|
Westwood says, experts can now develop novel ways to fight parasitic weeds that specifically target major crops
The sad thing is, it'll be 20 years or more before we realize that our latest weed killers based on these "novel ways" disrupts the ecosystem in ways we can't imagine and don't understand, just like all our other attempts are proving. When will we realize that it us humans that are the greatest parasitic vampires? Nature sure f***ed up that one.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The sad thing is,
And, how bittersweet that sadness is given that without the bloody evolutionary triumph of our countless ancestors ... you and I would not be here, to indulge in maudlin professions of guilt while leading lives of incredible comfort compared to most of the other people in the world.
Oh ... whoops ... another species just went extinct.
cheers, Bill
“I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot: They amount to 14.” Abd-Ar Rahman III, Caliph of Cordoba, circa 950CE.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: And, how bittersweet that sadness is given that without the bloody evolutionary triumph of our countless ancestors ... you and I would not be here, to indulge in maudlin professions of guilt while leading lives of incredible comfort compared to most of the other people in the world.
Couldn't agree more. There is definitely a twisted irony to all of this.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
You realize that some of the most successful species are the ones that we find tastiest. We only protect the species that live off of.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Andy, I suggest you consider what has come to be called "the tragedy of the common:"
1. the cliff notes: [^].
2. the real-deal: [^].
And, think of the many delectable species humanity so enjoyed eating up until the recent past which are now extinct, or nearly extinct.
Perhaps consider that some very successful species (dog, cats) have flourished because they are (through millenia of domestication and selective breeding) servile/affectionate in behavior, as well as having practical utility. Many people in S.E. Asia, where I live, are still eating dog, by the way.
For domesticated species used as food, the current management of cattle presents an interesting example of massive genetic engineering: the semen of a relatively small number of bulls is used to artificially inseminate a proportionally huge number of cows. I'll have to ask OriginalGriff about sheep.
cheers, Bill
“I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot: They amount to 14.” Abd-Ar Rahman III, Caliph of Cordoba, circa 950CE.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to be a newish thing: "i need c# and sql sever and asp.net interview questions for 2 years+ experienced employee" and I just don't understand it.
As if all companies worked from the same list of questions and learning them by rote would help you get a job, regardless of whether your could do the job or not if you got it.
Is it just me, or is there something I'm missing?
Even if you could get a job just by learning a list, how long are you going to keep it once you have got it? Not past the probationary period would be my guess... 
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is how it goes with some people:
Manager: I need you to take an interview for a .Net resource we need.
Interviewer: OK. Can I have the resume?
Manager: Sure.
--The End--
I would have preferred it to be like this:
Manager: I need you to take an interview for a .Net resource we need.
Interviewer: OK. Can I have the resume?
Manager: Sure.
Interviewer: So, which project(s) or kind of role are we looking for here?
Manager: < Some proper description >
Interviewer: OK. So are we looking for an expert, mid-level or a beginner?
Manager: < Some proper answer >
Interviewer: < thinks of things to ask based on information provided in resume and as per job description >
I think most people just ask generic things rather than really concentrating on actual need. For instance, I would not care if a person knows ASP.Net if I was told we are looking for someone who can code in C#, do ADO.Net work and write SQL queries and stored procedures. It would be great if he has some exposure to SSRS as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so: it seems to be the other way round - the interviewed seeking (and producing) lists of questions.
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh. I thought someone was asking what to ask.
Someone going in for an interview must have the basics correct and ask for job description up front. I am not referring to "job consultants'" description but the one from interviewer. Other than that, I do not think there is a definitive list.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew a "developer" once, who managed to eek by for 6 months before getting fired. Everyone knew that he had either lied during the interview or somehow, the wrong questions/tests where given to him.
I think interview lists can be good, but the questions need to be formulated so that the interviewee has to elaborate on each question/answer. I think scenario questions can be helpful, as well.
When it comes down to it, a good share of bad developers slip through the cracks.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a dumbing down of the activity of programming. The practice has become ubiquitous in certain parts of the world new to software who seem to think this is how it's done. This is very reflective of the levels of education many programmers now have. They are no longer super educated refugees from the space or atomic programmes.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
I would think twice about accepting a job where the interview consisted purely of snarky list-style questions I could have Googled the answers to.
The only way to really tell whether somebody knows what they are talking about is to have a proper conversation with them in a way that can't be scripted, and see if they can answer questions you think up on the spot, based on what they have said initially. It becomes apparent pretty quickly whether or not somebody full of bs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree - rote questions == rote responses != competent developer.
In fact, many really good developers can't pass "rote questions" because they don't have to think at that low a level: it's "unconscious competence" at work. Only those at the "unconscious incompetence" or "conscious incompetence" levels can get any use out of such lists - and they don't know how much there is that they don't know! 
An interviewer using such lists is in an even worse position because he doesn't know when the reply he gets is better than the reply he has written down!
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Given the levelof technical training some people are getting at their schools and colleges, these questions seem par for the course.
|
|
|
|
|
They probably have 3 months of experience, but will get the job even without preparation anyway. Not because they're that good, but because they're aiming for a "business programming" "job" of the kind that routinely hires the bottom of the barrel (and then is surprised that everything they do takes forever and sucks, but blames the development methodology).
Because that's 90% of the sh*t out there.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote:
It seems to be a newish thing: |
not really [^]
OriginalGriff wrote: regardless of whether your could do the job or not if you got it.
I think some devs with a bit of experience feel that, if they can get through the interview, they can do the job - and I confess, I sympathise somewhat.
I accepted a role as an RPG developer (many moons ago) when I didn't even know how to open the editor to edit an RPG program. 3 months later I was poached by a development firm - because IO learned on the job and became a better developer than the existing staff. But if I'd had a 'real' interview it would never have happened!
(in this particular case I was up front and honest about my skills, but they sort of had to employ me - long story!)
When I was interviewing I would always say to a potential candidate (i.e. one who had made it past 2nd interview) that, if they should get the call with an offer, that was their final opportunity to put cards on the table about any exaggeration - being honest would not necessarily mean a withdrawal of offer - but being dishonest would definately mean termination without reference.
I only had one who I had to let go.
I guess some people are a bit like those who know the names, flags and capital cities of every country on earth - but haven't actually been north of watford or south of Putney!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: I think some devs with a bit of experience feel that, if they can get through the interview, they can do the job
I'd be one of those. For the most part, programming is programming...solving problems regardless of the language or environment. Get too specific with the questions and you might miss out on a really good programmer. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I agree in the main - the probloem here is really how to test for that skill at interview.
me - I don't test it. I explain in detail what the job is about and listen to their questions - make sure I think I and the team can get on with them, ask them about what they've done i the past etc.
I also explain that if they get offered the job and can't do it well, I will sack them.
Only had one guy tried to bluff his way in - and he came on a short term contract so didn't go through he usual interview process. He was fired after writing a script and using the letter O instead of a zero and installing a pirated version of a later release of our development software - thus rendering his project un-openable by anyone else!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
I've been doing some interviews this week, and decided to kick off with a slightly leftfield question. "What is ASCII and UTF8 and how do they compare?"
Just staggered that so-called professionals can't even tell me how wide in bytes an ASCII character is. 
[Edit] of course, I'd be more impressed in width in bits...
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: of course, I'd be more impressed in width in bits...
ASCII or Extended (ISO 8859) ASCII?
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
The former, although that would have been a very good answer!
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Just for completeness (and to ensure I get the job) ASCII is 7 bits (so one byte in the real world), ISO8859 ASCII is 8 bits (one whole byte), and UTF8 is 8, 16, 24, or 32 bits depending on the character (so 1, 2, 3, or 4 bytes).
What are you paying?
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Quite well, but the sting in the tail is Central London.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
If you'll pay the travel expenses that needn't be a deal breaker.
Do you have a helipad?
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
