I can't understand why these project manager types can't just interview a programmer, maybe actually make him write a program, and hire him himself. What purpose do these headhunter types serve? Do they add any value? If the PM isn't savvy enough to reject the same unqualified applicants the headhunter screens out, why is he the PM again? (Oh.... he used to be an EE back in the TTL days before programming was a 'science')
Alan, errr...well done? My number is there as well if you are looking for a job!
Hi Chris, The posting doesnt state a location as there are multiple "possible" locations for this role. People who fit the bill are rare but do exist!
BobG, Project Managers are too busy managing projects (or trying to). I hate to admit it but there are a hell of a lot of bad recruiters out there but i am not one of them. I am guessing you have encountered a bad one! I enjoy finding people jobs not turning people down for them and am proud to be able to say i am good at it!
On May 18, 12:26 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com"
I see. Translation for people in this NG who do not speak English: Grant hates to admit that he is not one of the bad recruiters, presumably because as a minority member, he isn't invited to the best recruiter parties. We can infer from this that he aspires to be a bad recruiter, and I'm sure other posters will join with me in wishing him the best of luck in that endeavor.
I said in my third book and I'll say it again: English is a dead language.
Related note: I watched Watership Down the other day, for the first time since 1979. I was perturbed by two things:
a) I could clearly remember going to the theater and seeing this movie
28 years ago, and
b) THE TITLE SCREEN. It says: Richard Adams's Watership Down
ARGH!!!!!!!! While not technically incorrect, it is inconsistent with all the literature I know and like, and therefore VERY disturbing.
Not dead - its resilience is really astonishing (I guess I just use other wording to make the same point you seem to have made in your book).
Here is my translation of the paragraph, though. Project managers don't have the brains to do projects so they are put to manage them. They don't have the brains do find/select the suitable people who could do the work, so they use recruiters to do that for them as well. Eventually, if they don't have the brains to be efficiently enough in the way of those doing the work, they get the cash and the glory (if they prove a bit more efficient on that they may miss out on the glory). Hint: I have not worked under a project managed for >15 years (more like 20...) so this is not personal, just an observation on todays world...
True. Most of the sensible ones saw "CE" and ran a mile. What's left are either utterly embittered cynics who hate it and use it anyway, or hopeless optimists who believe in MS.
I've never been desperate enough to do Windows for money.
petely
--
pete@fenelon.com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"
Oops, sorry - I did wonder how it should be, and apparently I took the wrong similarity I could think of... I keep on improving my skills, command of English included :-). But the frivolous mood is supposed to mask such errors, I'll hope it will remain unnoticed :-).
And while still in the frivolous mood, look at my gallery I made today - was too sleepy to work and not sleepy enough to go to bed, here is the result:
When I was a PM I spent what must have been 75% of my time hand holding various departments and giving constant progress updates, when it wasn't any of their business anyway.
The other 25% were spent either recovering trashed database records from backups, or discovering new ways to achieve my means by hacking around the terrible CRM software purchased by Exec when they had been told not to buy it in the first place. "But it was cost effective." Erm, no. No it wasn't. It was put up for testing by Sales and the Techs, and the Techs told you not to buy it as it continually crashed and the GoldMine Corporation repeatedly avoided awkward questions. Things like, "How well will it run over a global thin-client supporting 100 users?" Ah yes, that was it, we were the guinea pigs.
This software was called GoldMine, and for about a year after I left the company whenever I saw the word Gold or Mine, not necessarily in the same sentence, I lost control and became a gibbering wreck running for cover.
..Mmmmm. Well. I did get a bit carried away there didn't I?
Hey, nice hedgehog. I wonder if we have those here in the US? I saw echidnas rarely when I lived in Australia. More frequently, wombats. And SNAKES. Must have seen 20 snakes per mammal. And bluetongue lizards.
Actually AFAIK the correct form is Chris' with no second s
formatting link
and another (there are many more)
formatting link
Special problems arise when you create possessives for names already ending in ?s?. Is it Charles? Wain or Charles?s Wain? The latter sounds and looks better. Is it St James?s Street or St James? Street? Custom and rhythm go for the former. Jones?s house indicates that only one person named Jones lives there; if a family does, it should be the Joneses? house, which sounds exactly the same but looks odd on the page. Until recently, the usual form was Jesus? and not Jesus?s but this tradition, described in Hart?s Rules as ?an acceptable liturgical archaism?, was finally broken in the New English Bible of the mid-sixties.
Despite this special case, there is a tendency towards using just a terminating apostrophe in names ending in ?s?. A particularly annoying example is that of a famous London teaching hospital; when I was very small and had been mildly naughty, my father, a true-bred Londoner, would jokingly offer me his two clenched fists, naming one ?sudden death? and the other ?St Thomas?s Hospital?. It?s been called that for generations, the final ?s? improving the flow of the name, but the new NHS hospital trust recently put up a sign identifying it as St Thomas? Hospital, ignoring the evidence for the extra ?s? that is literally graven in stone above their heads.
Even more problems arise when you?re not sure about the origin of the name. One of the colleges of Cambridge University is, correctly, Queens? College, because it was founded by two queens (the Oxford one had only one royal benefactor, so it is Queen?s College). And what of November
5? Is it Guy Fawkes? Day or Guy Fawkes?s Day? The one certain thing is that it isn?t Guy Fawke?s Day, because his name was Fawkes, with the ?s? already on. And what does one do about Lloyd?s, the famous insurance market in London? How do you make a possessive out of that? ?Names are complaining that some Lloyd?s?s syndicates were badly managed?? The style guide of the Economist says firmly ?try to avoid using [it] as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem?. Amen to that.
It is technically wrong.,
The correct form is as per the second usage in this link
Richard Adams's Watership Down This page briefly covers differences in the text--and some illustrations--of the published editions of Adams' novel.
The first part is a verbatim spelling of the title. The second is the correct usage.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
Thanks! He was just nibbling something beside the path, allowed me to take a photo from about 1.5metres. Once we had one visit our yard here - and once (actually twice) we had a turtle.
I have seen just one snake here for 10+ years, and was told about another having been seen. The winter is too harsh for most of them to make it through, I guess.
Hmm, I guess now I am more confused on that than ever :-).
It is more of a mess than I initially thought....
Anyway, I'll chew on that while watching the FA cup final, kickoff is after an hour or so... until then I'll be back into programming where the s' and s's-es are only in the not that critical (or are they not?) comments...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.