Herd instincts?

[[email protected]]

Right. Anything you recommend is a waste of my time. It's quite
easy to see that you're a bum and very little time to tell you.

So you are a poor judge of character, and prone to wasting your
precious free time telling the world that you are a poor judge of
character.

Unlikely, if you're recommending it. I learned how to read reviews
long ago.

"Is this book going to tell me what I already think I know? No? Then I
won't read it because I might learn something."

Anything to avoid getting educated. Not thinking about the rubbish you
spout must save a great deal of your precious free time, not to
mention a great deal of embarrassment.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...




If you're that specialized, you're useless.

That doesn't follow. The Dutch employment market is being
frustratingly slow in matching me with an employer who could use my
skills, but there are employers out there who could use me - a year or
so ago Philips Medical were seriously contemplating building a
theraputic ultasonic phased array system, and if that had gone through
I would have been working on it.

I thought you were specialized? You're better than everyone else,
right?

Better than most, but Dutch personnel officers can't tell the
difference between an electronic engineer and an electrical engineer,
so finer disctinctions tend to escape them.

Perhaps you should look at where the work is. It *IS* needed and
jobs *are* open.

I'd love to.

The Netherlands is not usually regarded as a bum's country. Right-wing
nit-wits do seem to regard a functional social security system as
nothing more than an underhand scheme for undermining the power of
employers to control their employees, but it turns out that supporting
the unemployed between jobs makes the system run more efficiently -
the unemployed can hang on a bit longer to waiting for a job where
they can exercise most of their skills. Will Hutton spells it out, but
you don't want to disturb your simple view of the world with any
inconveninet facts.

Evidently not. It's encouraging you be a bum.

Crcular logic. The bum you are disappearing up is your own.

Blackface is seriously non-PC, Sloman.

I presume she was born with it.

Bums so like others to work. Otherwise there is no one to bum off
of.

I'd quite like to work myself, but the system - though better than
yours - isn't yet perfect.

You even whine about your silly garden. No wonder no one will hire
you.

I'm inclined to agree that the garden is silly, but garden-loving
guests have advised us to keep it in some kind of shape, as it will
add some 5% to the value of the house when we come to sell it.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

The existence theorem makes you a liar.

Clearly, you don't understand the existence theorem.

It's a rare enough skill that anyone with the skill and a proven
record that wants a job, has one.

The existence theorem makes you a liar.

They wanted to get rid of you.

Actually, they hired me. It was some time ago.

Well the flicker fusion frequency is a lot closer to 60Hz (give or
take 10Hz, depending on the user and conditions), so the fact that
you're wrong about the basics isn't a good start.

The flicker fusion frequency does depend on light level. Early cinema
got by with 16Hz, current cinema uses 24Hz. European television runs
at 50Hz, and today's office displays run at 70Hz. The real problem
with flicker is that it can provoke epilleptic fits in vulnerable
people - over a range of 4 to 59Hz. 20Hz is the worst.

Failing to give the full range of frequencies when it is irrelevant to
the point I'm trying to make scarcely makes me wrong about basics,
Your 60Hz give or take 10Hz is equally rough, so I can point out that
you are the one who is wrong about basics.

You keep saying "there was". Are they *yours*? You're a "there
was" too, apparently.
http://www.google.nl/patents?hl=nl&lr=&vid=USPAT4614872&id=waQ8AAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=A+W+Sloman


You were "there"? What did *YOU* do, is a better question.


If I needed an electron microscope control system fixed, maybe I'd
call you, or not. You're bragging (whining) to the wrong person,
Sloman.


More whining.
Bragging.



Has been. What have you done today?

What I do most days. Few people get themselves into a postion where
they can produce a stream of patentable discoveries. Alan Dower
Blumlein of EMI produced 128 over 18 years

http://www.doramusic.com/patentdetails.htm

or about seven a year, which puts him ahead of my father who never did
better than one a year in his best years, but behind Edison who
produced 1093 and must hoave come close to twenty a year. I did apply
for an Australian provisional patent a couple of years ago, but let it
lapse - the Sawyer motor I wanted to use wasn't fast enough for the
application.

Why didn't you claim prior art? You had the evidence, right?

He'd submitted his patent application before I'd sent my memo to the
boss - and in any event "prior art" is irrelevant in U.K. patent
applications. We might have argued that his patent was invalid, since
it was obvious to those skilled in the craft - as exemplified by me -
but since we would probably have got an exclusive license on the
patent if it had been any good, this would have been shooting
ourselves in the foot.

Dunno how rare it is. I know several people that would latch onto
something similar. A few have in the neighborhood of 100 issued
patents.

So do I. They all worked for companes that kept a stable of patent
lawyers.

First, get off your lazy ass. Someone as "good" as you should have
*no* problem finding a good job. If they're calling me, only
passively looking for work, someone as good as you claim you are,
would have them banging on the door.

That's not an idea, it's a preconception, based on self-satisfied
ignorance. It also makes it clear that you don't actually know anybody
with around 100 issued patents - the ones I knew didn't report any
constant stream of job offers. The one in London - ex-EMI - whom I'll
be seeing on Friday, doesn't seem to be doing much better than I am.

 

[krw]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...






Clearly, you don't understand the existence theorem.

Clearly, you have to try harder at your lies.

The existence theorem makes you a liar.

Nope. You're 1) not looking for a job, happy to be a leach off
government and your wife or 2) not the super-engineer you claim to
be. Hmm, could both be correct?

Actually, they hired me. It was some time ago.

....and then let you go after discovering their mistake...

The flicker fusion frequency does depend on light level. Early cinema
got by with 16Hz,

Which was well below the FFF. Remember, they flickered (Duh!).

current cinema uses 24Hz.

Wrong again. "Current" cinema, anything in the last 50 years, uses
either 48Hz or 72Hz. Current cinema is digital; not sure of the
technical details.

European television runs at 50Hz, and today's office displays run at
70Hz.

Only if your boss is cheap or your IT department doesn't know what
they're doing. I've not had anything less than 85Hz (or LCD) for at
least a decade.

The real problem with flicker is that it can provoke epilleptic
fits in vulnerable people - over a range of 4 to 59Hz. 20Hz is the worst.
Nonsense.

Failing to give the full range of frequencies when it is irrelevant to
the point I'm trying to make scarcely makes me wrong about basics,
Your 60Hz give or take 10Hz is equally rough, so I can point out that
you are the one who is wrong about basics.

You cant get any of it right, not even the basics of cinema. You
then try to bury the reader in bullshit. Typical over-educated
idiot.

http://www.google.nl/patents?hl=nl&lr=&vid=USPAT4614872&id=waQ8AAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=A+W+Sloman

Where are the rest?

Bragging.

Distinction without a difference.

What I do most days. Few people get themselves into a postion where
they can produce a stream of patentable discoveries. Alan Dower
Blumlein of EMI produced 128 over 18 years

Why are you deflecting? Afraid to say you watched soap operas all
day?

http://www.doramusic.com/patentdetails.htm

or about seven a year, which puts him ahead of my father who never did
better than one a year in his best years, but behind Edison who
produced 1093 and must hoave come close to twenty a year. I did apply
for an Australian provisional patent a couple of years ago, but let it
lapse - the Sawyer motor I wanted to use wasn't fast enough for the
application.

More deflection.

He'd submitted his patent application before I'd sent my memo to the
boss - and in any event "prior art" is irrelevant in U.K. patent
applications. We might have argued that his patent was invalid, since
it was obvious to those skilled in the craft - as exemplified by me -

Hardly "irrelevant", eh?

but since we would probably have got an exclusive license on the
patent if it had been any good, this would have been shooting
ourselves in the foot.

So, you came up with something obvious *after* someone else.
Whoopie!

So do I. They all worked for companes that kept a stable of patent
lawyers.

We were talking about your lazy ass.

That's not an idea, it's a preconception,

Hardly "pre". You've made the fact that you're a lazy bum obvious.

based on self-satisfied ignorance.

I'm satisfied with myself, sure. I'm not the one watching "I Love
Lucy" all day. "Ignorance", hardly. Got you pegged.

It also makes it clear that you don't actually know anybody
with around 100 issued patents

You're being stupid now (still).

- the ones I knew didn't report any
constant stream of job offers.

*ALL* the ones I know get constant calls from head-hunters. One is
self-employed doing patent searches and as an expert witness in
patent cases. The others are still employed, churning out a dozen
patents a year.

The one in London - ex-EMI - whom I'll
be seeing on Friday, doesn't seem to be doing much better than I am.

Has he a rich wife too?

 

[krw]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

That doesn't follow. The Dutch employment market is being
frustratingly slow in matching me with an employer who could use my
skills, but there are employers out there who could use me - a year or
so ago Philips Medical were seriously contemplating building a
theraputic ultasonic phased array system, and if that had gone through
I would have been working on it.

Spoken like a true socialist; wait for the government to solve your
problem. Don't *you* have any responsibility for *you*?

Better than most, but Dutch personnel officers can't tell the
difference between an electronic engineer and an electrical engineer,
so finer disctinctions tend to escape them.

So you wait for the government to find you work? Is Europe so busted
that there is no engineering work. There sure is a bunch to do on
this side of the pond. I understand that you'd have to leave the
womb and it's cold out here.

I'd love to.

Then *DO* it. It didn't take me more than three weeks of passive
"looking" to hook a big fish. I'm a contractor now, but that's fine,
after >30 years with one employer.

The Netherlands is not usually regarded as a bum's country. Right-wing
nit-wits do seem to regard a functional social security system as
nothing more than an underhand scheme for undermining the power of
employers to control their employees, but it turns out that supporting
the unemployed between jobs makes the system run more efficiently -
the unemployed can hang on a bit longer to waiting for a job where
they can exercise most of their skills. Will Hutton spells it out, but
you don't want to disturb your simple view of the world with any
inconveninet facts.

It's "functional", yet there are no jobs. Neat trick!

Crcular logic. The bum you are disappearing up is your own.

No wonder you can't get a job, You're stupid, as well as being an
arrogant asshole.

I presume she was born with it.

Transexual, too!

I'd quite like to work myself, but the system - though better than
yours - isn't yet perfect.

Hardly better, then. You're happy being a bum in a bum's system. I
guess that works, you can't.

I'm inclined to agree that the garden is silly, but garden-loving
guests have advised us to keep it in some kind of shape, as it will
add some 5% to the value of the house when we come to sell it.

As long as you're not busy making a living, you might as well do
*something* useful, even though it does nothing to contribute to
society.

 

[krw]

So you are a poor judge of character, and prone to wasting your
precious free time telling the world that you are a poor judge of
character.

Nope. Got you *nailed*. I'm just siting here "watching" the TeeVee
with my wife. We've lived apart for three months while I was
*working* (while she stayed behind, *working*, until we sold the
house). Leaving her in the living room while I put you in your place
wasn't "nice". Well, the office isn't put back together either,
so...

"Is this book going to tell me what I already think I know? No? Then I
won't read it because I might learn something."

If by that you mean, "Sloman has nothing worthwhile to teach me",
yes.

Anything to avoid getting educated. Not thinking about the rubbish you
spout must save a great deal of your precious free time, not to
mention a great deal of embarrassment.

Nope. One has to prioritize one's time, particularly when it's
limited by *work*. Give it a try, sometime.

 

[[email protected]]

@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...



Nope. Got you *nailed*.

Enjoy your feeling of confidence. It's misplaced, but you think know
better ...

If by that you mean, "Sloman has nothing worthwhile to teach me",
yes.

And you think your judgement of "worthwhile" is going to win prizes?

Nope. One has to prioritize one's time, particularly when it's
limited by *work*. Give it a try, sometime.

I spent about 22 years - from the time I finished my Ph.D. in August
1969, to November 1991, in continuous employment. I know as much as
there is to be known about prioritising my time. I've had more trouble
finding work since November 1991 - since then I've worked five years
full time and six years part time - so the skills aren't being
exercised as regularly as they once were, but it's fairly clear that
you won't have anything worthwhile to teach me on that subject.

Your own skills in that area can be deduced from the time that you are
wasting trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs (in the strictly
metaphorical sense).

 

[John Fields]

Enjoy your feeling of confidence. It's misplaced, but you think know
better ...



And you think your judgement of "worthwhile" is going to win prizes?


I spent about 22 years - from the time I finished my Ph.D. in August
1969, to November 1991, in continuous employment. I know as much as
there is to be known about prioritising my time.

---
Yes, of course, since during that time I'm sure your opinions about
where your time would be better spent were often overridden by your
superiors and what you're left with is the record of how they
decided to use you by prioritizing your time for their advantage.
---

I've had more trouble
finding work since November 1991 - since then I've worked five years
full time and six years part time - so the skills aren't being
exercised as regularly as they once were, but it's fairly clear that
you won't have anything worthwhile to teach me on that subject.

---
"Fairly clear" is quite different from "perfectly clear" ,and is an
admission that since you're not using your skills (and learning new
ones) you're falling behind and losing whatever edge you might have
had earlier on.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...



Clearly, you have to try harder at your lies.

If I were deviating from the truth at any point, this might be a
relevant comment.

Unfortunately for you, you can't effectively claim that I'm deviating
from the truth without demonstrating where I'm deviating from the
truth.

You can claim that you don't believe me, but that just shows that your
ideas about the world happen to be wrong, which has been my contention
about you all along.

Nope. You're 1) not looking for a job, happy to be a leach off
government and your wife or 2) not the super-engineer you claim to
be. Hmm, could both be correct?

You can check whether I've been looking for a job recently by sending
an e-mail to [email protected] at ASML in the Netherlands.
She should recognise bill.sloman from my e-mail address, but may have
filed me under A.W.Sloman

Post her response before you next claim that I'm not looking for a
job.

I'd prefer to be eanrning my living rather than drawing unemployment,
but the Dutch government set up the rules that cost me my last job as
well as the rules that paid my unemployment benefit until I turned 65
last week, so that I can't see that there was any logical reason for
me to reject the benefit.

I don't claim to be a super-engineer, merely better than most, and
that isn't enough to get you past the endemic ageism in the
Netherlands.

The answer to your query is that neither of you propositions is
correct, but then again, few of your propositions are correct, so
perhaps I might save everybody's time by labelling only those which
aren't obviously false

...and then let you go after discovering their mistake...

In fact they kept me on - part-time - even though I refused to move up
to Manchester after they finally closed down their Cambridge
operation. I got full-time work with another employer in Cambridge a
few months later.

Which was well below the FFF. Remember, they flickered (Duh!).

The don't - if the screen is dim enough.

They do where they still use film running through a projector.

Wrong again. "Current" cinema, anything in the last 50 years, uses
either 48Hz or 72Hz. Current cinema is digital; not sure of the
technical details.

You are thinking of telecine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine

http://movietheatrereviews.blogspot.com/2007/01/cons-of-digital-projection.html

Only if your boss is cheap or your IT department doesn't know what
they're doing. I've not had anything less than 85Hz (or LCD) for at
least a decade.

So you've worked in organisations that don't know much about video. I
learned my stuff at EMI Central Research, where they invented the
first modern television (not that they could prove it to a US court).

http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/john_logie_baird.htm

used for the first public transmissions (from February 1937 to the end
of August 1939).

Nonsense.

You expose your ignorance once again

http://www.echeshire-tr.nwest.nhs.uk/pdf\ep-tv.pdf

You cant get any of it right, not even the basics of cinema. You
then try to bury the reader in bullshit.

Unfortunately for the shattered remnants of your credibility, I am not
bullshitting - every point I've made has been correct and is
verifiable, as you'd know it if you weren't bullshitting yourself.

Typical over-educated idiot.

You would like to think so - sadly, you lack the education to realise
when you are bullshitting

You are welcome to claim that you don't believe me, but when you do
you just show the world that your ideas about the world happen to be
wrong, which has been my contention about you all along.

Where are the rest?

Find them yourself. Google scholar and "A W Sloman" are all I need.

Distinction without a difference.

Your judgement isn't looking all that reliable, is it?

Why are you deflecting? Afraid to say you watched soap operas all
day?

I don't. My wife does watch television of an evening, and I'll watch
things like "House" with her, but given a free choice I'd bin the TV
set.

More deflection.



Hardly "irrelevant", eh?


So, you came up with something obvious *after* someone else.

But quite independently. And I didn't think that it was all that
obvious at the time, or I wouldn't have suggested to my boss that it
was patentable. What one may argue in court of law, and what one
actually thinks don't have to be all that closely related.

We were talking about your lazy ass.



Hardly "pre". You've made the fact that you're a lazy bum obvious.

But then again you think that you do know something about video -
which is obviously wrong - and that I don't, which is going to look
equally obviously wrong to anybody whose knowledge of video is less
superficial than yours.

I'm satisfied with myself, sure.

A little over-satisfied, on the evidence presented above.

I'm not the one watching "I Love
Lucy" all day. "Ignorance", hardly. Got you pegged.

Perhaps not. I saw "I love Lucy" on Australian television some fifty
years ago, when it was more or less new

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy

in the sense that people would turn the TV onto that program when I
was in the room, and I'd either change the channel or get up and go
someplace else. It wasn't my kind of TV then, and it certainly isn't
now.

You're being stupid now (still).

Not a claim that it is worth your while to make ... you'd be the
original self-basting turkey.

<snipped implausible claims ostensibly originating from people he
claims to know. If they exist at all, they are presumably bullshitting
him, either about the number of patents they've got - he clearly lacks
the skills to test their claims - or the number of job offers, which
is actually harder to test - or quite probably both>

 

[[email protected]]

---
Yes, of course, since during that time I'm sure your opinions about
where your time would be better spent were often overridden by your
superiors and what you're left with is the record of how they
decided to use you by prioritizing your time for their advantage.
---

That does show up in a tendency to neglect stuff that I'm not being
actively hassled about, but it also made me well aware that my
superiors often didn't know enough about what they were talking about
and were trying to impose inappropriate and sometime self-
contradictory priorities.

My expertise in prioritising my time does represent more than a simple
record of what other people told me they wanted and it does include
the signficant insight that the predictive powers of everybody
involved (including me) aren't all that wonderful. On one occasion I
produced a project plan (for a fairly simple project) in parallel with
one of my colleagues - neither of us knew that the other had been
stuck with the job, so we didn't collaborate - and both of us came out
with much the same total figure (some 1300 man hours) to within a few
percent

Neither set of time estimates had that much to do with the length of
time took to complete our part of the project.

---
"Fairly clear" is quite different from "perfectly clear" ,and is an
admission that since you're not using your skills (and learning new
ones) you're falling behind and losing whatever edge you might have
had earlier on.
---

You may think so, but since you don't ever seem to have done the kind
of work I was doing, it isn't a particularly well-founded insight.

In this particular instance, the distinction between "fairly clear"
and "perfectly clear" is purely a matter of style.

I was telling krw to go soak his head, but since I didn't have to be
ostentatiously rude to get the point across I could afford to soften
the wording.

You need to find a dictionary - even in Texas yoour local library
should have one -and look up "metaphorical".

You may need to go further and get advice on interpreting idiomatic
phrases, of which "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" is an
example.

Or you may just need to give up on the lame jokes that only a Texan
oaf would bother making.

 

[John Fields]

That does show up in a tendency to neglect stuff that I'm not being
actively hassled about, but it also made me well aware that my
superiors often didn't know enough about what they were talking about
and were trying to impose inappropriate and sometime self-
contradictory priorities.

---
In _your_ opinion, and with conclusions reached, by you, without
having access to data which your superiors were obviously loathe to
share with cannon fodder.

But, then, that's always been your problem.

That is, you believe yourself to be the ultimate authority on just
about everything but, when in the pinch, you've always knuckled
under and taken subservient roles because you never had the balls to
do it your way, regardless of the risk.

And now, in the autumn of your life, it's getting to be too late for
you to make the mark you would have liked to.
---

My expertise in prioritising my time does represent more than a simple
record of what other people told me they wanted and it does include
the signficant insight that the predictive powers of everybody
involved (including me) aren't all that wonderful.

---
Geez, I could have told you that.
---

On one occasion I
produced a project plan (for a fairly simple project) in parallel with
one of my colleagues - neither of us knew that the other had been
stuck with the job, so we didn't collaborate - and both of us came out
with much the same total figure (some 1300 man hours) to within a few
percent

---
Using the same inputs and given the same tools, one would expect
something like that.
---

Neither set of time estimates had that much to do with the length of
time took to complete our part of the project.

---
Then you were both above overhead and there _is_ a free lunch?
---

You may think so, but since you don't ever seem to have done the kind
of work I was doing, it isn't a particularly well-founded insight.

---
Whether I've ever done the same kind of work you have, or not, (and
I have) has no bearing on whether or not I can see that your lack of
recent activity has made you largely obsolete. By your own
admission, no one will hire you, while if you had some whiz-bang
stuff going on for you on your own you wouldn't have to be begging
for work, you'd have to be begging for time off.

Take a look at Larkin and Thompson.

Are they whining about that no one will hire them?
---

In this particular instance, the distinction between "fairly clear"
and "perfectly clear" is purely a matter of style.

---
Have another drink...
---

I was telling krw to go soak his head, but since I didn't have to be
ostentatiously rude to get the point across I could afford to soften
the wording.

---
Yeah, right...

You chose to use a willow reed instead of a 2 X 4?

Why? No doubt because you thought that everyone who read your post
would think that you were _so_ clever.
---

You need to find a dictionary - even in Texas yoour local library
should have one -and look up "metaphorical".

You may need to go further and get advice on interpreting idiomatic
phrases, of which "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" is an
example.

---
"Don’t give needless assistance or presume to offer advice to an
expert?"

You presume to be an expert?

In what milieu?

That of parasitically sucking subsistence from a system which you
have no intention of recompensing?

 

[[email protected]]

Sure, but I did have access to information which my superiors probably
didn't have the time to absorb and certainly didn't have any
inclination to acquire.

But, then, that's always been your problem.

What would you know about it?

That is, you believe yourself to be the ultimate authority on just
about everything but, when in the pinch, you've always knuckled
under and taken subservient roles because you never had the balls to
do it your way, regardless of the risk.

From your point of view, I probably do look like the ultimate
authority on anything that isn't a 555. There are other perspectives.
As far as knuckling under and taking subservient roles because I've
never had the balls to do it my way, regardless of the risk, you
haven't got a clue. The electron beam tester I proposed and worked on
from 1989 to 1991 at Cambridge Instruments stretched the state of the
art to some tune - it used a fast digital timing system (realised in
Gigabit Logics GaAs backed up by 100k ECL) to take a number of
stroboscopic samples (up to 1024) per timing cycle and a tolerably
fast digital signal processing system, (mostly realised in 100k ECL)
to up-date up to 1024 digital data points in parallel.

Even the incidental innovations - it introduced Cambridge Instrument's
to surface mount components - frightened some of my colleagues.

Despite all the technical risks of the project, what finally wrecked
it was the fact that the guy who'd written the daft specification -
10psec timing resolution - that had forced me to go for GaAs in the
timing logic - chickened out when it came to selling the machine once
we'd got the prototype working, and bailed out to set up a company in
a rather different field, leaving us with insufficient real customers
to justify the expenditure required to get the machine into
production.

And now, in the autumn of your life, it's getting to be too late for
you to make the mark you would have liked to.

But your opinion isn't exactly influential.

Pencil and paper?

No. The customer kept on changing the specification, as they always do
if allowed to get away with it.

What you think you can see hasn't got much to do with reality. The
laws of physics haven't changed in the last five years. Some of the
components I've worked with have become as obsolete as the 555, but
that's the kind of problem I've been dealing with since I started
doing electronics back in 1967, and I've gotten pretty skilled at
coping with it.

By your own
admission, no one will hire you, while if you had some whiz-bang
stuff going on for you on your own you wouldn't have to be begging
for work, you'd have to be begging for time off.

Dream on.

Take a look at Larkin and Thompson.

Thompson's kind of skill in analog integrated circuit design is
certainly in demand over here - Kevin Aylward had a job offer in
Nijmegen not too long ago to do that kind of work - but its not an
area where I've had any experience.

John Larkin has his own business, which he promotes with some
enthusiasm

Are they whining about that no one will hire them?

No, but if they did want more work, they certainly wouldn't admit it;
they'd be much more likely to spend time drawing attention to
themselves in the hope that someone would come to them. It gives you a
much better bargaining position, and is much easier on the ego.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

Spoken like a true socialist; wait for the government to solve your
problem. Don't *you* have any responsibility for *you*?

The Dutch employment market is an essentially free market - I apply
for those advertised jobs that I think that I could do, and the
personnel officers for the various companies and organisations compare
my CV with those of other applicants, and invite those that look good
to them to come in for interview.

The Dutch government doesn't get a look in - there's nothing there
that looks in the least socialist. In principle, the government is
supposed to keep an eye on the employment market and discourage
employers from rejecting job applicants on the basis of age or race,
but in fact they don't do anythng remotely effective,

Your dim-witted enthusiasm for seeing socialism in every aspect of
European society has lead you sadly astray.

So you wait for the government to find you work?

Why would you think that?

Is Europe so busted that there is no engineering work?

No. There's a lot of it about, and I apply for loads of jobs,
sometimes applying for the same job twice after it has been re-
advertised for a month or two.

There sure is a bunch to do on
this side of the pond. I understand that you'd have to leave the
womb and it's cold out here.

There are quite a few US firms advertising jobs in the Netherlands -
FEI-Veeco advertise for electronic engineers to do development work on
their electron microscopes in Eindhoven, but I can't even get an
interview out of them.

Then *DO* it. It didn't take me more than three weeks of passive
"looking" to hook a big fish. I'm a contractor now, but that's fine,
after >30 years with one employer.

It took me ten days in Cambridge, when I got made redundant in
November 1991. The work I got was temporary, but I managed to get what
turned into a permanent job after a month or so of looking around.

It has been more difficult in the Netherlands - I did find myself a
full-time job in June 2000, but that only lasted two years and eleven
months, and I've not even got a job interview for more than a year
now.

It's "functional", yet there are no jobs. Neat trick!

There are plenty of jobs - younger people get them all the time. Dutch
unemployment is currently the lowest in Europe, at about 2% of the
working population.

http://www.onrec.com/content2/news.asp?ID=1113

No wonder you can't get a job, You're stupid, as well as being an
arrogant asshole.

We've already established that you aren't very bright, and don't
appreciate how little you know about video.

You are equally ignorant about the Dutch employment market, and no
less assured of the correctness of your daft ideas.

It is not surprising that you don't appreciate having your errors
pointed out - it is difficult to correct a rude idiot without coming
across as arrogant, and I've certainly got no reason to spare your
feelings.

As long as you're not busy making a living, you might as well do
*something* useful, even though it does nothing to contribute to
society.

Showing up stupid twerps like you *is* my contribution to society.

 

[mark krawczuk]

how many people did they study ? 3 or 4 ???

 

[MooseFET]

how many people did they study ? 3 or 4 ???

perhaps zero?

 

[Jim Thompson]

how many people did they study ? 3 or 4 ???

I have a simple solution, don't hire anyone from a public university.

...Jim Thompson