On Oct 23, 6:25=A0am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:01:15 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 10:41 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:47:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 22, 9:03 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 03:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> >> >> <bill.slo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 21, 3:05 pm, John Larkin
> >> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:01:46 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman
> >> >> >> <bill.slo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 21, 10:27 am, John Larkin
> >> >> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:49:56 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman
> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 21, 2:53 am, John Larkin
> >> >> >> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:54:37 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman
> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 20, 3:58 pm, John Larkin
> >> >> >> >> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:01:19 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 20, 10:35 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtech=
nology.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 19, 11:59 pm, Phil Hobbs
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> BillSlomanwrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 19, 4:00 am, Phil Hobbs
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > <snip>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> It's bad enough that you make statements that are uninform=
ed or wrong,
> >> >> >> >> >> but you have to phrase them as personal insults.
>
> >> >> >> >> >You do find personal insults where most people would merely =
find
> >> >> >> >> >colourful language.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Your story about applying for work at ASML summarizes the =
situation:
> >> >> >> >> >> your are way to obnoxious for your own good.
>
> >> >> >> >> >I upset the personal department by going behind their backs =
to talk to
> >> >> >> >> >an engineer that I'd been interviewed by earlier. Personnel
> >> >> >> >> >departments aren't good at evaluating engineers. Good ones k=
now it and
> >> >> >> >> >don't get too upset about being by-passed. Bad ones know it =
too but
> >> >> >> >> >hate being reminded that they aren't as clever as they like =
to think.
> >> >> >> >> >At ASML it looks as if the guy in charge was more interested=
in
> >> >> >> >> >defending his right to act as a gatekeeper than in getting t=
he right
> >> >> >> >> >people through the gate.
>
> >> >> >> >> Sounds to me that he did his job very well.
>
> >> >> >> >It could be that Highland Technology Inc. has the same kind of
> >> >> >> >problem.
>
> >> >> >> Not hiring you is not a "problem", it's a joy.
>
> >> >> >Precisely. You are sacrificing potential long terms benenfits - ve=
ry
> >> >> >potential in this case, granting your limited capacity to exploit
> >> >> >skills that might exceed your own - in favour of short term
> >> >> >gratification.
>
> >> >> Not hiring you has enduring benefits.
>
> >> >> Seriously, you'd be poison here, or to most productive engineering
> >> >> groups.
>
> >> >Strange idea. I've been a member of a couple of productive engineerin=
g
> >> >groups,
>
> >> Little of which saw production. Engineering that doesn't result in
> >> products is a waste of time and money.
>
> >Perhaps. But I didn't get to chose which projects got funded - your
> >criticism is of U.K. engineering management, which wasn't all that
> >good, rather than of my competence as an engineer.
>
> >> >and I've remained in contact with the one at EMI Central
> >> >Research (1976-79) ever since. I'm even linked to some of them on
> >> >LinkedIn.
>
> >> LinkedIn is not productive.
>
> >Sure. Whoever said it was? Apart from From LinkedIn, who want to make
> >money out of it ...
>
> >> >>You seem to have no genuine curiosity about electronics,
>
> >> >A bizarre misconception. Even you should have enoguh sense to deduce
> >> >that this ins't true just from my posting patterns here - I don't
> >> >spend all my time (or even a substantial part of it) correcting your
> >> >misconceptions, though you are probably too emotionally involved to
> >> >credit this.
>
> >> When I suggest things you might explore, you claim to be bored, or
> >> demand to be paid to investigate.
>
> >I'm going to do stuff for you for free? I may be curious, but I'm not
> >gullible.
>
> 1. I didn't suggest that you do things that I need.
So you claim.
> I suggested that you do things that might help *you* find useful somethin=
g
> to do, maybe even find work.
Very altruistic of you. Your grasp of the demands of the Dutch (and
now the Australia) job market for engineers may be better than mine,
since all I know about that subject is what I read in the local job
ads, but none of your suggestions has looked all that useful to me.
> 2. If you want someone to hire you, as a consultant or as an employer,
> it's really good if you convince them that you are willing to work in
> their interest. Learning their application and science, or offering a
> freebie to start, is very good business.
For them. Less so for me. I might do it if I knew a fair bit about the
people involved, and had good reason to think them honest, but I've
got better things to do with my time than jumping through hoops in the
vague hope of beong considered for a particular job. Not all that much
better, perhaps, but still better than that.
>Sounding greedy and arrogant and bored isn't.
Any more that sounding vain, petulant, and self-obsessed makes one
look attractive as an employer.
Wanting to get paid for doing a specific task isn't exactly greedy -
nobody values stuff they get for nothing, and people who don't have to
pay for work tend to be frivolous about expanding the scope of the
task. I'm certainly bored by a lot of the discussion that goes on here
- a lot of it is old errors being recycled by people who can't get
their heads around the fact that they might be wrong - and pointing
this out does make me sound arrogant. It's problem that all competent
people have to live with. I'd have thought that you might have run
into it from time to time, if you real-world competence came anywhere
near your self-image.
> Hey, it's your life; live it your way.
Such a generous concession.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney