it again. (Other than to 
bump your entry back to the top of the search page.)

>> More like "if you don't access it at least twice per day, you disappear
>> off the bottom of the search results".
>
> Not at all.  I access LinkedIn quite regularly, and am a member of a
> number of groups related to the fields I'm interested in - and I
> occasionally participate in discussions in those groups.

When I first created my profile, I used to get the occasional call from 
recruiters who claimed to have seen it. And after a month or so, it 
stopped. Presumably because profiles are listed in order of activity. 
(Which is an entirely reasonable way to list them, really...)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:41:11 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Thing is, people were saying 10 years ago that it was a great resource
>>> for getting hired, and today, 10 years later, that still doesn't seem
>>> to be the case.
>>
>> It's not a passive thing - you don't put your CV info up there and then
>> just sit back and wait.
>>
>> So, what active things have you done?
> 
> Linked-In seems to have the same problem that all the early social
> networking sites had: Once you've filled out all the fields in your
> profile, there's nothing left to /do/.

Yes, there is.  There are groups that host discussions.  There are job 
postings posted (and it even recommends "jobs you might be interested 
in".  I used that to find one position that I applied for and interviewed 
extensively for - even traveling out of state for an in-person interview.

> The site is just a giant database of /stuff/. You can type in your
> stuff. You can query what stuff other people have typed in. And that's
> it. The site doesn't /do/ anything else. So once you've keyed in your
> data, there's basically no reason to ever visit it again. (Other than to
> bump your entry back to the top of the search page.)

Actually, no, that's not the case.

>>> More like "if you don't access it at least twice per day, you
>>> disappear off the bottom of the search results".
>>
>> Not at all.  I access LinkedIn quite regularly, and am a member of a
>> number of groups related to the fields I'm interested in - and I
>> occasionally participate in discussions in those groups.
> 
> When I first created my profile, I used to get the occasional call from
> recruiters who claimed to have seen it. And after a month or so, it
> stopped. Presumably because profiles are listed in order of activity.
> (Which is an entirely reasonable way to list them, really...)

False assumption, unsupported by any amount of evidence.

It does help to keep your profile current.  Read some of the articles 
(you remember the discussion we had about using RSS to keep up on what's 
'hot' in tech?  Here's another source to use to filter the myriad of 
information out on the 'net and see what you should be aware of).  Join 
some groups, participate in some discussions.

Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.  If 
you don't update your profile with recent accomplishments and such, 
recruiters are going to look at it and say "yeah, this hasn't changed, so 
he's lost interest or isn't doing anything" and move on.

But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case AFAICS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Linked-In seems to have the same problem that all the early social
>> networking sites had: Once you've filled out all the fields in your
>> profile, there's nothing left to /do/.
>
> Yes, there is.  There are groups that host discussions.  There are job
> postings posted (and it even recommends "jobs you might be interested
> in".  I used that to find one position that I applied for and interviewed
> extensively for - even traveling out of state for an in-person interview.

Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the 
site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).

>> When I first created my profile, I used to get the occasional call from
>> recruiters who claimed to have seen it. And after a month or so, it
>> stopped. Presumably because profiles are listed in order of activity.
>> (Which is an entirely reasonable way to list them, really...)
>
> False assumption, unsupported by any amount of evidence.

Looking at evidence and reaching a conclusion isn't a "false 
assumption", even if the conclusion turns out to be incorrect. An 
/assumption/ is when you draw a conclusion without /any/ evidence. :-P

> It does help to keep your profile current.

No argument here.

> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.

Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/ 
anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.

Basically, I used Linked-In for a while, and eventually came to the 
conclusion that it doesn't help me get where I want to go. So I stopped 
using it. (Although admittedly I didn't actually shut down my account - 
I should probably go do that, just in case...)

 From what I can tell, Linked-In seems to be aimed at high-powered 
business executives, rather than at normal people like me. Which is 
fine, presumably it's useful to those people. But it doesn't seem to be 
useful to me.

> If you don't update your profile with recent accomplishments and such,
> recruiters are going to look at it and say "yeah, this hasn't changed, so
> he's lost interest or isn't doing anything" and move on.

I've been alive 30+ years, and I don't have /any/ accomplishments yet. :-P

(It's bad enough that every time I view my profile, Linked-In insists 
that I should put in my previous job, because I'm 77x more likely to be 
contacted. Er, yeah, I don't *have* a previous job. :-P )

> But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case AFAICS.

OK. That's how most search sites of this type work. But I haven't 
actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't something I need to 
do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's an option for people 
who aren't registered recruiters...)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:21:17 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Yes, there is.  There are groups that host discussions.  There are job
>> postings posted (and it even recommends "jobs you might be interested
>> in".  I used that to find one position that I applied for and
>> interviewed extensively for - even traveling out of state for an
>> in-person interview.
> 
> Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the
> site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).

Of course, such a dynamic website would never ever be updated. m-/

Maybe you should have a look before making such declarations.  (Oh, wait, 
I forgot who I was talking to. ;) )

>> False assumption, unsupported by any amount of evidence.
> 
> Looking at evidence and reaching a conclusion isn't a "false
> assumption", even if the conclusion turns out to be incorrect. An
> /assumption/ is when you draw a conclusion without /any/ evidence. :-P

By your own admission, you haven't looked at it in 3 years.  So you've 
drawn a conclusion based on outdated knowledge.  Therefore, a false 
assumption and a poorly drawn conclusion are present.

>> It does help to keep your profile current.
> 
> No argument here.
> 
>> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.
> 
> Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/
> anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.

Invalid assumption (that it doesn't appear to allow you to do anything) 
because you HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN 3 YEARS.

>> If you don't update your profile with recent accomplishments and such,
>> recruiters are going to look at it and say "yeah, this hasn't changed,
>> so he's lost interest or isn't doing anything" and move on.
> 
> I've been alive 30+ years, and I don't have /any/ accomplishments yet.
> :-P

Bullshit.  We've been over this before.

>> But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case
>> AFAICS.
> 
> OK. That's how most search sites of this type work. 

On what factual basis do you make this claim?

> But I haven't
> actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't something I need to
> do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's an option for people
> who aren't registered recruiters...)

Yes, there is.  How do you expect to find and connect to people you know?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the
>> site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).
>
> Of course, such a dynamic website would never ever be updated. m-/

I've seen websites which are dynamic and ever-changing. Linked-In 
appears to change at roughly the speed of plate tectonics. I suppose in 
three entire /years/ they might have made visible changes though.

>>> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.
>>
>> Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/
>> anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.
>
> Invalid assumption (that it doesn't appear to allow you to do anything)
> because you HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN 3 YEARS.

I didn't expect something as stagnant and unchanging as Linked-In to 
actually, you know, change. I will admit that expectations do not always 
match reality...

>>> But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case
>>> AFAICS.
>>
>> OK. That's how most search sites of this type work.
>
> On what factual basis do you make this claim?

OK, I rephrase: Every website I've ever used which allows you to search 
for human beings seems works in this way. No, I haven't tried every such 
site in existence. But I've tried a fair few of them. Hence the claim 
that "most" such sites tend to work this way.

>> But I haven't
>> actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't something I need to
>> do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's an option for people
>> who aren't registered recruiters...)
>
> Yes, there is.  How do you expect to find and connect to people you know?

Oh, I'm sure you can search by name. Recruiters won't be searching for 
you by name though, will they? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:50:05 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the
>>> site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).
>>
>> Of course, such a dynamic website would never ever be updated. m-/
> 
> I've seen websites which are dynamic and ever-changing. Linked-In
> appears to change at roughly the speed of plate tectonics. I suppose in
> three entire /years/ they might have made visible changes though.

So you make the assumption that because /some/ websites are static and 
never change, that a site you haven't visited in 3 years must not have 
changed one bit.  m-/

>>>> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.
>>>
>>> Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/
>>> anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.
>>
>> Invalid assumption (that it doesn't appear to allow you to do anything)
>> because you HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN 3 YEARS.
> 
> I didn't expect something as stagnant and unchanging as Linked-In to
> actually, you know, change. I will admit that expectations do not always
> match reality...

*THREE YEARS* have passed since you last looked at it, Andy.  By your own 
admission.  Making an assumption based on no evidence?

>>> OK. That's how most search sites of this type work.
>>
>> On what factual basis do you make this claim?
> 
> OK, I rephrase: Every website I've ever used which allows you to search
> for human beings seems works in this way. No, I haven't tried every such
> site in existence. But I've tried a fair few of them. Hence the claim
> that "most" such sites tend to work this way.

Again, on what factual basis do you make this claim?  Restating your 
point doesn't actually answer the question.

>>> But I haven't actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't
>>> something I need to do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's
>>> an option for people who aren't registered recruiters...)
>>
>> Yes, there is.  How do you expect to find and connect to people you
>> know?
> 
> Oh, I'm sure you can search by name. Recruiters won't be searching for
> you by name though, will they? ;-)

Which is why it's important to keep updating your actual profile with 
relevant keywords and whatnot.

But you're doing a typical "Andy" thing - you're making broad assumptions 
and assertions with no evidence to back them up.

You really need to stop doing that.  Doing so won't get you far in life.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I've seen websites which are dynamic and ever-changing. Linked-In
>> appears to change at roughly the speed of plate tectonics. I suppose in
>> three entire /years/ they might have made visible changes though.
>
> So you make the assumption that because /some/ websites are static and
> never change, that a site you haven't visited in 3 years must not have
> changed one bit.  m-/

No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all 
during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time I 
haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.

>>>> OK. That's how most search sites of this type work.
>>>
>>> On what factual basis do you make this claim?
>>
>> OK, I rephrase: Every website I've ever used which allows you to search
>> for human beings seems works in this way. No, I haven't tried every such
>> site in existence. But I've tried a fair few of them. Hence the claim
>> that "most" such sites tend to work this way.
>
> Again, on what factual basis do you make this claim?  Restating your
> point doesn't actually answer the question.

I've used dozens of sites that all work the same way? That isn't a 
"factual basis" somehow?

Sure, it doesn't prove that Linked-In works this way. But it makes it a 
reasonable extrapolation.

>>> Yes, there is.  How do you expect to find and connect to people you
>>> know?
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you can search by name. Recruiters won't be searching for
>> you by name though, will they? ;-)
>
> Which is why it's important to keep updating your actual profile with
> relevant keywords and whatnot.

OK.

> But you're doing a typical "Andy" thing - you're making broad assumptions
> and assertions with no evidence to back them up.
>
> You really need to stop doing that.  Doing so won't get you far in life.

And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if the 
conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid. But that 
isn't how logical deduction actually works. It's perfectly possible for 
incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be 
true, or for quite correct information to lead you to a false 
conclusion. The fact that a conclusion is wrong does not _make_ the 
evidence wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the evidence cease to _exist_.

I'm not sure why you're so keen to pick a fight anyway. I did not say 
"Linked-In has not changed in 3 years", I said "I would not have 
_expected_ Linked-In to have changed in 3 years, based on a history of 
not changing in the past". I did not say "Linked-In lists results by 
date", I said "Linked-In _probably_ lists results by date, given that 
similar sites do it that way". And so forth.

Fundamentally, what we have is this: I used Linked-In for a while. It 
didn't seem to be helping me. So I stopped using it.

I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the 
answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:32:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> I've seen websites which are dynamic and ever-changing. Linked-In
>>> appears to change at roughly the speed of plate tectonics. I suppose
>>> in three entire /years/ they might have made visible changes though.
>>
>> So you make the assumption that because /some/ websites are static and
>> never change, that a site you haven't visited in 3 years must not have
>> changed one bit.  m-/
> 
> No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all
> during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time I
> haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.

"It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since I 
stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.

>> Again, on what factual basis do you make this claim?  Restating your
>> point doesn't actually answer the question.
> 
> I've used dozens of sites that all work the same way? That isn't a
> "factual basis" somehow?

I don't know that there are "dozens" of sites like LinkedIn.

> Sure, it doesn't prove that Linked-In works this way. But it makes it a
> reasonable extrapolation.

Have those dozens of sites failed to change in any way in the past 3 
years?  Somehow I doubt that - stagnation on the 'net isn't good for 
longevity.

>> But you're doing a typical "Andy" thing - you're making broad
>> assumptions and assertions with no evidence to back them up.
>>
>> You really need to stop doing that.  Doing so won't get you far in
>> life.
> 
> And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if the
> conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid.

Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false 
information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing a 
tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and 
even free software, at that).

> But that
> isn't how logical deduction actually works. It's perfectly possible for
> incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be
> true

Only by pure chance.

> , or for quite correct information to lead you to a false
> conclusion. 

Sure, that I'd agree with.  Invalid indirection or falsely assuming that 
correlation implies causation could do that.  (Of course, those both are 
logic faults in and of themselves)

> The fact that a conclusion is wrong does not _make_ the
> evidence wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the evidence cease to
> _exist_.

Confirmation bias is what it seems you're applying here. ;)

> I'm not sure why you're so keen to pick a fight anyway. I did not say
> "Linked-In has not changed in 3 years", I said "I would not have
> _expected_ Linked-In to have changed in 3 years, based on a history of
> not changing in the past". I did not say "Linked-In lists results by
> date", I said "Linked-In _probably_ lists results by date, given that
> similar sites do it that way". And so forth.

I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that 
(it happened on a mailing list I participate in as well - with a known 
troll, even.)

You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad 
assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.  (Which, 
given it has happened recently, is probably a good indicator of near 
future behaviours - moreso than a web site that didn't change noticibly 
between the time you started using it and stopped using it - and then 
doing nothing with it for three years is. ;) )

> Fundamentally, what we have is this: I used Linked-In for a while. It
> didn't seem to be helping me. So I stopped using it.
> 
> I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the
> answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.

I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at 
it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still think 
it sucks.  You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how 
its set up, or of how you're using it.  There are millions of people who 
do use it with some success, so it seems logical to infer from that that 
perhaps there are better ways to use it than the way you're trying to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all
>> during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time I
>> haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.
>
> "It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since I
> stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.

What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?

Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)

>>> Again, on what factual basis do you make this claim?  Restating your
>>> point doesn't actually answer the question.
>>
>> I've used dozens of sites that all work the same way? That isn't a
>> "factual basis" somehow?
>
> I don't know that there are "dozens" of sites like LinkedIn.

I don't know that there are any sites that do /exactly/ what Linked-In 
does. But there are plenty of sites that let you search humans for 
various reasons. (Exhibit A: Monster.)

>> And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if the
>> conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid.
>
> Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false
> information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing a
> tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and
> even free software, at that).

Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible" 
and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".

Sure, there might be some genius who is so skilful that he can edit the 
tripod and its shadow out of a complex image, somehow faking the details 
hidden behind these structures. But for the average person, no, this is 
not possible. (Unless you take a photograph of something so dull that 
there are no details to fake.)

>> It's perfectly possible for
>> incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be
>> true
>
> Only by pure chance.

That's my point.

If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether 
your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.

> I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that

No worries.

I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I 
guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just 
ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot. 
I'm not sure that's an improvement...

> You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad
> assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.

Or maybe just a history of not having all the facts... I guess we can't 
all be experts in everything.

>> I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the
>> answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.
>
> I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at
> it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still think
> it sucks.

Heh, the null hypothesis... ;-)

I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can 
look it up on some Russian forum...)

> You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how
> its set up, or of how you're using it.

Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody 
other than me.

> There are millions of people who
> do use it with some success, so it seems logical to infer from that that
> perhaps there are better ways to use it than the way you're trying to.

OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people 
do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists 
and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P

(Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of 
statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to 
objectively verify.)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:18:24 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all
>>> during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time
>>> I haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.
>>
>> "It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since
>> I stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.
> 
> What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?
> 
> Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)

Certainly in the space of the physical world.  I don't think decisions by 
people really qualify as a 'reproducible experiment'.

>>> And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if
>>> the conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid.
>>
>> Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false
>> information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing
>> a tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and
>> even free software, at that).
> 
> Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible"
> and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".
> 
> Sure, there might be some genius who is so skilful that he can edit the
> tripod and its shadow out of a complex image, somehow faking the details
> hidden behind these structures. But for the average person, no, this is
> not possible. (Unless you take a photograph of something so dull that
> there are no details to fake.)

For the average person, it most certainly is possible.  There are tools 
in the basic/cheap versions of Photoshop to do this sort of thing IIRC.

>>> It's perfectly possible for incorrect information to lead you to a
>>> conclusion that happens to be true
>>
>> Only by pure chance.
> 
> That's my point.
> 
> If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether
> your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.

I don't think this is the "usual case".  I've got nearly 42 years of time 
invested in this planet, and I usually make good calls about stuff.  I've 
got a good track record with it.  I don't think it's largely chance, but 
an effective ability to accurately predict outcomes based on the 
available evidence.  The brain does take intuitive shortcuts 
automatically about things.

>> I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that
> 
> No worries.
> 
> I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
> guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
> ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
> I'm not sure that's an improvement...

Well, no, it's not my intention to say "Andy, you're an idiot" - I hope 
you know that.  What you do tend to do, though, is start from a very bad 
premise and then make wild assertions that are not accurate and very 
easily verifiable.

I'll admit, sometimes it feels like you're doing it intentionally (though 
I think I know better and know you're not) just to wind people up.

>> You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad
>> assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.
> 
> Or maybe just a history of not having all the facts... I guess we can't
> all be experts in everything.

Nobody's an expert in everything, but as I said above, when you make bold 
assertions that are easily verified as being false, you affect your 
credibility.  It's one thing to make a bad guess about string theory and 
how it affects the world.  It's another thing to make a bad assertion 
about the cost and purpose of auto insurance (pulling a random example).

A good rule of thumb I use is that if a large group of people use 
something successfully and I don't, then the problem isn't with the thing 
I'm using, it's with how I'm trying to use it.

>>> I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the
>>> answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.
>>
>> I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at
>> it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still
>> think it sucks.
> 
> Heh, the null hypothesis... ;-)
> 
> I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can
> look it up on some Russian forum...)

LOL

There is a forgotten password link you can use to reset it, of course.

>> You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how its set up,
>> or of how you're using it.
> 
> Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody
> other than me.

That's certainly possible, but you are a "job seeker", and that's part of 
the target audience.  But jobs typically don't fall out of the sky into 
your lap (as you know), you have to work to find them (which you also 
know) and it can be difficult (which you also also know).

>> There are millions of people who do use it with some success, so it
>> seems logical to infer from that that perhaps there are better ways to
>> use it than the way you're trying to.
> 
> OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people
> do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists
> and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P

Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.

Look at the number of people I'm connected to.  I follow a number of 
companies and see people taking positions at new companies that had jobs 
posted on the site.

My network (out to three degrees) consists of nearly 5 million people.

Every job search professional I have talked to (recruiters, placement 
agencies, etc.) has said that networking is something that's generally a 
good predictor of success in finding employment.

It seems reasonable to build the case that with (a) a good set of data 
(not necessarily a large volume of data, but a good set - in fact, a 
large set can be a deterrent, just ask anyone who has a 35-page CV how 
successful they are at finding work) on an individual basis, (b) a large 
network of people in your field, and (c) someone in a company knowing 
about a position that's a good fit for you because they know you, that 
such a site is going to be successful in helping lots of people find work.

> (Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of
> statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to
> objectively verify.)

See above. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 6:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >  I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
>> >  guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
>> >  ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
>> >  I'm not sure that's an improvement...

You're doing it again, I am sorry to say. You are not a bad human being. 
You don't even come close. "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being. 
You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.

> I'll admit, sometimes it feels like you're doing it intentionally (though
> I think I know better and know you're not) just to wind people up.
>

You are right, it is almost troll-ish.

BTW Andrew, have you ever tried to play Grieg's In the hall of the 
mountain king? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:36:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being.
> You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.

I don't think Michael Godwin was a bad human being.  Or do you mean 
Hitler? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 7:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:36:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being.
>> You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.
>
> I don't think Michael Godwin was a bad human being.  Or do you mean
> Hitler? ;)
>

And points mean?... :-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/06/2012 7:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:36:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being.
>>> You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.
>>
>> I don't think Michael Godwin was a bad human being.  Or do you mean
>> Hitler? ;)
>>
>>
> And points mean?... :-)

Prizes! :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> You're doing it again, I am sorry to say. You are not a bad human being.
> You don't even come close. "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being.
> You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.

In that case, I rephrase: A human in need of serious readjustment.

>> I'll admit, sometimes it feels like you're doing it intentionally (though
>> I think I know better and know you're not) just to wind people up.
>
> You are right, it is almost troll-ish.

If people aren't sure *if* you're a troll, you're doing it wrong.

Oh, unless you're *trying* to be a troll. In which case, you're winning...

> BTW Andrew, have you ever tried to play Grieg's In the hall of the
> mountain king? ;-)

Actually, yes... I *think* I succeeded.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 8:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>>
>>>
>> And points mean?... :-)
>
> Prizes! :)

Well, they do say that time flies when you're having fun, and to prove 
it I notice my sundial has stopped...


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

arn't we allOn 08/06/2012 9:38 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> You're doing it again, I am sorry to say. You are not a bad human being.
>> You don't even come close. "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being.
>> You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.
>
> In that case, I rephrase: A human in need of serious readjustment.
>

Aren't we all?

>>
>> You are right, it is almost troll-ish.
>
> If people aren't sure *if* you're a troll, you're doing it wrong.
>
> Oh, unless you're *trying* to be a troll. In which case, you're winning...

Get back under your bridge :-P

>
>> BTW Andrew, have you ever tried to play Grieg's In the hall of the
>> mountain king? ;-)
>
> Actually, yes... I *think* I succeeded.

Well done, that man.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:44:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/06/2012 8:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>
>>> And points mean?... :-)
>>
>> Prizes! :)
> 
> Well, they do say that time flies when you're having fun, and to prove
> it I notice my sundial has stopped...

That sounds like fun after dark. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> "It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since
>>> I stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.
>>
>> What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?
>>
>> Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)
>
> Certainly in the space of the physical world.  I don't think decisions by
> people really qualify as a 'reproducible experiment'.

Damn. We should go tell the psychology experts... ;-)

>> Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible"
>> and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".
>
> For the average person, it most certainly is possible.  There are tools
> in the basic/cheap versions of Photoshop to do this sort of thing IIRC.

There is no magical "tool" which can correctly guess what is hidden 
behind a solid object.

I'm aware that there *are* people who possess the skill to do utterly 
amazing things with photo editors. But that doesn't mean that everybody 
can do this. It's not a question of having a magic "tool"; it's about 
being sufficiently skilful to find ways to trick the eye. From what I've 
seen, few people have such skills.

>>>> It's perfectly possible for incorrect information to lead you to a
>>>> conclusion that happens to be true
>>>
>>> Only by pure chance.
>>
>> That's my point.
>>
>> If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether
>> your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.
>
> I don't think this is the "usual case".

Usually what you know about a thing is utterly dwarfed by what you don't 
know. The question is whether you know the important facts - which is 
usually a matter of chance.

>> I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
>> guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
>> ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
>> I'm not sure that's an improvement...
>
> Well, no, it's not my intention to say "Andy, you're an idiot" - I hope
> you know that.  What you do tend to do, though, is start from a very bad
> premise and then make wild assertions that are not accurate and very
> easily verifiable.

Statements like this make me wonder where this vast endless source of 
"easy" counter-examples is... It's as if the entire world knows 
something that I don't.

>> I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can
>> look it up on some Russian forum...)
>
> LOL
>
> There is a forgotten password link you can use to reset it, of course.

Nah, it's probably the same password I use for everything else...

...oh. ****. >_<

>> Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody
>> other than me.
>
> That's certainly possible, but you are a "job seeker", and that's part of
> the target audience.

As I say, I get the impression (I'm not sure precisely why) that it's 
mainly targeted at high-powered business executives in upper management. 
(These are the people who are usually obsessed with "networking", for 
example.) Since I am not one of those people, perhaps this isn't an 
appropriate tool for me, which is why it looks useless when I look at it.

(Alternatively, perhaps I'm just mistaken...)

> But jobs typically don't fall out of the sky into
> your lap (as you know), you have to work to find them (which you also
> know) and it can be difficult (which you also also know).

Sure. As I say, last time I looked, there didn't seem to be anything to 
"work at". Once you've filled in all the fields, that's about it. Unless 
they really have /radically/ altered the capabilities of the site...

>>> There are millions of people who do use it with some success, so it
>>> seems logical to infer from that that perhaps there are better ways to
>>> use it than the way you're trying to.
>>
>> OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people
>> do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists
>> and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P
>
> Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.

Back atcha. ;-)

> Look at the number of people I'm connected to.  I follow a number of
> companies and see people taking positions at new companies that had jobs
> posted on the site.

So, there's indirect evidence that some of the people on the site lead 
quite successful careers. That's a correlation, but not necessarily a 
causal relationship.

> My network (out to three degrees) consists of nearly 5 million people.

So there's a lot of people /on/ the site.

> Every job search professional I have talked to (recruiters, placement
> agencies, etc.) has said that networking is something that's generally a
> good predictor of success in finding employment.

I don't get the whole "networking" thing. I mean, hypothetically I can 
see why it might work. But I have no idea how you'd go about this in the 
real world, nor do I directly know of any instances where this has been 
a successful approach for somebody. Maybe I haven't seen networking 
succeed because I don't do any networking and I don't know anybody else 
that does, IDK... It just seems a slightly strange concept.

>> (Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of
>> statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to
>> objectively verify.)
>
> See above. :)

For example, how do you know that "millions" have found it useful? Not, 
say, "thousands"? The number of people on the site is not necessarily 
the number who have actually found it beneficial.

In general, I imagine it's quite hard to scientifically quantify this. 
(What counts as "beneficial" or "not beneficial"? How do you put a 
number on that?)

Post a reply to this message

>> In that case, I rephrase: A human in need of serious readjustment.
>
> Aren't we all?

Everything can be improved. This is not the same as saying that 
everything is equally optimal.

>>> BTW Andrew, have you ever tried to play Grieg's In the hall of the
>>> mountain king? ;-)
>>
>> Actually, yes... I *think* I succeeded.
>
> Well done, that man.

I used to love that song, until Altern Towers overused it...

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 9:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:44:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/2012 8:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>> And points mean?... :-)
>>>
>>> Prizes! :)
>>
>> Well, they do say that time flies when you're having fun, and to prove
>> it I notice my sundial has stopped...
>
> That sounds like fun after dark. ;)
>

Talking about “After dark”, there is still eight days until TC-RTC 
finishes. ;-)

...and so, ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of the show, and you 
must agree, it certainly ticked all the boxes - particularly those 
marked 'terrible' and 'rubbish'...



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 10:03 PM, Stephen wrote:

> ...and so, ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of the show, and you
> must agree, it certainly ticked all the boxes - particularly those
> marked 'terrible' and 'rubbish'...

http://tinyurl.com/28oz8fu

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 9:57 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>
> Everything can be improved. This is not the same as saying that
> everything is equally optimal.
>

Too deep for me, I am afraid. o_O

>>>> BTW Andrew, have you ever tried to play Grieg's In the hall of the
>>>> mountain king? ;-)
>>>
>>> Actually, yes... I *think* I succeeded.
>>
>> Well done, that man.
>
> I used to love that song, until Altern Towers overused it...

Woosh! That goes right over my head.

And be true to your shelf-ish.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 9:56 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> There is no magical "tool" which can correctly guess what is hidden
> behind a solid object.

Even if the object is made of glass? :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 10:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 10:03 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> ...and so, ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of the show, and you
>> must agree, it certainly ticked all the boxes - particularly those
>> marked 'terrible' and 'rubbish'...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28oz8fu
>


That’s the problem, you have all the wrong references.

Unless…

You’re a Geek?

And if you are a geek. Don’t expect to fit in with the muggles. They are 
just as weird but there are more of them.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:03:29 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/06/2012 9:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:44:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/06/2012 8:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And points mean?... :-)
>>>>
>>>> Prizes! :)
>>>
>>> Well, they do say that time flies when you're having fun, and to prove
>>> it I notice my sundial has stopped...
>>
>> That sounds like fun after dark. ;)
>>
>>
> Talking about “After dark”, there is still eight days until TC-RTC
> finishes. ;-)
> 
> ...and so, ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of the show, and you
> must agree, it certainly ticked all the boxes - particularly those
> marked 'terrible' and 'rubbish'...

:)

Are you perhaps hinting that a new series is imminent?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:56:07 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> For the average person, it most certainly is possible.  There are tools
>> in the basic/cheap versions of Photoshop to do this sort of thing IIRC.
> 
> There is no magical "tool" which can correctly guess what is hidden
> behind a solid object.

No, but if you have a picture that shows what's behind a solid object, 
then you can in fact mask out the object.

Photoshop also now has a plugin that can do a reasonable fill that looks 
good to do things like remove a tree from the foreground and replace it 
with grass, that kind of thing.  That's much easier than, for example, 
removing people from a picture.

But if you take a series of photos with people walking in front of the 
subject, in general, you can paint people out and replace them with 
what's behind them using data from other shots in the series.

That's how it's done, generally.

> I'm aware that there *are* people who possess the skill to do utterly
> amazing things with photo editors. But that doesn't mean that everybody
> can do this. It's not a question of having a magic "tool"; it's about
> being sufficiently skilful to find ways to trick the eye. From what I've
> seen, few people have such skills.

Well, you are working from a very small sample.

>>> That's my point.
>>>
>>> If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then
>>> whether your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.
>>
>> I don't think this is the "usual case".
> 
> Usually what you know about a thing is utterly dwarfed by what you don't
> know. The question is whether you know the important facts - which is
> usually a matter of chance.

That's not been my experience.  It is possible to seek out the important 
facts before making a decision.

Business intelligence systems do exactly that, in fact.

>> Well, no, it's not my intention to say "Andy, you're an idiot" - I hope
>> you know that.  What you do tend to do, though, is start from a very
>> bad premise and then make wild assertions that are not accurate and
>> very easily verifiable.
> 
> Statements like this make me wonder where this vast endless source of
> "easy" counter-examples is... It's as if the entire world knows
> something that I don't.

How to properly use google? <scnr>

>>> I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I
>>> can look it up on some Russian forum...)
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> There is a forgotten password link you can use to reset it, of course.
> 
> Nah, it's probably the same password I use for everything else...
> 
> ...oh. ****. >_<

I smell a problem....

>>> Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody
>>> other than me.
>>
>> That's certainly possible, but you are a "job seeker", and that's part
>> of the target audience.
> 
> As I say, I get the impression (I'm not sure precisely why) that it's
> mainly targeted at high-powered business executives in upper management.
> (These are the people who are usually obsessed with "networking", for
> example.) Since I am not one of those people, perhaps this isn't an
> appropriate tool for me, which is why it looks useless when I look at
> it.
> 
> (Alternatively, perhaps I'm just mistaken...)

Yep, you are.  I'm certainly not a 'high powered business executive in 
upper management", but I do happen to have worked with a lot of people in 
several different fields.

>> But jobs typically don't fall out of the sky into your lap (as you
>> know), you have to work to find them (which you also know) and it can
>> be difficult (which you also also know).
> 
> Sure. As I say, last time I looked, there didn't seem to be anything to
> "work at". Once you've filled in all the fields, that's about it. Unless
> they really have /radically/ altered the capabilities of the site...

Well, there's also the question of your unwillingness to go where the 
work is, or your unwillingness to believe that anyone on the planet who 
works a "normal" job makes enough to live on.

Even with plenty of real-life examples demonstrating the opposite.

Heck, I was laid off last May.  I didn't work again until October, and 
it's been contract work ever since.  A couple of really tight months 
financially, but we haven't lost the house and are still paying all the 
bills.

>>> OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people
>>> do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still
>>> exists and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an
>>> assumption? :-P
>>
>> Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.
> 
> Back atcha. ;-)

It always makes me smile when you take a stand on something.  Even when 
the stand isn't necessarily logical in my view.  You have changed in that 
regard, and it's a good change.  :)

>> Look at the number of people I'm connected to.  I follow a number of
>> companies and see people taking positions at new companies that had
>> jobs posted on the site.
> 
> So, there's indirect evidence that some of the people on the site lead
> quite successful careers. That's a correlation, but not necessarily a
> causal relationship.

Sure, it's not a causal relationship - but even if you consider the 
possibility that 0.01% of the people on LinkedIn have successfully used 
it to find work (and that's an extremely conservative estimate), that's 
still 500 people who have found jobs using it just in my network alone.

>> My network (out to three degrees) consists of nearly 5 million people.
> 
> So there's a lot of people /on/ the site.

And it stands to reason if it were a waste of time, people wouldn't spend 
time on the site, would they?  (The point of LinkedIn isn't to waste 
time, it's to build a professional network.  Facebook, OTOH, is 
essentially there for people to waste time on so they can be the 
'product' sold to advertisers - the two aren't really equivalent).

>> Every job search professional I have talked to (recruiters, placement
>> agencies, etc.) has said that networking is something that's generally
>> a good predictor of success in finding employment.
> 
> I don't get the whole "networking" thing. I mean, hypothetically I can
> see why it might work. But I have no idea how you'd go about this in the
> real world, nor do I directly know of any instances where this has been
> a successful approach for somebody. Maybe I haven't seen networking
> succeed because I don't do any networking and I don't know anybody else
> that does, IDK... It just seems a slightly strange concept.

Well, I've had it work for me in the past.  In fact, the contract work 
I'm doing right now is due to networking - I applied for a position with 
a local company, and while I wasn't hired by that company, someone 
external to the company involved in the selection process saw my CV and 
gave me a call for another project she was working on.

I've been working "for" her (as an independent contractor) ever since.

The job before the one I was laid off from (or rather, the company), I 
met a recruiter at a user group meeting who introduced me to the hiring 
manager at the company - and I was originally going to contract to them, 
but they bought the contract out and hired me directly.

So there's two examples.

>>> (Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort
>>> of statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to
>>> objectively verify.)
>>
>> See above. :)
> 
> For example, how do you know that "millions" have found it useful? Not,
> say, "thousands"? The number of people on the site is not necessarily
> the number who have actually found it beneficial.

It stands to reason that if it weren't beneficial, people would stop 
using it.  After all, you didn't find it beneficial, and you stopped 
using it.  That's actually a perfectly natural reaction.

So are you assuming you're the only one who stopped using it because you 
didn't find it beneficial?

> In general, I imagine it's quite hard to scientifically quantify this.
> (What counts as "beneficial" or "not beneficial"? How do you put a
> number on that?)

Found something they were looking for using the service.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> http://tinyurl.com/28oz8fu
>
> That’s the problem, you have all the wrong references.
>
> Unless…
>
> You’re a Geek?
>
> And if you are a geek. Don’t expect to fit in with the muggles. They are
> just as weird but there are more of them.

http://tinyurl.com/cjscp68

Post a reply to this message

>> There is no magical "tool" which can correctly guess what is hidden
>> behind a solid object.
>
> No, but if you have a picture that shows what's behind a solid object,
> then you can in fact mask out the object.

Sure. That I can believe. Doing it from just one photo isn't so easy.

>>> I don't think this is the "usual case".
>>
>> Usually what you know about a thing is utterly dwarfed by what you don't
>> know. The question is whether you know the important facts - which is
>> usually a matter of chance.
>
> That's not been my experience.  It is possible to seek out the important
> facts before making a decision.
>
> Business intelligence systems do exactly that, in fact.

Doesn't BI involve paying vast sums of money to /collect/ the necessary 
information?

>> Statements like this make me wonder where this vast endless source of
>> "easy" counter-examples is... It's as if the entire world knows
>> something that I don't.
>
> How to properly use google?<scnr>

You laugh, but this is actually non-trivial.

If I had a penny for all the times I've been utterly frustrated in my 
efforts to find information using Google, I'd be very rich by now. 
(Obviously I can't think of a single concrete example right now. That 
would be too useful...)

>> As I say, I get the impression (I'm not sure precisely why) that it's
>> mainly targeted at high-powered business executives in upper management.
>> (These are the people who are usually obsessed with "networking", for
>> example.) Since I am not one of those people, perhaps this isn't an
>> appropriate tool for me, which is why it looks useless when I look at
>> it.
>>
>> (Alternatively, perhaps I'm just mistaken...)
>
> Yep, you are.  I'm certainly not a 'high powered business executive in
> upper management", but I do happen to have worked with a lot of people in
> several different fields.

OK, fair enough.

> Well, there's also the question of your unwillingness to go where the
> work is

I live in a city with a population of 200,000 people, and an 
unemployment rate well below the national average. /Clearly/ there are 
jobs here. I just need to find them.

> or your unwillingness to believe that anyone on the planet who
> works a "normal" job makes enough to live on.

Uh, when did I say that?

> Heck, I was laid off last May.  I didn't work again until October, and
> it's been contract work ever since.  A couple of really tight months
> financially, but we haven't lost the house and are still paying all the
> bills.

Then clearly you are a far better person than I am.

One time my sister got laid off. 5 days later, she was on the phone 
complaining that of the 3 written job offers she had received from the 5 
interviews she attended, she couldn't decide which one sounded the nicest.

She went to more interviews in 5 days than I've been to in my entire 
working life. But then, she has skills that people actually want, and 
she apparently knows how to find those people, so...

>>> Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.
>>
>> Back atcha. ;-)
>
> It always makes me smile when you take a stand on something.  Even when
> the stand isn't necessarily logical in my view.  You have changed in that
> regard, and it's a good change.  :)

It's good to be righteous. It's not so good when you're actually wrong. :-/

>> So there's a lot of people /on/ the site.
>
> And it stands to reason if it were a waste of time, people wouldn't spend
> time on the site, would they?  (The point of LinkedIn isn't to waste
> time, it's to build a professional network.  Facebook, OTOH, is
> essentially there for people to waste time on so they can be the
> 'product' sold to advertisers - the two aren't really equivalent).

Yeah, I'm really not seeing how Facebook is still in business. It must 
cost /millions/ to run all those servers. And yet, their idea of 
"targeted adverts" is about as precise as a blunderbuss. It just seems 
like some day somebody is going to figure out the emperor's magical 
invisible suite is actually non-existent...

>> I don't get the whole "networking" thing. I mean, hypothetically I can
>> see why it might work. But I have no idea how you'd go about this in the
>> real world, nor do I directly know of any instances where this has been
>> a successful approach for somebody. Maybe I haven't seen networking
>> succeed because I don't do any networking and I don't know anybody else
>> that does, IDK... It just seems a slightly strange concept.
>
> Well, I've had it work for me in the past.  In fact, the contract work
> I'm doing right now is due to networking - I applied for a position with
> a local company, and while I wasn't hired by that company, someone
> external to the company involved in the selection process saw my CV and
> gave me a call for another project she was working on.
>
> I've been working "for" her (as an independent contractor) ever since.
>
> The job before the one I was laid off from (or rather, the company), I
> met a recruiter at a user group meeting who introduced me to the hiring
> manager at the company - and I was originally going to contract to them,
> but they bought the contract out and hired me directly.
>
> So there's two examples.

OK.

>> For example, how do you know that "millions" have found it useful? Not,
>> say, "thousands"? The number of people on the site is not necessarily
>> the number who have actually found it beneficial.
>
> It stands to reason that if it weren't beneficial, people would stop
> using it.  After all, you didn't find it beneficial, and you stopped
> using it.  That's actually a perfectly natural reaction.
>
> So are you assuming you're the only one who stopped using it because you
> didn't find it beneficial?

We'd need to see numbers for how many people signed up, and how many 
people subsequently left.

My profile is still live on the system. It looks like I'm still a 
Linked-In user. And yet, I haven't used it in 3 years. So don't use /my/ 
presence as an indicator of usefulness.

How many of the other profiles are ghosts? I guess that's the opportune 
question...

Regarding Facebook: How many of those profiles are for somebody's cat? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 10:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Are you perhaps hinting that a new series is imminent?
>

In May the first recordings were done for the 57th series.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 11:05 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/28oz8fu
>>
>> That’s the problem, you have all the wrong references.
>>
>> Unless…
>>
>> You’re a Geek?
>>
>> And if you are a geek. Don’t expect to fit in with the muggles. They are
>> just as weird but there are more of them.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cjscp68

Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

Rosencrantz:
My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:28:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/06/2012 10:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Are you perhaps hinting that a new series is imminent?
>>
>>
> In May the first recordings were done for the 57th series.

That's what I remembered hearing - know offhand when they're airing?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:24:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> There is no magical "tool" which can correctly guess what is hidden
>>> behind a solid object.
>>
>> No, but if you have a picture that shows what's behind a solid object,
>> then you can in fact mask out the object.
> 
> Sure. That I can believe. Doing it from just one photo isn't so easy.

I never claimed it was done from one photo.  Apparently I wasn't clear on 
that point.

>> That's not been my experience.  It is possible to seek out the
>> important facts before making a decision.
>>
>> Business intelligence systems do exactly that, in fact.
> 
> Doesn't BI involve paying vast sums of money to /collect/ the necessary
> information?

Not always (in my experience, not often).

BI involves collecting sales data and information about purchases in a 
lot of cases.  That's data that retail establishments and sales forces 
have as a result of actually selling stuff.

>>> Statements like this make me wonder where this vast endless source of
>>> "easy" counter-examples is... It's as if the entire world knows
>>> something that I don't.
>>
>> How to properly use google?<scnr>
> 
> You laugh, but this is actually non-trivial.

Not in my experience.  But then again, when I was in high school selling 
software and computer books, I was often amazed when people would grab a 
book of the shelf and just flip through it to find what they were looking 
for, rather than looking in the index or TOC first.

I always would start doing word association on the topic and go straight 
to the index.

>> Well, there's also the question of your unwillingness to go where the
>> work is
> 
> I live in a city with a population of 200,000 people, and an
> unemployment rate well below the national average. /Clearly/ there are
> jobs here. I just need to find them.

You've also stated (in the past, maybe it's changed) that you hate living 
there except that it's logically laid out and you can find stuff easily.

But yeah, there are probably jobs there, just perhaps not in the fields 
you're interested in.

When you start filtering by too many criteria, you end up with no 
options.  The logical thing to do when that happens is to relax some of 
the criteria, such as where you're willing to look or what you're willing 
to take as a job.

>> or your unwillingness to believe that anyone on the planet who works a
>> "normal" job makes enough to live on.
> 
> Uh, when did I say that?

It's been a couple of years probably, when you and I were talking about 
it being good for you to move out of your mum's place.  You asserted that 
it simply isn't possible for anyone to make enough money to buy a house 
or rent a flat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

>> Heck, I was laid off last May.  I didn't work again until October, and
>> it's been contract work ever since.  A couple of really tight months
>> financially, but we haven't lost the house and are still paying all the
>> bills.
> 
> Then clearly you are a far better person than I am.

I had a reasonable severance package, and my contract rate is decent - 
not outstanding, but decent.  There are some things we're not willing to 
give up, like eating out fairly regularly (which is expensive).

> One time my sister got laid off. 5 days later, she was on the phone
> complaining that of the 3 written job offers she had received from the 5
> interviews she attended, she couldn't decide which one sounded the
> nicest.

I had hoped for a situation like that.  It didn't happen.  I actually had 
an interview the week after the layoff, but I was so badly out of 
practice that I blew it by starting a conversation about pay and 
benefits.  That comes when an offer is made, not at the start of the 
conversation.

>>>> Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.
>>>
>>> Back atcha. ;-)
>>
>> It always makes me smile when you take a stand on something.  Even when
>> the stand isn't necessarily logical in my view.  You have changed in
>> that regard, and it's a good change.  :)
> 
> It's good to be righteous. It's not so good when you're actually wrong.
> :-/

It's good practice.  The stakes ultimately are pretty low here, so it's a 
largely safe environment to try stuff out and see what works and what 
doesn't.

"Practice makes perfect" and all that.

>>> So there's a lot of people /on/ the site.
>>
>> And it stands to reason if it were a waste of time, people wouldn't
>> spend time on the site, would they?  (The point of LinkedIn isn't to
>> waste time, it's to build a professional network.  Facebook, OTOH, is
>> essentially there for people to waste time on so they can be the
>> 'product' sold to advertisers - the two aren't really equivalent).
> 
> Yeah, I'm really not seeing how Facebook is still in business. It must
> cost /millions/ to run all those servers. And yet, their idea of
> "targeted adverts" is about as precise as a blunderbuss. It just seems
> like some day somebody is going to figure out the emperor's magical
> invisible suite is actually non-existent...

It may well - I understand they use SSD storage exclusively (local 
company here in Utah called Fusion-IO provides the hardware, 
apparently).  It's all about advertising, apparently.  Dunno how they 
manage it with ad blockers and things like the fb purity, but I figure 
that's not my problem.  If it goes away, I likely won't miss it.

>>> For example, how do you know that "millions" have found it useful?
>>> Not, say, "thousands"? The number of people on the site is not
>>> necessarily the number who have actually found it beneficial.
>>
>> It stands to reason that if it weren't beneficial, people would stop
>> using it.  After all, you didn't find it beneficial, and you stopped
>> using it.  That's actually a perfectly natural reaction.
>>
>> So are you assuming you're the only one who stopped using it because
>> you didn't find it beneficial?
> 
> We'd need to see numbers for how many people signed up, and how many
> people subsequently left.

Perhaps.

> My profile is still live on the system. It looks like I'm still a
> Linked-In user. And yet, I haven't used it in 3 years. So don't use /my/
> presence as an indicator of usefulness.

Well, you also only have 7 connections, IIRC.  One of the useful things 
to do, though, is to have someone you know introduce you to someone they 
know.  That's how I ended up with an interview in Portland - a colleague 
of mine in Florida knows the HR person at the company I applied to, and 
he introduced me.  Within 2 weeks, I had an in-person interview.  Sadly, 
they didn't feel that what they wanted out of my presentation was 
provided by what I presented to them, and they were looking for a 100% 
match.  They even said I was very well qualified, but that I "didn't 
follow the instructions given" and "didn't show an appropriate amount of 
enthusiasm and investment in the company".  The former I fault myself 
for, for assuming I understood their instructions (and not insisting 
earlier in the process of being told what I should be prepared to present 
on); the latter, I fault them for, because corporate enthusiasm is 
something that can be taught, and to reject a candidate because they 
weren't bouncing off the walls about your product/service even though 
they're highly qualified in the field is just silly.

> How many of the other profiles are ghosts? I guess that's the opportune
> question...
> 
> Regarding Facebook: How many of those profiles are for somebody's cat?
> ;-)

Far, far too many.  I've got a friend on Facebook who has a page for her 
African Grey parrot and for her dog.  I think her cat also has one, now I 
think about it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 12:57 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's what I remembered hearing - know offhand when they're airing?

'Fraid not.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> How to properly use google?<scnr>
>>
>> You laugh, but this is actually non-trivial.
>
> Not in my experience.

The double-negatives make this ambiguous.

> But then again, when I was in high school selling
> software and computer books, I was often amazed when people would grab a
> book of the shelf and just flip through it to find what they were looking
> for, rather than looking in the index or TOC first.

To be fair, depending on what you're looking for, the TOC may not be 
that helpful. The index usually works though. It depends how badly put 
together the book is.

>> I live in a city with a population of 200,000 people, and an
>> unemployment rate well below the national average. /Clearly/ there are
>> jobs here. I just need to find them.
>
> You've also stated (in the past, maybe it's changed) that you hate living
> there except that it's logically laid out and you can find stuff easily.

I don't hate living here, it's my favourite place. I hate living WITH MY 
MUM, that's for sure. ;-)

> But yeah, there are probably jobs there, just perhaps not in the fields
> you're interested in.

Perhaps. I very much doubt anyone here wants computer programmers. But 
the guy who looks after the computers? Surely any company that has a lot 
of computers will want one of those. (Doesn't mean they need a new one 
though...)

> When you start filtering by too many criteria, you end up with no
> options.  The logical thing to do when that happens is to relax some of
> the criteria, such as where you're willing to look or what you're willing
> to take as a job.

Sure. And if a job was in, say, Northampton, that would be fine. 
Anything that's within a reasonable commuting distance of where I live.

>>> or your unwillingness to believe that anyone on the planet who works a
>>> "normal" job makes enough to live on.
>>
>> Uh, when did I say that?
>
> It's been a couple of years probably, when you and I were talking about
> it being good for you to move out of your mum's place.  You asserted that
> it simply isn't possible for anyone to make enough money to buy a house
> or rent a flat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

Interesting...

>> It's good to be righteous. It's not so good when you're actually wrong.
>> :-/
>
> It's good practice.  The stakes ultimately are pretty low here, so it's a
> largely safe environment to try stuff out and see what works and what
> doesn't.
>
> "Practice makes perfect" and all that.

Try "practice makes permanent" and you'll be nearer the mark. ;-)

And hey, I've actually /met/ a tiny few of the people on here, so... 
(Damn, if only I could remember their names!)

>> Yeah, I'm really not seeing how Facebook is still in business. It must
>> cost /millions/ to run all those servers. And yet, their idea of
>> "targeted adverts" is about as precise as a blunderbuss. It just seems
>> like some day somebody is going to figure out the emperor's magical
>> invisible suite is actually non-existent...
>
> It may well - I understand they use SSD storage exclusively (local
> company here in Utah called Fusion-IO provides the hardware,
> apparently).  It's all about advertising, apparently.  Dunno how they
> manage it with ad blockers and things like the fb purity, but I figure
> that's not my problem.  If it goes away, I likely won't miss it.

It seems to be classic Internet bubble type stuff. Everybody is really 
excited about how much money Facebook is going to start making ANY DAY 
NOW... and yet, where's the money?

>> My profile is still live on the system. It looks like I'm still a
>> Linked-In user. And yet, I haven't used it in 3 years. So don't use /my/
>> presence as an indicator of usefulness.
>
> Well, you also only have 7 connections, IIRC.  One of the useful things
> to do, though, is to have someone you know introduce you to someone they
> know.  That's how I ended up with an interview in Portland - a colleague
> of mine in Florida knows the HR person at the company I applied to, and
> he introduced me.  Within 2 weeks, I had an in-person interview.

The idea that somebody actually knows the guy who does the hiring just 
seems... really, really far-out. I mean, I suppose there must *be* a guy 
who does the hiring, and *somebody* must know that guy. But the chances 
of actually connecting with that guy seem vanishingly small. It would be 
like winning the lottery or something.

Actually, you know what? What /really/ sounds far-fetched to me is that 
somebody would know somebody who needs to make a hire, and that person 
would think that *I* am even worth mentioning. I have no skills useful 
in a workplace. I find it hard to imagine anybody wanting to hire me...

> the latter, I fault them for, because corporate enthusiasm is
> something that can be taught, and to reject a candidate because they
> weren't bouncing off the walls about your product/service even though
> they're highly qualified in the field is just silly.

Yeah, about that...

So in the interview, they always seem to ask you something along the 
lines of "what excites you about our company?" or "why did you choose 
us?" or something similar.

The desired response, apparently, is some eulogy about how this company 
is unparalleled in the industry and how the company's vision will 
transform my career or something like that.

Why did I pick this company? The honest truth is obviously "this is all 
I could find". I know that. The person interviewing me must, surely, 
know that too. (Unless they're a total moron.) And yet, if you say that, 
you're instantly removed from consideration. WTF?

I mean, if you were applying to work for *Google* or somebody, yes, you 
could legitimately claim to be actually *excited* about the prospect. 
But for any other company? It's a job. I need the money. End of story. 
It seems silly to have to pretend otherwise...

>> How many of the other profiles are ghosts? I guess that's the opportune
>> question...
>>
>> Regarding Facebook: How many of those profiles are for somebody's cat?
>> ;-)
>
> Far, far too many.  I've got a friend on Facebook who has a page for her
> African Grey parrot and for her dog.  I think her cat also has one, now I
> think about it.

I read an article somewhere about how investors hear that there are X 
million accounts on Facebook and they think "wow, if I could just be on 
Facebook, I could have X million customers!" Yet these same investors 
don't really understand what "be on Facebook" actually means. And most 
of those millions of profile are for people's cat, fictional TV 
characters, people's children who can't read or write yet, etc. (E.g., 
Jamie's son has a profile. He's 4 weeks old. His mum posts all the 
actual stuff...)

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 12:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> And hey, I've actually /met/ a tiny few of the people on here, so...
> (Damn, if only I could remember their names!)

So much for fame.
I obviously made a big impression. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-06-08 06:18, Invisible a écrit :
> I don't know that there are any sites that do /exactly/ what Linked-In
> does. But there are plenty of sites that let you search humans for
> various reasons. (Exhibit A: Monster.)
>

Monster is nothing like LinkedIn.  Linked-In is much closer to Facebook 
than Monster.

In Linked-in, you are supposed to build a network of contacts (school 
buddies, coworkers, family, etc...), which then lets you get introduced 
to THEIR contacts, etc... Hopefully helping you on your quest to find a 
good job.  E.g.:  There's this guy in your dance classes that works in 
accounting at a big company.  You become a contact in LinkedIn. While 
taking a break, he mentions the sad state of their IT.  YOu say: "I 
betcha I could help improve things."  The next day, you ask him over 
LinkedIn to introduce you to his HR rep or IT manager.  you get 
introduced, you go on an interview, you may not get hired, but the HR 
person knows you exist, and when the time comes to hire an Haskell 
expert, she'll have one in her network already.

Just like Facebook or Myspace, LinkedIn lets post blog-like messages; 
you can make recommendations on books, seminars, speeches, and other 
people's work.  You can also participate in various forums on a variety 
of topics.

You can (and could back in 2007, when I joined! so it must have been 
there when you did too) also join trade groups, alumni groups, interest 
groups, etc...  All have mailing lists that will let you know of other 
group members' postings, forum discussions, etc...

> I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
> guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
> ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
> I'm not sure that's an improvement...

I don't think anyone here thinks you're an idiot. You do have a tendency 
to make broad assumptions, combined with hyperbole when discussing 
topics that you haven't researched properly.  People who know about 
those topics will then have a knee-jerk reaction and point out the 
errors of your ways.  What irks them is that you appear unwilling to 
learn from your mistakes and will continue to argue ad vitam aeternam 
why you think there's nothing wrong with your initial impression.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 03:11 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-06-08 06:18, Invisible a écrit :
>> I don't know that there are any sites that do /exactly/ what Linked-In
>> does. But there are plenty of sites that let you search humans for
>> various reasons. (Exhibit A: Monster.)
>>
>
> Monster is nothing like LinkedIn. Linked-In is much closer to Facebook
> than Monster.

Both LinkedIn and Monster let you search for humans for work-related 
purposes though. That was the comparison I was going for.

> In Linked-in, you are supposed to build a network of contacts (school
> buddies, coworkers, family, etc...), which then lets you get introduced
> to THEIR contacts, etc... Hopefully helping you on your quest to find a
> good job. E.g.: There's this guy in your dance classes that works in
> accounting at a big company. You become a contact in LinkedIn. While
> taking a break, he mentions the sad state of their IT. YOu say: "I
> betcha I could help improve things." The next day, you ask him over
> LinkedIn to introduce you to his HR rep or IT manager. you get
> introduced, you go on an interview, you may not get hired, but the HR
> person knows you exist, and when the time comes to hire an Haskell
> expert, she'll have one in her network already.

That's a great story. Pity I don't know anybody like that...

> Just like Facebook or Myspace, LinkedIn lets post blog-like messages;
> you can make recommendations on books, seminars, speeches, and other
> people's work. You can also participate in various forums on a variety
> of topics.
>
> You can (and could back in 2007, when I joined! so it must have been
> there when you did too) also join trade groups, alumni groups, interest
> groups, etc... All have mailing lists that will let you know of other
> group members' postings, forum discussions, etc...

1. I had no idea that any of this functionality existed.

2. I'm not really sure how you would use such functionality to do 
anything "useful". (Not that I'm saying you can't, I'm just saying I'm 
not sure how.)

>> I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
>> guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
>> ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
>> I'm not sure that's an improvement...
>
> I don't think anyone here thinks you're an idiot. You do have a tendency
> to make broad assumptions, combined with hyperbole when discussing
> topics that you haven't researched properly. People who know about those
> topics will then have a knee-jerk reaction and point out the errors of
> your ways. What irks them is that you appear unwilling to learn from
> your mistakes and will continue to argue ad vitam aeternam why you think
> there's nothing wrong with your initial impression.

Being mistaken is common enough. Failing to learn from your mistakes? I 
think that probably /does/ qualify somebody as an idiot.

Alternatively, somebody phrased it like this:

   "Every man is a damned fool for five minutes of every day. Wisdom 
resides in not exceeding this quota."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:40:52 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>>> How to properly use google?<scnr>
>>>
>>> You laugh, but this is actually non-trivial.
>>
>> Not in my experience.
> 
> The double-negatives make this ambiguous.

I find it to be trivial.  Occasionally I have to do some word 
association, but it's rare that I have trouble finding stuff with the 
right selection of keywords.

One thing that helps tremendously is to just use keywords, not to write a 
novel as the question.

>> But then again, when I was in high school selling software and computer
>> books, I was often amazed when people would grab a book of the shelf
>> and just flip through it to find what they were looking for, rather
>> than looking in the index or TOC first.
> 
> To be fair, depending on what you're looking for, the TOC may not be
> that helpful. The index usually works though. It depends how badly put
> together the book is.

The TOC can provide a good high-level view, but I do tend to agree, which 
is why I always started with the index.

>>> I live in a city with a population of 200,000 people, and an
>>> unemployment rate well below the national average. /Clearly/ there are
>>> jobs here. I just need to find them.
>>
>> You've also stated (in the past, maybe it's changed) that you hate
>> living there except that it's logically laid out and you can find stuff
>> easily.
> 
> I don't hate living here, it's my favourite place. I hate living WITH MY
> MUM, that's for sure. ;-)

Your favourite place from a very limited selection, admittedly.  

>> But yeah, there are probably jobs there, just perhaps not in the fields
>> you're interested in.
> 
> Perhaps. I very much doubt anyone here wants computer programmers. But
> the guy who looks after the computers? Surely any company that has a lot
> of computers will want one of those. (Doesn't mean they need a new one
> though...)

Yes, but if there are largely small companies, they may typically hire 
some kid recently out of school (often times before they've been to uni) 
because they know the kid because he/she fixed their computer once.

>> When you start filtering by too many criteria, you end up with no
>> options.  The logical thing to do when that happens is to relax some of
>> the criteria, such as where you're willing to look or what you're
>> willing to take as a job.
> 
> Sure. And if a job was in, say, Northampton, that would be fine.
> Anything that's within a reasonable commuting distance of where I live.

What distance would you consider?

>>>> or your unwillingness to believe that anyone on the planet who works
>>>> a "normal" job makes enough to live on.
>>>
>>> Uh, when did I say that?
>>
>> It's been a couple of years probably, when you and I were talking about
>> it being good for you to move out of your mum's place.  You asserted
>> that it simply isn't possible for anyone to make enough money to buy a
>> house or rent a flat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Interesting...

You don't recall that?  At around the same time, you were making 
assertions about the uselessness of car insurance IIRC.

>>> It's good to be righteous. It's not so good when you're actually
>>> wrong. :-/
>>
>> It's good practice.  The stakes ultimately are pretty low here, so it's
>> a largely safe environment to try stuff out and see what works and what
>> doesn't.
>>
>> "Practice makes perfect" and all that.
> 
> Try "practice makes permanent" and you'll be nearer the mark. ;-)

Of course, I was citing a common quote. ;)

> And hey, I've actually /met/ a tiny few of the people on here, so...
> (Damn, if only I could remember their names!)

Don't worry about remembering names - I never remember names myself, 
especially when it comes to seeing people out of context.  I went for 
sushi with my wife last week, and ended up seated at a table next to two 
software engineers I'd worked a contract with in January.  I said 'hi' as 
we sat down (they recognised me), and then we got to talking and I had to 
admit that I couldn't remember their names, but I did remember working 
with them.

>> It may well - I understand they use SSD storage exclusively (local
>> company here in Utah called Fusion-IO provides the hardware,
>> apparently).  It's all about advertising, apparently.  Dunno how they
>> manage it with ad blockers and things like the fb purity, but I figure
>> that's not my problem.  If it goes away, I likely won't miss it.
> 
> It seems to be classic Internet bubble type stuff. Everybody is really
> excited about how much money Facebook is going to start making ANY DAY
> NOW... and yet, where's the money?

Indeed, the IPO happened and the stock has been pretty much declining 
since.

>> Well, you also only have 7 connections, IIRC.  One of the useful things
>> to do, though, is to have someone you know introduce you to someone
>> they know.  That's how I ended up with an interview in Portland - a
>> colleague of mine in Florida knows the HR person at the company I
>> applied to, and he introduced me.  Within 2 weeks, I had an in-person
>> interview.
> 
> The idea that somebody actually knows the guy who does the hiring just
> seems... really, really far-out. I mean, I suppose there must *be* a guy
> who does the hiring, and *somebody* must know that guy. But the chances
> of actually connecting with that guy seem vanishingly small. It would be
> like winning the lottery or something.

When you only are networked to 7 people directly, the chances are pretty 
small.  When you are networked to 500+ people, the chances get 
significantly larger.  After all, people know their HR managers 
typically.  Bosses have people who report to them and those people know 
them.

> Actually, you know what? What /really/ sounds far-fetched to me is that
> somebody would know somebody who needs to make a hire, and that person
> would think that *I* am even worth mentioning. I have no skills useful
> in a workplace. I find it hard to imagine anybody wanting to hire me...

It's a question of scale.  And you don't be someone worth mentioning, you 
have to pursue it.  Most HR professionals say that they're not interested 
in hiring someone who doesn't show initiative.  You don't say to an HR 
person "if you see something that looks like a good fit, get in touch 
with me".

> So in the interview, they always seem to ask you something along the
> lines of "what excites you about our company?" or "why did you choose
> us?" or something similar.

Yep.  So you have to find something to be excited about - and there has 
to be something that interests you beyond the paycheck, or there's little 
reason for you to stay.  Hiring people is expensive, so they want to hire 
people who have a peripheral interest.

So in my case, the company in question has an administrative automation 
product (it's their primary product).  I've long had an interest in 
automating administrative tasks on systems, and their implementation is 
somewhat unique in how it approaches the problem of distributing 
automated tasks and performing system inventories.

So while the position was a "Certification program manager" position, I 
demonstrated interest in the company by (a) downloading and looking at 
the product, (b) downloading and looking at their training VM, and (c) 
being familiar with how the product works.

> Why did I pick this company? The honest truth is obviously "this is all
> I could find". I know that. The person interviewing me must, surely,
> know that too. (Unless they're a total moron.) And yet, if you say that,
> you're instantly removed from consideration. WTF?

m-/

Telling them "nobody else will hire me" makes them think "yeah, so there 
must be a reason for that so we'll just back away slowly".

You have to find something about what they do that piques your interest.

> I mean, if you were applying to work for *Google* or somebody, yes, you
> could legitimately claim to be actually *excited* about the prospect.
> But for any other company? It's a job. I need the money. End of story.
> It seems silly to have to pretend otherwise...

You don't have to pretend about it.

My first job out of college was working for a company that manufactured 
painting equipment.  I had worked there during the summers on the 
assembly line, and had considered getting a forklift license to work in 
the warehouse (assembly line work is very demanding work).

I left college for a job in their MIS department.  What excited me about 
the job?  Flexible hours, the ability to build new systems and to affect 
the bottom line indirectly.  I did my first large-scale project (only 
$30,000, but it was a full rewiring of the building for voice/network), 
and had a chance to learn from someone I came to respect how to make a 
business case so I could do the things I wanted to do.

It was an exciting job for me at that time - I worked with good people 
who were good at their jobs.

I left that job for one with a call centre here in Utah that handled 
company benefits administration.  What excited me about that job?  The 
ability to move out of my parents' basement and get out on my own, and 
the ability to work with a larger environment than the one I was (at that 
time) currently working in.  Opportunity to work with a multi-site 
company and to pick up additional skills, learn new things, and grow 
professionally.

That job ended up largely sucking because of management changes. <shrug>  
It happens.  Next job was working on the corporate network for a Fortune 
50 food & drug retail company.  More users, larger systems, more complex 
network, etc.  That job was a lot of fun.

After that, I changed career paths and became a technical instructor.  
The challenge of presenting to students and interacting in a classroom 
was a draw for me.  A chance to teach people how to properly implement a 
product I'd built up expertise in.

Loved the work, ultimately disliked the travel.  So I moved into product 
support, and then into community building and program management.  On the 
surface, what's exciting about program management?  Nothing in particular 
(I fell into that job because I was at risk of being laid off), but I 
ended up helping set direction for the training department.  Figuring out 
what customers needed in terms of training and then figuring out how to 
get it to them - that was fun.

Now I'm looking to move into product management.  Looks like I'll 
probably start out doing some writing or product testing or something 
along those lines, and then move into defining product specs and finding 
out what customers want from a product.

The point is that while yeah - it's a job and you need the money - there 
should be something about the job or the company that makes you /want/ to 
get up and go to work in the morning.

> I read an article somewhere about how investors hear that there are X
> million accounts on Facebook and they think "wow, if I could just be on
> Facebook, I could have X million customers!" Yet these same investors
> don't really understand what "be on Facebook" actually means. And most
> of those millions of profile are for people's cat, fictional TV
> characters, people's children who can't read or write yet, etc. (E.g.,
> Jamie's son has a profile. He's 4 weeks old. His mum posts all the
> actual stuff...)

Well, not "most of those millions", but yeah, a not insignificant number 
of them.

But at the same time, TV advertisers spend a fair bit of money on 
advertising on TV that is watched by 4-year-olds, birds, cats, and dogs.  
The TV folks figured out a way to count how many they're advertising to 
that matter, and that's the trick with something like Facebook (as an 
advertising engine).

Ads are primarily Google's "product" as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:27:41 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> In Linked-in, you are supposed to build a network of contacts (school
>> buddies, coworkers, family, etc...), which then lets you get introduced
>> to THEIR contacts, etc... Hopefully helping you on your quest to find a
>> good job. E.g.: There's this guy in your dance classes that works in
>> accounting at a big company. You become a contact in LinkedIn. While
>> taking a break, he mentions the sad state of their IT. YOu say: "I
>> betcha I could help improve things." The next day, you ask him over
>> LinkedIn to introduce you to his HR rep or IT manager. you get
>> introduced, you go on an interview, you may not get hired, but the HR
>> person knows you exist, and when the time comes to hire an Haskell
>> expert, she'll have one in her network already.
> 
> That's a great story. Pity I don't know anybody like that...

You don't know that.

Just with the 4 contacts I have in the UK (with a quick filter - and I 
know there are more in the UK who for some reason aren't showing up as 
being there - ah, because there is a city filter as well), you're a step 
away from knowing one of the product release managers at Applied Card 
Technologies, someone who works at T-Systems, and the owner and CEO of 
b2lateral (which is a training/consultancy).

I also know someone who's the systems engineering team leader at City 
College in Brighton, people who work at both Cambridge and Oxford 
universities (including a research professor who's not on LinkedIn - he's 
worked very hard to keep a very small online footprint).

Spend some time looking at the companies represented in your broader 
network and see what looks like it might be moderately interesting.

Then see what positions those companies have posted on LinkedIn, and if 
you find something that looks interesting, ask the person you know there 
to introduce you to the person they know ho works there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message