 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.08.2012 09:56, schrieb Invisible:
> On 28/08/2012 06:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Again, you're making an assumption based on limited experience.
>
> Well, here's the thing: It is not possible to experience everything that
> exists in the entire world. Hence, /everybody/ has to make
> generalisations based on the limited data available to them. Following
> your chain of logic, you're basically saying that nobody can ever know
> anything about anything. :-P
And he'd be right with that statement :-P (Well, maybe except such
basics as "I think, therefore I am")
The difference is whether someone expresses their assumptions as
irrefutable facts or as personal assumptions, and whether they take into
account other people's experience in those assumptions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:56:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 28/08/2012 06:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Again, you're making an assumption based on limited experience.
>
> Well, here's the thing: It is not possible to experience everything that
> exists in the entire world. Hence, /everybody/ has to make
> generalisations based on the limited data available to them. Following
> your chain of logic, you're basically saying that nobody can ever know
> anything about anything. :-P
And when additional information is provided, that additional information
should be incorporated into your thinking, rather than sticking your
fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalallalalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR
YOU!!!!"
;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:37:25 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Am 29.08.2012 09:56, schrieb Invisible:
>> On 28/08/2012 06:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Again, you're making an assumption based on limited experience.
>>
>> Well, here's the thing: It is not possible to experience everything
>> that exists in the entire world. Hence, /everybody/ has to make
>> generalisations based on the limited data available to them. Following
>> your chain of logic, you're basically saying that nobody can ever know
>> anything about anything. :-P
>
> And he'd be right with that statement :-P (Well, maybe except such
> basics as "I think, therefore I am")
>
> The difference is whether someone expresses their assumptions as
> irrefutable facts or as personal assumptions, and whether they take into
> account other people's experience in those assumptions.
Well said. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/08/2012 9:46 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 25-8-2012 11:25, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/08/2012 5:29 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> When I was working at Motorola my boss told me that he wasn't going to
>> hire someone because he had a copy of the daily mail in his pocket. Work
>> that one out. o_O
>
> His horoscope?
>
Maybe but I find that reading their bumps is more accurate. :-)
(BTW Daily mail -> lower class person.)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-8-2012 22:35, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/08/2012 9:46 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 25-8-2012 11:25, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 24/08/2012 5:29 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> When I was working at Motorola my boss told me that he wasn't going to
>>> hire someone because he had a copy of the daily mail in his pocket. Work
>>> that one out. o_O
>>
>> His horoscope?
>>
>
> Maybe but I find that reading their bumps is more accurate. :-)
>
> (BTW Daily mail -> lower class person.)
Your comment was ambiguous and my answer is for the one you probably did
not intend.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-08-28 12:06, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> I've applied to several hundred jobs and looked at job descriptions for
> several thousand jobs. That seems like a reasonable sample size to me...
With a personalized presentation letter every time? Holy crap!
--
/*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 24/08/2012 05:29 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> /Clearly/ I don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of
>>> getting this job.
>>
>> Holy hell... I think they might actually hire me! o_O
>
> I just got a letter today.
>
> Apparently I am not good enough. (!)
>
> At this point, I'm stunned. I seriously can't imagine what more I could
> have done...
>
> Oh well, I guess I'm back to being bereft of hope.
Dear Andrew,
I write further to your telephone conversation with me and wanted to
provide you with the feedback you requested.
Firstly, I should mention that there has been a vast response to our
advert and a high calibre of candidates.
Following our first round of interviews, it was our intention to create
a shortlist of candidates to progress to second. Unfortunately on this
occasion we made the decision not to progress your application further.
The reasons for this are in relation to your skills set, whilst you
demonstrate some good skills we felt that this was more toward technical
development rather than web based business development.
Thank you for contacting us and I wish you well in your future search
for employment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I write further to your telephone conversation with me and wanted to
> provide you with the feedback you requested.
>
> Firstly, I should mention that there has been a vast response to our
> advert and a high calibre of candidates.
>
> Following our first round of interviews, it was our intention to create
> a shortlist of candidates to progress to second. Unfortunately on this
> occasion we made the decision not to progress your application further.
> The reasons for this are in relation to your skills set, whilst you
> demonstrate some good skills we felt that this was more toward technical
> development rather than web based business development.
>
> Thank you for contacting us and I wish you well in your future search
> for employment.
OK, so it's worse than I thought. It appears that not only did I not get
the job, I didn't even make it to the second round of interviews.
I'm also a little bit concerned about this throw-away sentence about me
having skills for "technical development" rather than "web-based
business development". It's not the first time I've heard such things,
either. The previous interview, the interviewer suggested that I would
be more suited to academia then commercial software development.
Perhaps it's because my CV says Pascal, Eiffel, Haskell, Lisp and
Prolog, rather than saying C, C++, Java, VB and Perl. Perhaps it's
because I build fractal generators and encryption software rather than
content management systems or mobile apps. But for whatever reason, it
seems companies don't see me as being "real world" enough...
Looks like I might just be doomed to unemployment forever. :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Following our first round of interviews, it was our intention to create
>> a shortlist of candidates to progress to second. Unfortunately on this
>> occasion we made the decision not to progress your application further.
>> The reasons for this are in relation to your skills set, whilst you
>> demonstrate some good skills we felt that this was more toward technical
>> development rather than web based business development.
>>
>> Thank you for contacting us and I wish you well in your future search
>> for employment.
>
> OK, so it's worse than I thought. It appears that not only did I not get
> the job, I didn't even make it to the second round of interviews.
>
> I'm also a little bit concerned about this throw-away sentence about me
> having skills for "technical development" rather than "web-based
> business development". It's not the first time I've heard such things,
> either. The previous interview, the interviewer suggested that I would
> be more suited to academia then commercial software development.
>
> Perhaps it's because my CV says Pascal, Eiffel, Haskell, Lisp and
> Prolog, rather than saying C, C++, Java, VB and Perl. Perhaps it's
> because I build fractal generators and encryption software rather than
> content management systems or mobile apps. But for whatever reason, it
> seems companies don't see me as being "real world" enough...
>
> Looks like I might just be doomed to unemployment forever. :-(
Or you just applied to the wrong place (not that you can know that
before interviews, or sometimes not even until after you have started).
I got a similar rejection saying I didn't have enough commercial
experience. There are other companies and other jobs out there with
different requirements.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:34:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> OK, so it's worse than I thought. It appears that not only did I not get
> the job, I didn't even make it to the second round of interviews.
That happens a lot. And there will be times where you might get to a
second and even a third interview and still not get the job.
That's how this works.
> Looks like I might just be doomed to unemployment forever. :-(
Oh, FFS, Andrew - I've not had full-time permanent work for 16 months.
You've been officially unemployed for what, a week?
It takes more than a handful of interviews sometimes to find a job. You
describe yourself as "old" (hint, you're not), but you act like a
teenager who needs instant gratification on absolutely everything!
Now, don't despair, just move on to the next interview - and the next,
and the next, until you find the right job.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
