text:
I run a very small practice - with between 1 and 3 employees depending on the workload. Things have been slow, but I may be hiring a new person - someone w/ 0-2 year experience - in the near future. So my question for everyone out there is:
What do people think of the idea of my having the final candidates for the position come in (separately) for several hours to take a skills test?
I'm under no illusions that doing this would guarantee I'll hire the perfect employee. But hope it will help me avoid hiring someone who just won't be a good fit. In such a small office, having someone who ends up not being right for the position isn't good for them or for me.
Curious what the community thinks - both those who are interviewing or hired, and those who run their own firms.
several hours? can you go into more detail of what sorts of tests? i would think 20 minutes for everything should be plenty. asking someone to give up a whole day for a chance at a job seems a bit much. that's like sitting for the ARE.
maybe if you offer to pay them a day's wage for taking said tests? that's only something like $60 anyway, right? wouldn't cost any more than a good dinner out for you and the missus anyway (lots of assumptions there, i know)
Let's call it 2 hours and let's assume I'll buy them a nice lunch in the office where we can get to know each other a bit more. I'm curious what others say about paying for the 2 hours. A good number of firms have their preferred candidates back for a second interview, often having them meet other key team members, etc. and no one expects to be paid for that...do archinectors think this a different animal because the applicants are doing something other than talking?
Two possible tasks...this person will be attending site meetings and producing meeting minutes for distribution, so one task may be to write a short (one decent paragraph summarizing what we talked about at the delicious lunch we just had) to gauge their written communication skills. They'll be building both study and presentation models, so I may have them build a simple 3D shape to see how long it takes them, if they make that object precisely.
I took a Revit test at a major SE firm - 20 minutes to generate connection families for K brace in a hospital project, look it up in AISC manual, set it up with full parameters, install Gusset assemblies, set up detail sheets, print and verbally explain what I did to 5 members of the firm. Some firms have a high degree of rigor and most people just aren't up to it - these tests provide some insight - typically the most efficient persons are the ones that have it.
2 hours and a nice lunch sounds a lot better than several hours while being whipped and tortured in a sweat shop with generally low light levels and occasional spots with too much glare.
i added some color to the potential scenarios above...
No personal offense bklyntotfc, but this is kind of obnoxious in my opinion as are all of the "expert" job postings. I appreciate you are at least asking for opinions though. . .
If you're in the position to be hiring someone then you have a responsibility beyond paying a wage and having a cog in a seat that makes more money for you, then they will be getting paid. We all know this to be the case but where is the employer-employee exchange beyond the marginal dollars per hour?
If you can't see someones potential through a conversation, ie their desire to learn, their dedication and passion towards the profession then there is no skill test that is going to help you out. What happened to mentorship in this profession? Who cares how long it takes them to build a 3D model, how will a young person every get good if they don't get a chance to learn from someone with more experience, when will they build their skills?
I think there are few other posts on here that are touching on this topic as well. It seems everyone is looking for a ready-made. I just want to know where the architect factory is that's producing interns that already have experience?
Find someone you connect with personally and teach them. There's a skill test for you to take on as an employer.
I'd hire the best candidate - as selected by interview, recommendations and portfolio - on a temporary basis and give them a few weeks or so to demonstrate their performance. The trial basis would be at paid at the same level as the permanent position, which would be awarded upon successful completion of the trial period. Your investment is small, both in time and in money, and the applicant has an(other) incentive to perform well and in real real world conditions.
curtkram....don't worry, we don't let them know about the 80 hour workweek and unheated studio until after they're hired. You should see the look on their face the first time I show them their workspace in the unfinished cellar ;).
don't be a goat.....no offense taken. I agree that my job is to mentor, and am not looking for an 'expert', I'm looking for someone who's a generalist, and who has a basic skill set. But I do think it's reasonable to expect that they have a basic grasp those skills that will make them successful in my office. But I don't think I should have to be teaching them basic punctuation and spelling skills, or how to cut a piece of chipboard in a straight line.
miles jaffe.....I have thought about doing a trial period. Do people think it would be more fair to (in the worst case), to agree w/ the applicant that they'd be hired for a 3 week term, but at the end of that term fire them, or to ask them to invest 2 hours and get a free lunch one day? I felt like it would be more disruptive for a job seeker to have a gig for 3 weeks and lose it.
I don't want to give the impression that I burn through a dozen people to find the perfect fit. Over the years I've hired about 25 people. 10 of them were great. 10 were good. And 5 did not work out, which wasn't fun for me or them. BTW, 'great' and 'good' doesn't mean that they didn't need training and mentoring, and didn't have weak spots, it means that they had a foundation that I could work with to take them to the next levels.
I'd just love to find a way to reduce the 20% bad outcomes to 10% or less.
don't be a goat, there is a thread on this forum where kids are talking about how they lie to get a job. if that's the climate this guy is operating in, he won't be able to get a very good idea of what a person can do just by what they say. he wants to hire the best job candidate, not the best liar.
i agree whole-heartedly that employers have a responsibility to teach their staff, and that older staff has a responsibility to teach younger staff as much as they can too. it seems very common in our society today, not just in architecture but everywhere, that people think someone else will do all the teaching. that's an incredibly stupid way to think the world works. that's the core of why i don't like baby boomers too, though of course i like the baby boomers that aren't horrible idiots (there just aren't enough of those).
What we do is to hire on a temporary or probationary basis for a couple weeks, with full pay, but no benefits, time-off accrued, etc. It really makes it clear whether or not you want to hire someone.
I figure out everything for myself - software, architecture - There isn't anything we can't figure out - it's about problem solving - architects and industrial designers are problem solvers - Nobody should have to think for anyone else -
I sort of had a probationary period (at least that is what the employee handbook said). Mine was 6 weeks with full pay, and then all my benefits started.
That said, a couple hour task test with a lunch would be ok with me if I were looking for a job. Seems pretty reasonable.
In my experience, what is called above a "probationary period" is the best way to go. Skill tests tend to provide unreliable predictions of contribution. Use the interview(s) to determine the character, personality and general capabilities of the candidates in which you have a serious interest. Bring the best candidate on board, but explain that the first 90-days will be an opportunity for both the new employee and the firm to assess the other in detail. Use that time to assess the new hire's assertions about his/her skills. Be sure to inform the selected candidate that during this assessment period the agreed upon pay rate will be in effect but standard employee benefits are withheld; also make sure the candidate understands that either party can terminate the relationship during that period with at least a 2-day notice.
Typical policy language for this sort of thing is as follows:
Introductory Period
During the first ninety (90) days of employment, each new employee will be in an "introductory status". During this period, the individual will have an opportunity to examine the company and to evaluate the conditions of employment. Concurrently, the company will have an opportunity to evaluate the individual's performance and ability to fulfill the initial terms of employment.
During the introductory period, employment may be terminated by either the individual or the firm without further obligation or without prejudice. If the firm elects to terminate the employee, a minimum of two days notice will be given. Conversely, the firm expects like notice in the event the employee elects to terminate the relationship.
At the end of the introductory period, the individual's performance will be reviewed with a Principal of the firm. It is important to note that this is a "performance" review - not a salary review. If, during this review, both the firm and the employee are satisfied with the relationship, the individual's status becomes that of a "permanent employee". If either party is not satisfied at this review, "introductory status" may be continued for an agreed upon time period or employment may be terminated.
. . .who cares about spelling skills and punctuation? It use to be a known fact that good artists/architects often suffer from mild dyslexia, should be an indicator you might have some talent on your hands :)
Jeez, I haven't seen this thread about the lying of skills, that's extremely unfortunate, I wonder what prompted that trend though? Is it not in response to an overly technocratic hiring process? Since there is no more, "Hey kid I like you, I'll give you a shot" vibe out there, maybe this is the new foot in the door tactic . . . if that's the case we have bit of that old chicken-egg dilemma on our hands.
"good artists/architects often suffer from mild dyslexia"
In my experience good architects often suffer from brain damage. And starvation.
We're talking about brand new interns here! Some folks are just slow starters or need mentorship and investment to become the superstars every employer is looking for (without having to pay them commensurately, of course). It pisses me off that many experienced architects seem to have forgotten that mentorship is part of their job and duty to the profession.
If employers need somebody to jump right in without any adjustment period and mentorship, then they should be hiring designers with several years of productive office experience, and be paying them appropriately. Unsurprisingly, finding somebody with less than 2 years experience who fits all your needs is going to be incredibly difficult - and they'll likely be employed already and command higher pay, anyway.
i have no problem admitting that I'd very likely fail such a workplace test. It's impossible to know what every employer is looking for, how they like things done, and how quickly, etc. I'm a professional, not a robot or a wizard. At least not yet. I agree that a trial of 6 weeks should tell you what you need to know.
I don't see anything in your possible test examples that couldn't be ascertained from interviews, resume, cover letter, portfolio, references, previous employers, etc. Perhaps writing up meeting minutes, but again, you have samples of their written word with portfolio, cover letter and resume. Not to mention you could contact their references and ask about their ability to write concisely and coherently.
I agree with picking the best candidate and giving them a trial/introductory period of 30/60/90 days, whatever you feel might be necessary.
You all seem out of touch with what is happening in the world besides architecture. My just-graduated-from college daughter recently was applying for entry level jobs (not in architecture) and the hoops she had to go thru at all of the places, for a variety of types of positions, greatly exceeded the sample tests discussed here. Some of the positions required a series of written tests, then submitting writing samples, then preparing lesson plans for a mock group of executives, then a day of trial work. All for entry level work. If you were applying to Google you would go through a 3 to 5 day interview process where you would be given multiple tests and assignments to judge your capabilities.
I think the testing is a great idea. You are looking for how a person follows instructions, how they think, how they approach a problem, etc. You want to see if they take advice, will embrace training, can think independently, stuff like that. Inc Magazine just had an article on interviewing where a technique was described: you ask the person to explain some topic to you. They are to make no assumptions as to your knowledge about the subject, and they can have as long as they want to prepare their presentation of 5 to 10 minutes. I think this would be an excellent way to show how organized someone is, what their thought processes would be, how they communicate, etc.
Sometime you are not looking for specific skills, but in a small office, it is really important that all members of the team mesh together and can work fluidly.
Archie: what you say is correct for corporate America. But, those companies all have large and professional HR departments to plan and execute these complex hiring programs.
However, the OP is a 2-4 person firm - he probably has neither the skill nor the resources needed to make a 'skills test' program effective. Firms like his are better served by the use of probationary periods, which should achieve the same result.
just because your kid is going through it doesn't make it right. those companies should probably relax their testing a bit too. i doubt they have solid metrics saying it really makes a difference, especially since in the real world a business will have to train their new hire to work with the standards they've implemented anyway. it may be what they're testing is who likes to be hazed and abused rather than who can actually fill out TPS reports or sort mail or whatever entry level people in an unspecified field do. i also think the only reason the companies she applied to do that is because the labor market is so weak right now. if we fixed the economy that crap would have to stop, at least in part because it's not effective.
google is the exception. they get to do what the want. welcome your benevolent overlords.
those "entry level" engineering positions at google are usually pushing six figures - it's very different league of applicant.
I don't know what the OP is thinking about paying, but I'm guessing not enough to justify the barrage of tests in the interview. another vote for probationary period..
I once interviewed at a firm in Richmond, VA. I had just graduated from grad school. They gave me an auto-CAD test. At first I thought this practice was BS but now I understand the importance of it. See I can evolve!
I had a bad experience working in a small firm, where the principals misled me during the interview. The team culture also turned out not to be a good fit. I left after 3 months.
So for me in the future, once a potential employer express their serious interest, I would proposed to work for free for at least a full day with their team and in their office to really find out what I'm getting into. I'm "interviewing" the office as much as the other way around. 90 day trial period is too long. 20 minute tests are not enough.
I haven't had the opportunity to test this proposal since I was fortunate enough to be welcomed back by my old firm so no need for testing there. But as an potential employee, I'm perfectly willing to put in free labor to ascertain the culture and mentoring capabilities of a firm I'm interested in. Question is: would an employer be willing to expose the inner workings of their office to truly find a good fit both ways?
CrazyHouseCat, offering to work for free devalues you, and a day is not enough to scope out the situation for either side, Either side can decline to continue after a multi-week trial, and you get fairly paid for your effort.
@ will galloway apparently interns are getting milked as well. . .
Just a question to any mid-career or senior architects out there. Did you go through a skills test when you got your first job? OP did you?
My first interview was with a well known NY architect. As I took out my portfolio he said, "Put that away, I have a portfolio." We talked about architecture, my career goals and why I wanted a job. Can you believe it, why do you want a job?! ( the answer is not to make money but boy I bet people would stumble on that one today) I was amazed that I got hired based on just having a conversation . . . followed by a sense of - oh damn, I really better step my game up this guy just put a ton of confidence in my ability. He put his chips down, as he should and so did I for the following four years working for him. For the employers out there; you want to know how to get the best out of an employee? Inspire them! They can only be as good of a worker as you are a leader. Give them the confidence that they don't yet have, give them some room to mess up, you did. Maybe we could use a senior managers/employers thread on here to share some stories about how bad they goofed when they started out . . . or last week.
There is a growing amount of research and opinion within the fields of cognitive psychology/neuroscience that suggest rules, regulations, testing, incentives and all the devices we use to strive for certainty are failing. We are killing intuitions and moral skills in the process and the outcome is mediocre at best.
For any interns out there, don't participate in any skills tests, if you do you're a goat, a sheep, or some other passive ruminant . . . just showing up and chewing grass because someone told you to chew grass.
(this not all directed at the OP, just raising some criticism towards this topic in general)
Problem with multi-week trial is: a lot of us look for our next job while having a job.
A day is not enough to really understand an office, I admit. However, you'll get a much better feel for a place from actually sitting down amonst other employees and perhaps grabing lunch with your future peers and not just the boss, compared to being isolated in a conference room and hearing the one sided story from employer who is out to charm you.
As to devaluing... I guess it depend on each person's point of view. To me, I'm buying valuable intell, and it's worth a day's work.
Of course, nothing is full proof, there will always be element of risk and luck on both sides. I may consider this a completely idiotic proposal in a few years. But in my somewhat-youthful-ignorance, I don't see how else one can get a reliable feel for the culture of a work place without screwing up one's current job. I actually rather prefer the 3-5 day jumping through hoops interview thing going on in other sectors as mentioned in other posts.
don't be a goat, here's an interview question for you then.
what good are you for your employer?
i know you can learn stuff if they take the time to teach you. that's what you went to school for, and you paid your professors then. why would an employer be your professor for free, and pay you as well?
if your employer is thinking "i need someone to help with drafting and taking notes," they are going to want a candidate that can help with drafting and taking notes. they should pay you, and they can pass the cost on to their clients by billing for your time. they should also teach you to be a better architect, and maybe even give you a position with more responsibility as time goes on (or encourage you to quit if they can't develop a better position for you). if you can't spell or do any drafting, why does the employer want you around? if people are lying about their skills, that might be why he feels a test is necessary instead of just talking about it in an interview.
to answer your question, i once got a job after one of those tests. it was probably only about 20 minutes or something though, and i did not get a lunch. the test was only for drafting in autocad, and this was while i was still an undergrad student. the probationary period is more common; i think i've had 2 of those. as i recall in the first one i got a raise after the 60 or 90 days or whatever, so they basically stunted my paycheck while we were evaluating each other.
An employer passes the cost of staff onto the client with a multiplier attached and they cash in on the difference. That's how you get the big bucks for being the boss, for taking on risk and responsibility. Are you under the delusion that this happens at a one to one ratio?
You are hiring an employee because you can't do all the work on your own, they are going to be the ones who make you more money than you otherwise could alone.
They also learn the new tricks like how to "do the Vray" or any other new skills that older employers don't possess themselves but are cashing in on when it comes time to billing the client.
Just keep in mind that some people can be bad test takers, nervous, squirrely, etc, especially if someone is standing behind their back, (the typical pirate's parrot).
But a regular trial work experience, seems to be more appropriated, giving the candidate a chance to be productive and perhaps just what you are looking for.
so the answer to "what good are you for your employer?" is "do the vray?"
no, although that seems to be the most prized skill nowadays. The answer is an employee expands the capacity of the employer which equates to more dollars. Why would you ever hire someone if you didn't need help?
that's the point of all this isn't it? the employer needs to somehow be assured that you have the ability to contribute to their firm in a way that can help out where they need it. the OP was asking whether a skills test is appropriate. my opinion was that several hours was too much, but personally i think it's ok. the general consensus here is that said skills can be tested better during a probationary period. the crazyhousecat suggested that is a difficult position for someone looking to change jobs. imho, these are all great suggestions.
a conversation during an interview is important, but that may not be enough for the hiring agent to know whether you can perform the tasks they will need you to perform. then again, maybe it is enough. as far as i can tell, your position is "no skills to start but teach me because you like me." other than that, i'm not sure i know what you/we are talking about anymore.
@the OP. I think that's why they design the "probation period" either 3 or 6 months will be more than enough if the candidate are the right one for the job. Every office is different and requires different skills. I think you will need more than just a few tasks is not enough.
I'm just challenging the assurance part. People aren't machines and they shouldn't be treated as such. If anything it makes sense to me that a senior or highly technical position would have to pass a skills test not a first timer. Like if Arup was to hire a facade specialist and they wanted to see how someone handled the software needed to operate at a very high level of competence, then I get it. Very coveted position by a very established practice. They earned the right to skill testing. I'm just posing the alternate of a less empirical approach and trying to express that its empowering to someone starting out for their employer to have some faith in them and to take a chance, to invest in their potential for growth and development over a longer period of time rather than an evaluation on where they are today.
If you want assurance then hire an equal or someone with experience and pay them accordingly, which I believe someone else here mentioned as well. My points are more specific to the nature of this being someone just starting out.
I'm curious as to your thoughts about what might be causing the skills lying that I posed in a post above? Could you post the link to that tread as well?
3-5-years-of-experience a.k.a. "The Skills Lying Tread"
here is the thread where people suggested lying. they are referring to experience lying rather than skills lying. . .
i'm pretty sure it's caused by people who want a job but cannot find one. in our industry, it appears a low paying entry level job is a very coveted position, and unfortunately very well qualified and competent young people are competing against people with technical skills as well as experience. there are a lot of people who deserve an opportunity but won't be able to find one.
Lots of interesting comments. A few reactions:
I've never had applicants out and out lie about their skills, but have had people say (and I believe that they honestly believed) that they were very proficient at 'x', when they were not. I don't think it's unreasonable to see where their skills actually lie, whether in a series of tasks, or in a initial review period, or maybe even both.
don't be a goat...assessing someone's current skills/abilities today does not exclude showing faith in them and investing in their potential. I'm proposing to do both.
And trying to assess someone is not the same thing as trying to hire someone with project manager skills for the price of an entry level draftsman. In my office those lines are a little blurred, so that I usually have a younger staff person take project notes - usually a project manager's job. But that means that they get to attend client meetings, to go on site visits, etc, where someone in a larger office is probably spending that time drafting. But if I hire them and subsequently find that they can't spell, have poor grammar, and are not able to concisely summarize a five minute conversation to it's essential points, then it's a problem.
The idea is to try to identify a few basic traits that are essential to working successfully in my office: can they communicate effectively in writing...can they follow multi step instructions without problem...are they literate in basic math...do they think holistically.
I've given the example of having them do meeting minutes of whatever our lunchtime discussion was. Here's another idea I've been playing with:
Start an applicant with an existing, simple CAD drawing of a space - plan, RCP, sections, all laid out in one file. Give them verbal instructions (they'll be asked to write them down, not to try to remember everything in their head) on how changes need to be made to the drawings by adjusting the square footage of one room. After the adjustments are made, they are to bring the drawings into illustrator and and set them up at a certain architectural scale.
In theory, what am I hoping to see:
1. Can they follow the instructions.
2. If they have problems with the instructions, will they plow forward, or ask a question?
3. Can they do basic math (area calculation and scaling of drawing in illustrator)?
4. Do they adjust all of the drawings or only the plan?
It's not rocket science, and I'm definitely not going to determine if they are an Autocad genius.
To those archinectors who are not horrified by this idea, anyone want to propose any 20 minute tasks that would be effective in highlighting one aspect or another of architectural/professional aptitude?
I bring this up again - do you want somebody who knows the ins and outs of your particular work flow (which seems odd as you mention Illustrator) or do you want a critical thinker who might be able, given the opportunity, to exceed your expectations?
I started a new job last week (intern) and I was honest about my experience and approach. Even though I have very little autocad experience (and have never opened Revit), my new employers took a chance on me. I happen to have my head screwed on straight and I know that my value is not in whether or not I'm a CAD wiz.
your testing approach might be perfectly good if you're looking for a CAD tech (and it's okay if that's what you're looking for - maybe you don't need an intern at all). But if I was given a test for a sub-$40k job, I'd walk out because I know my value to you as well as myself. Good luck.
my first job out of school was given by conversation as well. no portfolio. worked out great. second job involved portfolio but mostly was interview. i have never taken a test to join an office. could be interesting to go through kengo kuma's system just for fun (day long design charette as i hear it), but the corporate models sound painful.
i think younger architects (meaning all graduates from school, including interns in NA system) think they know more than they actually do. Its natural enough. And fairly obvious too. lieing on the other hand is not coolio.
For my first and current job: After being called back three times for interviews and being narrowed down to two candidates I was asked to compete in a design competition with the other candidate. Over a weekend design a lobby space for a 'hip' office and produce a plan, rcp, and rendering. Frankly it pissed me off and I almost declined, but I did it and got the job on a 3 month temp basis. The 3 month temp basis is basically a way they can save a little money and not pay you benefits. There was never another critique at 3 months I just started getting benefits. They ended up hiring the 2nd place person 4 months later, turns out it pissed her off too, but she still did it. In all I probably spent 50 hours on this one job prospect. Obviously I'm still bitter about it.
To try to add something constructive to the conversation, if you do decide to test this person in some way please give them some warning of the time involved and general sense of the task before they arrive so they can plan accordingly. They may have kids, other jobs, responsibilities.
Or better yet just narrow down the search by resume's and hire the person you get along with the best. It shouldn't be this difficult.
how did that work out heavy? did you find out you just love the people and environment? did you discover it was a sweat shop and every morning you wake up it's a little worse than the one before? are you constantly afraid of layoffs because they pride themselves on higher turnover than mcdonalds?
Getting someone to do a design competition against another candidate sounds like something out of "the apprentice" with Donald trump. At least Trump offer high incentives.
Macdonalds don't require you to work unpaid over time.
In Japan a lot of office have an "open desk" system where you can have an extended office visit (somewhat as a starter internship), they pay a measly per diem; I frankly find it aweful unless you're a student with means.
My first job i had no experience (nor coursework) and no knowledge of CAD at all; but the economy was good and they had 2 applicants for 3 positions. I got the job, worked my butt off to get familiar with everything and it worked out for everyone. Since grad school post '08, employers seem far more skittish in taking on lower level labor; hardly anyone trusted my resume or portfolio. Some insisted on more and more CAD drawing to see (you'd think 5~7 yrs of exp in firms would be enough for an entry level gig). I eventually got jobs in places that trusted me and/or trusted my references, which brings me to why not interview references vigorously.
My current firm has schools they like to hire from, because they have consistently produced students of quality and personality that fit well; and we maintain regular contact with faculty there that we trust. When looking at other applicants we ask the references in what capacity they know the applicant and then ask the hard questions of performance under stress, etc.
I also enjoyed my "probationary" period where I got to work as a contractor - kept me off of benefits but gave me flexibility tax wise and allowed me flexibility to quit and/or look for other work. I can see why it's hard to quit a job and switch (much like tenured academics?), but it's fair for entry level without a proven work record.
@curtkram - I should have listened to my initial instinct.
@bklyntotfc - If you're interviewing someone with two years experience couldn't you call their previous employer? If it's a recent grad you're interested in could you find a small competition that you can work together on and get to know them that way? It might be more time invested for both of you but at least if it didn't work out it's something a recent grad could use to help them, you could even give them a good reference.
you should atleast offer to pay for the 7 hrs, incase the person doesn't get the job.
I think that this test would do nothing to eliminate questions you already have about a particular candidate. I have made the mistake of not calling references ONCE. Any of these questions that you believe your test will identify can be easily extracted from a prior employer.
You are also making the mistake it seems to be looking for someone with particular skills instead of looking for a good architect. And why are you afraid of fireing someone if they don't work out? That's what good leaders need to know how to do as well.
maestro - the idea is that my hypothetical tasks would identify or highlight whether a candidate was (or was not) going to be a "good architect"...or more accurately a good professional....Can you communicate, can you focus, can you anticipate what's next, etc. These skills will make you a good architect, a good accountant, a good whatever.
And no, I'm not saying a candidate should be able to read my mind, or won't need plenty of on the job training, but with those traits, the training will stick.
A 2 hour test would not be the only gateway they'd have to pass through. Their portfolio and cover letter are the 1st gate, their first interview is the 2nd, speaking with their references the 3rd. For references, I've found that for those w/out much work experience - and we're talking about an entry level position - that a good rec from a professor doesn't always predict job performance. And working for a large firm - which I've done too - is very different than working in a 2-4 person office, so again a good reference from their supervisor at SOM is also not so good a predictor of good performance in my office.
It's perfectly fair to ask whether it's possible to come up with a set of tasks that will consistently identify something that the first 3 gates missed. The only way to really know is to do it for an extended time until there's a large enough pool of people to say definitively one way or the other.
As unpleasant as it is, I'm not afraid to fire someone, but it takes a significant amount of time to have to go through the process of vetting resumes, interviewing, etc. to find a replacement for the fired person, and extremely disruptive to have to cover that person's work between their firing and the hiring of their replacement.
I have been following this thread for the past few days. It has been interesting reading the dialogue so far. Anyways, for Bklyntotfc, I recently stumbled on this transcript of an interview conducted with BIG's Bjarke Ingels in 2011 . He was asked what led to his success so quickly. His response might shed some light for you regarding new hires (bold text is my emphasis):
Bjarke Ingels: (Bjarke draws a pie graph) So I would say about this much (5%) luck. I would say this much (5%) awesome clients. And the rest would be awesome talented, hard-working BIGsters. I think one thing that I've been fortunate with, and I really don't say this to be politically correct. I now have seven partners and half of them were my students at some point a long time ago. Practically all of my project leaders - actually that's not totally true - at least eight of the current superheroes within the office that win competitions and crank out awesome stuff, have all been interns or students of mine at some point. And the fact that over the last 11 years we have maintained relationships with people. Like some of my partners I have been work working with for 11 years. That means that we don't have to start over all the time, we don't have to hire people off the streets that are complete psychos trained in ultra-competitive environments and impossible to work with and really hard asses. You've probably worked in competitive office environments and you know the environments can be pretty psycho out there. In that sense the accumulated effort has made it sort of into a snowball so that I have more than 100 colleagues but most of them I know him intimately. I can have telephone conversations or text them instant messages and we will know what each other are talking about so it means that more than the amount of projects or the amount of buildings that we've been able to build its the fact that we have been able to accumulate a culture of collaboration. Also when you look at the techniques and talents and procedures and sensibilities that float within the organism is sort of a presence, an embodied potential of knowledge that is carried within the organization and is spreading around. So like after two months in the office it turns people into people that are incredibly good - they learn these skills that have nothing to do with me - it's simply just stuff that's there. And the leave with afterwards. So we've been fortunate in the sense that that 80% of the competitions they were doing right now have been interns that have left, graduated, and come back, so we don't have to take the chance of hiring somebody that has a great portfolio but turns out to be insane once they are inside the office. But we actually know people that start the first day and we have already worked with them. So I think more than anything it's this accumulation of culture within the office that ensures even though we're all getting more busy and traveling more and more, I still think that the work we do as an office gets better and better every time and that is simply because we're not just making projects and building buildings, we're really building an architecture office.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?


text:
Mizzou A–Z
Though Mizzou strives to maintain accurate and up-to-date data collections, directories may not be comprehensive.
- Gaines/Oldham Black Culture Center
- Gangopadhyay Research Group
- Gender Physiology, National Center for
- General Education Program
- General Stores
- General Studies
- Genetics Area Program
- Geographic Resources Center
- Geography
- Geological Sciences
- German and Russian Studies
- Giving to MU
- Global Leadership Education Programs
- Global Scholars Program
- Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program, National
- Golf Course
- GPA Calculator
- Grades
- Graduate Admissions
- Graduate Professional Council (GPC)
- Graduate School
- Graduate School of Public Affairs
- Graduate Student Association
- Graduate Student Progress System
- Graduate Studies
- Graduation
- Grants for Developing New Study Abroad Programs for MU Students
- Greek Life
- Gustin Golf Course
Register your website
The Mizzou A–Z index lists all the departmental Web sites that have been registered with Web Communications. Don't see your department, program or office? Register it now.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Whovian poster pastiche of Frank Newbold's, Quicker by rail series.
art deco cartoon comedy comic comics daily dalek daleks doctor who dr who exterminate famous fan art frank newbould funny geek holiday humor its quicker by train mashup parody scifi skaro spoof tardis the daily dalek tonecartoons train travel webcomic nerd science fiction
Loading more work by ToneCartoons...
10% off
for joining the Redbubble mailing list
Receive exclusive deals and awesome artist news and content right to your inbox.
Free for your convenience.


text:
i bought a gamecube today (at a price of 79€ i couldn't resist). the first game i bought was mario kart double dash and it is so viciously addictive. probably one of the best party games ever invented... i hope that i can get some used games on the fleemarket
79€? that's damn cheap compared to what it is over here.
i don't know why but nintendo has started a pricewar beyond believe over here... maybe the gamecube didn't sell very well in germany
79€, how much is that in US dollars? btw, how many games are there in GC in total, I heard that there are not much. Plus, I heard that they use special kind of DVDs disks so that no one copies them. I also head that the DVD drive reads counter clock wise unlike the normal DVD player. I may be wrong :unsure:
The GC has its own CD format. Not as much storage space as a DVD but more then a CD. It has actually been successful in reducing piracy with the game cube quite significantly. I hear you still cant get Game Cube pirate CDs (I could be wrong though)
Also Mario Kart rocks man. After I played it on the SNES, it was the reason I bought every other nintendo after it. Actually, when the N64 came out, I actually bought mario kart 3 weeks before i bought the actual system!!!
It's damn fun. I still play the N64 version too. I wish I could find my SNES version, but I have no idea where that's gone off to
I think mario kart alone is worth the money for any nintendo! Serious fun. I love it.
anubis: You are now cool
somehow nintendo succeeds in creating games with marvelous gameplay. the new zelda is a very good example. davepermen mentioned this once : nintendo does a very good job at creating games that don't look like everything is just made up of trianlges. of course the job is easier to do on a console than on the pc due to the interpolation on the tv screen but still it doesn't jump my eye that much when playing playstation 2 games.
other games i'm determined to buy are : fzero, smash brothers, all the remakes of old games (metal gear solid 1, resident evil 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, final fantasy). there might be more of these. nintendo liscenced quite a few old games.
they have about 500 games out (last tv-ad shows that, at least). and they have tons of great games (wich i yet have to find on any other platform).
addicting? ohh yes.
yeah, and the graphics are just.. different.. natural.. something i miss on xbox till today. on ps2, too.
yes, the gc uses dvd's in the small format, and reverse burned. to be able to actually read anything, you have to reverse the rotation direction of your dvd-rom/dvd-rw. and i guess the laser too weak to read burned dvd's (just like our dvd player.. shit).
they have about 1gb of data on it. more than enough for games. except for epic unreal software:D but they are just crazy anyways.
did they ever release that modem forthe gc ? i heard online games were planned but i yet have to find one
They did release it over here in the UK, but it was about 4 months after the relase of Phantsy Start OnLine (The only reason to buy a modem!), and I'd got sick of waiting by that point
AFAIK Gamecube CDs being burned in the reverse direction is a complete myth. They are, however, burned from the outside in, rather than the inside out as usual.
That's a picture of the gamecube disc. DAMN SMALL!
Oh, and 79€ is about \\$96.58. DAMN CHEAP!
amazing... is the dollar still this weak ? somehow i thought the situation was a little more relaxed right now
AFAIK Gamecube CDs being burned in the reverse direction is a complete myth. They are, however, burned from the outside in, rather than the inside out as usual.
That's a picture of the gamecube disc. DAMN SMALL!
Oh, and 79€ is about \\$96.58. DAMN CHEAP!
hm okay.. i got the other reverse...
must have been a translation issue


text:
Dan74 wrote:Hwadu is a great practice but it is not for everyone. Like much of Zen, it is a steep path.
BuddhaSoup wrote:For me, it was important to source the school closest to the teachings of the Buddha. The scholarship in the area of the etiology of the Dhamma reflects that the Pali Canon captures to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty the teachings of Gautama Buddha. Many of the Ajahns and teachers that teach from the Theravada and Early Buddhism perspective are highly credible. We have today teachers like Vens. Thanissaro, Bodhi, Brahm, Gunuratana, and others who are highly intelligent people (some with strong science and research backgrounds) who likely wouldn't waste their time on a fool's errand. Lifetimes have been spent on this Dhamma, and have yielded sound roadmaps for the navigation of mind/ life and release from samsara as the Buddha intended.
After starting with Korean Zen, and spending some back and forth time with other Mahayana traditions, when the time came for me to commit to a practice and a school, there was no question other than choosing Pali Canon/Theravada. There is so much positive to be said of Mahayana, but to be critical, in some respects Mahayana has taken the Buddhavacana and created a practice out of completely new cloth. The Buddha's Vinaya is rejected. The Canon is displaced by 8th century fabrications that were geared more to nationalistic concerns, than Dhamma. Buddha is said to have made statements in later sutras that no independent scholar accepts as valid or true.
There is so much cohesiveness, intelligence, wisdom and authenticity in the Pali Canon based schools, that to practice otherwise would suggest a rejection of Buddhism in favor of, for example, "Dogenism." Try going to a Zen sangha and learning jhana. It was the Buddha who advised his monks to practice jhana, to meditate in a certain way, and this practice was later rejected by Mahayana schools seeking to "brand" themselves in a more populist manner. All forms of meditation are beneficial, but it seems to me important to practice meditation the way that the Buddha taught it.
It's a bit like the barrel analogy. There is a beauty and simplicity to a well made oak barrel. Start creating cracks and pounding pegs into it, and soon it is no longer a barrel, and it no longer holds water. Maybe I'm a jerk for saying this, but the Dhamma can be considered medicine for a deluded society, so why not try to get the antidote as effective and pure as we possibly can?
Myotai wrote:I have read recently some of the teachings within the Korean Seon schools. The imply that their practices cut out a lot of talk and conjecture going straight to the core. They speak of Hwadu practices as being a direct path to Enlightenment. For those in here who are aware of this path I am curious why would you choose Theravada in the light of these claims?
Thanks for your answers
MR: Why do you think there is such a division between the Theravada and the Mahayana schools?
Ajahn Sundara: I think the divide came up very early after the death of the Buddha. Some scholars have explained that there was a school that was very strongly attached to the idea of the arahat model. Maybe the Mahayana, bodhisattva school, came in reaction to those earlier positions that were taken after the Buddha's passing away. Maybe it was not such a big divide; maybe it was just a reaction to monks who studied a lot and just didn't care about the world and didn't have anything to offer the rest of their society.
MR: What about now? Do you think that there is a big divide now?
Ajahn Sundara: I think the divide between the two schools is more in the text than in reality. I know people have made a big thing about it but it's a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of bad feelings about the Theravada, "Hinayana" schools. As if the Mahayana bodhisattva is out there busy and not really getting enlightened and the arahat doesn't care about the world…. Maybe I'm kind of cynical about it. The thing is, if you practice you don't dwell on such differences at the conceptual level.
MR: Do you think there are any differences in the two schools?
Ajahn Sundara: Each school brings different skillful means to deal with the mind and body. The Buddha's teaching is basically a long series of skillful means to liberate the heart from suffering. I see the bodhisattva vow as another means, another way to explain how to liberate the mind from suffering. When I hear you chanting that you are dedicating your life to the benefit of all sentient beings, it's like a means of training the mind to move away from that self-centered tendency which happens very dramatically. We do this in our meditation. In America this is called Insight Practice. We are learning about the mind and its very selfish patterns and self-centered activity, and just listening to the mind as it is. Then we discover we can let it go, let go of that "non-bodhisattva mind," let it go and so the divide becomes smaller and smaller.
When I was listening to the teaching of the Dalai Lama several years ago, myself and another nun who took the Bodhisattva vows checked all my vows. I checked the bodhisattva vows in great detail and there was nothing that would make me transgress, anything that would keep me from following those vows properly. I see them as training; the Bodhisattva Vow is training the mind just like the precepts are training the mind.
Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion. I would rather listen to the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ajahn Amaro.
Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
MR: Why do you think there is such a division between the Theravada and the Mahayana schools?
Ajahn Sundara: I think the divide came up very early ... Maybe ... Maybe ... maybe ...
Ben wrote:Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion. I would rather listen to the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ajahn Amaro.
Yes, I agree. I have seen that video before and it does Ven Dhammavuddho no favours.
Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
Dan74 wrote:I would rather listen to the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ajahn Amaro or Ajahn Sundara
Dan74 wrote: I am not saying he is wrong in everything, nor that he is a bad monk, etc. But on this point he is plain wrong
Dan74 wrote: and the worst kind of sectarianism.
nibbuti wrote:Actually, the suttas he says have a taste of freedom are pre-sectarian.
nibbuti wrote:Dan74 wrote: I am not saying he is wrong in everything, nor that he is a bad monk, etc. But on this point he is plain wrong
I'm not sure "right or "wrong" does apply to taste.
Mahayana Sutra, those I've read, had a taste of pomposity (like the Lotus Sutra) and well-meant confusion (Heart Sutra), rather than freedom.
Just my taste.Dan74 wrote: and the worst kind of sectarianism.
Actually, the suttas he says have a taste of freedom are pre-sectarian.
daverupa wrote:As I recently discovered on the other DW, the mere hint that pre-sectarian texts predate & are not Mahayana texts is enough to drum up a defensive formation prior to clearing a room.
Return to "General Theravāda discussion"
Users browsing this forum: form, phil, retrofuturist, Zom and 108 guests


text:
Iron Patriot and Iron Mark VII...
To insure your action figure collection, get in touch with Collectibles Insurance, the official insurance company of the Figures.com network. Say "Figures.com" to get 5% off your first term premiums.
To buy action figures, take a look at BigBadToyStore.com, PlasmaInfusion.com, Toynk.com, BriansToys.com, ToyWiz.com, and MonkeyDepot.com.
Hot Toys presents two new additions to their Iron Man 3 Collectible Bust collection. Joining Iron Man Mark XLII and War Machine (see our story HERE) comes Iron Patriot and Iron Man Mark VII. Approximately 1/4 scale, each bust measures around 9 inches tall and features LED-lighted eyes and hearts (white light, battery operated). Look for these to release in the third quarter of 2013.
**Prototypes shown, final product may be slightly different
**Product details could be subjected to change without further notice
**Batteries not included, 3A batteries (3 pieces) are required


text:
To perfect your favorite cookie, here are a few tips.
1. Always start with cold butter and preheat your oven to 350 degrees. This prevents over mixing and proper incorporation of the sugar and fat. 350 degrees works well for all cookie sizes.
2. When creaming the butter and sugar, constantly scrape down the sides to ensure that all of the butter is mixed in. The creaming process forms tiny air bubbles in the fat and dissolves the sugar. When this step is finished you should barely be able to feel granules of sugar in the butter. You want to achieve the color of a latte, a very light brown. This is the step where many bakers over mix, incorporating too much air and ending up with a flat cookie. If the mixture is under mixed and the sugar is still in its original form, you will end up with a dense/ heavy cookie.
3. After your butter and sugar resemble fluffy clouds, it is time to add the eggs. Add all the eggs and vanilla or other flavoring, and begin on speed one. Scrape down the sides and set on speed 2. This step usually takes about a third of the time that your first step takes. The butter mixture will break down into tiny beads, then become one with egg mixture, again forming a latte like color. If you are making an oatmeal cookie, now is the time to add your rolled oats. Oatmeal cookies work best when the oats have time to soak. A good amount of time to soak is 10-15 minutes. If you are using quick oats, just add them in the next step.
4. Now it is time to add your dry ingredients. It is important to have all dry ingredients combined before you place them in the mixing bowl. Unless you would like to adorn your kitchen and yourself with flour, start this process on speed one. Stay on speed one for about 15 seconds, then move up to speed two for 5-10 seconds and scrape down. If more time is necessary then go for it, but be careful not to develop too much gluten by over mixing. Gluten development makes for a displeasing chewy texture. Add your chips, nuts or dried fruit and give it a quick mix.
5. The mixing process is over, and you are one step closer to oven fresh cookies. Your oven should be hot and ready for your cookies. When portioning your cookies, it is smart to make them all the same size for even baking. Lightly smash down the cookies and pop them in the oven. Appropriate baking time for a tablespoon cookie in a 350 degree oven is about 8 minutes, give or take, depending on the power of your oven. When checking cookies for doneness, look at the edges and try not to look in the middle. Cookies finish their bake on the pan after you take them out of the oven. Contrary to popular belief placing cookies on a cooking rack isn't really necessary, unless you need the pan again.
I hope that these tips and instructions help you improve your cookie making skills. After many years of baking I can say these have definitely helped me, so give 'em a try. Thank you for reading, and happy baking!


text:
A measure that would have made it a crime to take certain pictures on a farm without the owner's permission was turned down by the Florida Legislature on Wednesday.
Under the so-called "Ag Gag" bill, photographing or videotaping "abusive, unsanitary or otherwise dangerous or illegal activity on a farm" could subject a person to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
It was aimed at activists who want to go onto a farm and do undercover videos.
Legislators stripped the "Ag Gag" provisions from an omnibus agriculture bill that later passed. Read more.
Meanwhile, the Iowa Legislature is about to take up a simillar measure. House File 589 would make it illegal to videotape at farms or other animal operations while undercover.


text:
How about taking Hibbert off in the first quarter when he was 4-4 in 8 mins then give him a little mins in the 3rd then pull him out for the rest of the game. How does that make sense? Hibbert earned his mins today, and JOB didnt award him
'); var yuipath = 'clientscript/yui'; var yuicombopath = ''; var remoteyui = false; } else // Load Rest of YUI remotely (where possible) { var yuipath = 'http://yui.yahooapis.com/2.9.0/build'; var yuicombopath = 'http://yui.yahooapis.com/combo'; var remoteyui = true; if (!yuicombopath) { document.write('
How about taking Hibbert off in the first quarter when he was 4-4 in 8 mins then give him a little mins in the 3rd then pull him out for the rest of the game. How does that make sense? Hibbert earned his mins today, and JOB didnt award him
"So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.
He kept both Daniels and Ford in the game even when they'd miss shot, after shot, after shot. the best coaching decision he has made all season is to not call a timeout for our final shot, soley because his input surely woulda screwed us over.
We had what, an 11 point lead going into the 4th, and managed to blow it to one of the least talented teams in the NBA. Our advantage of the game was height, I think Al Harrington might be the Knicks tallest active player, yet Hibbert who dominated when on the court, got subbed out for Foster who really didn't play all that well defensively, and Rasho, who could post up every player on the Knicks roster didn't play at all.
Then, in the 4th, because Obie went small ball, Granger was forced to guard Harrington in the post. Harrington scored about 10, probably more, of his points in the 4th because Obie wouldn't put in a big to defend him. Possession after possession, he would just post up all the smaller guys who stood no chance, and Obie did nothing about it. If it wasn't for Jack, we would have gotten destroyed tonight.
How many games does it take for everyone to realize that his system does not wear well in the 4th quarter? Why anyone is wondering anymore is a mystery to me.
We are 5th in the league in turnovers for a reason. That is a big reason why we are not playing well. Why do we have so many turnovers? Because the system is a mess OR the players simply are not good enough to execute it. We are NOT that young of a team, folks.
Anyone remember how Rick Carlisle used to harp on turnovers? Well, Rick has more talent than Obie for sure, but has his team above .600 with an aging Jason Kidd. For some reason, I seriously doubt this team would be worse off with Rick Carlisle. JMHOAA.
First, I do think Hibbert should've gotten more minutes, but don't necessarily think it was going to have a huge impact on the game. He was considerably less effective in the second half than he was in the first.
Of course, he kept Daniels in the game. Who's he going to play? I'm no fan of Marquis, but he went 1 of 6 on good shots in the fourth quarter. He missed three 13 footers, a 19 footer, and a 5 footer. This is a guy who has shot over 50% on 2 point attempts this year.
This win tonight over one of the "least talented teams in the league" cut their lead over us to 1 1/2 games. We are what our record says we are right now. There are no gimme victories, particularly on the road.
So, if the 6'8" 225lb Danny Granger is too small to guard the 6'9" 230lb Al Harrington, please tell me what "big" we were going to use to guard him. Are you suggesting Hibbert or Rasho or Murphy or Foster? With the possible exception of Foster, that just looks like a parade to the foul line to me.
As to the time outs, that's always a judgment call. The Pacers responded to the first 7-0 run by pushing the lead back to seven without calling a timeout. An automatic time out is not always the answer. The only real answer to a run is a bucket and a stop.
EDIT: I am not saying that O'Brien is perfect, and I don't agree with everything that he does. I simply don't buy that everything is his fault. The players on the floor have to execute and hit shots. The team as a whole isn't very good, and there are very few, if any, coaches who would post a much better record than they have now. If O'Brien were fired today, I have a high degree of confidence that it would be fewer than 30 games into the next permanent coach's tenure that this incessant *****ing started all over again.
Last edited by count55; 01-03-2009 at 01:00 AM.
I don't like the hate for JOB.
How about the thought that Hibbert was winded in such a fast paced game like this? We know when big men get winded they start to reach, and that leads to fouls, putting our team in the penalty. Add the fact we have the second of a back to back tomorrow vs the Kings, where Roy might be more effective.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a timeout right before the Knicks had the ball? Maybe JOB told them ahead of time, this is what we do on defense and this is what we do when we get the ball back. Don't call a timeout and let them set up, give it to Jack because he's feeling it, and clear it out. If he makes it we win, if he misses it's a good shot because he's carrying us all quarter. Jack has to love the trust JOB put in him.
2015 and 2016 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers
I don't think everything is the coaches fault either, but when you blow 4th quarter leads every game, and every game he makes very questionable subsitutions to the point that other teams announcers are calling him out on it, then something is wrong. I for one, believe this team is more talented than a lot of people on this site think. I don't think we are great by any means, but we would be a lot better if Obie didn't sub out players when they are hot, never call timeouts when other teams are making huge runs, and actually drew up plays that work. Have you noticed that about 75% of the time, when he draws up a play, right out of the timeout, we turn it over or get a terrible shot. His plays have never worked, pay attention next time and you'll see.
This Pacers team has proven to have the talent, by being in games in the 4th. Its the coaches job to draw up good players to finish them out. The other day, we were in a game, I forget who we were playing, but early in the 3rd or 4th the other team got into foul trouble. I mean like 4 minutes into the quarter we were in the bonus. For 5 straight minutes we took nothing but jumpers. Obie needs to yell at the guys to drive to the hoop and get to the line, we had a huge advantage and he didn't get our players into the game. Frankly, they should have known to do that also, but its the coaches job to make sure they do, when they don't. He didn't do that.
I have never thought a basketball coach lost games until Obie. I have never criticized a basketball coach until Obie. He is the only basketball coach that I have ever seen, that makes decisions like that and keeps his job. Jim O'Brien is the perfect hire for teams looking to lose. I promise you that if we had Avery Johnson as our coach we would be a much better team.
Hibbert was taken out when he had it going...and then he went cold after being benched. I suppose when they play Harrington and Lee it's a bad matchup for us, but Granger (and even worse, Brandon Rush) should never have guarded the 245lb Al Harrington. That should have been Foster's job. David Lee is not tiny, but he's also not as physical on the block. Granger should have been on Lee and Foster on Harrington. McBob did not play well for the few minutes he was in, but 4 minutes is not enough time to even warm up. In a game against a team playing David Lee and Harrington, McBob should have been given more minutes.
As for the Knicks record, it's better than ours because of our schedule in November and most of December. We beat them because we are better even without Dunleavy.
As for the time-out, that would require an in-game adjustment. I do believe most coaches would have called a time-out, but the fact it was not called kind of fits JOb's style. It is what it is.
Just because your favorite player isn't getting 48 MPG doesn't make the coach bad. JOB has some weird rotations and it does seem that 50% (?) of the last second shots to end any of the four corners are taken by the same guy who dribbles the ball down the court.
JOB called the play "2-2-6" whatever that may be from the sidelines after the Pacers secured the rebound for the last play. He even had to yell it a few times to somebody. I was in the basement of my house in Indy and knew the play. It's safe to assume the 5 guys on the court did as well. No need for a timeout..... they had a play.
With all of that said I also hate JOB as the coach but some of you's need to calmicus downicus.
Ok, here we have a contrast in styles, to put it lightly.
Which system/style do you prefer? Neither? Certainly not both.
Have at it.
Edit: Ricky supposedly is running more now. If anyone knows to what extent, please inform...
Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-03-2009 at 01:54 AM.
I have taken a chill pill.
So, he barked a play out while people were racing around the court, totally out of position? I wondered why it was so difficult for this team to execute in the 4th quarter.
****, I meant to vote for O'Brien. I like Carlisle I was just getting tired of the "I'm gonna open things up and let the players play talk" then he'd continue to call every single play. Don't really have strong opinions on either. Now both Larrys were great coaches.
I think a couple of things are being overlooked.
There are 14 real Pacers this year. 9 of them have never been on a winning NBA team. Danny played more minutes in his second season than 6 of them have in their entire careers (includes the rooks).
Only three players on this team have ever been past the first round of the playoffs (all were reserve/role players) and only two others (one was Danny's rookie season) have ever even been there. This is not a team of proven winners at this level.
Don't like JOB but let's be realistic.
I like winning. Rick has only 1 losing season. He's got 2 ECFs, 2 second rounds and other first round season, and now he's clearly headed for yet another winning season and possibly some advancement into the playoffs. And he has Dallas back to playing defense.
But on my list of Pacers coaches JOB is closer to the top than the bottom. Guys below him - Isiah, Hill, Versace all spring to mind. Rick, Bird and Brown are the main guys ahead of him. And Slick of course.
Rick. Not even close.
"So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.
this comparison is an insult to carlisle.
Voting RC b/c I prefer his overall approach. However, I honestly don't think he'd be doing anymore than JOB with what's in the cupboard here.
In fact, he might actually do less with our guys. The one area I was never impressed with about RC was his sideline demeanor and ability to relate to players.
True he had some real zingers to relate to (and I couldn't see behind the scenes), but I think JOB is probably better in tis area with a younger bunch. RC definitely rolls better with a more veteran squad.
I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano Zapata
Dallas' "Pace Factor" (estimate of possessions per 48 minutes) is 91.6, which is slightly below the league average of 91.7 and ranks 17th this season.
It is lower than Rick's final year here, when the Pacers had a Pace factor of 92.7, which was 10th in the league and above the 91.9 league average. His earlier seasons with the Pacers (in chronological order) were 87.5 (26th), 87.2 (29th), and 89.7 (20th).
So, he's not slogging it out the way he was the first two years here, but he's not exactly running an up-tempo offense.
And if Rick were still here, he'd likely be working on his third losing season. O'Brien has one ECF appearance, and currently only one full losing season. Using winning as a barometer assumes the same talent levels, which is certainly not accurate.
I basically consider Rick and Obie about equal in terms of quality. Both have good traits, and both have flaws. Rick is a little too set-piece for me, and O'Brien is a little too loose, offensively, for my taste. Neither is going to overcome a talent deficit, neither will greatly hamper good talent.
And, one more thing:
Using Defensive Rating (points per 100 possessions), this season's 104.6 is the second best in the last five years, with 2007 being 103.2. They are currently 9th in this category, which is where they were last year. Dallas was 5th in 2007, 11th in 2006, and 9th in 2005.
Rick did not take over Nellie's Mavs, and his defense is basically on a par with where Avery Johnson had it for the last four years.
We may or may not be a better defensive team with Rick as coach, but I am sure we would be a worse offensive team. (And I don't think we're particularly good offensively right now.)
I see a Pacers team that comes out and plays hard (pretty much) every game.
A team where the players actually seem to care about winning games, even if they lose.
I hear about a team that practices hard, and actually works on basketball fundementals - picks, footwork, "jump stops".
I see a team that actually does play as a team, as so much you can in the NBA.
I see players that seems to care about each other, and are happy when they do well.
I see a team that I actually care about, and like to watch. As opposed to last year.
No doubt our personnel changes have had something to do with that, but you have to give JOB some of the credit as well.
Most of the coach's work is done in practice and preparation, not in games. Think of the 'tip of the iceberg' cliche. You only see what's above water.
And IMO, JOB is an excellent practice coach. He is a solid, no-nonsense professional coach. And that is exactly what this team needed at this stage of their development.
Last edited by Doug; 01-03-2009 at 10:23 AM.
You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song
- Jimmy Buffett
Thank you for a well thought out, but also a post with a great deal of perspective great to read
I like them both a lot.
I do laugh now that so many think Rick is a great coach, where were many of you two and thre years ago
Carlsle for head coach with OB as assistant coach / offensive coordinator and Harter as defensive coordinator would be fine by me. Yes, Carlisle didn't have the people skills to relate to the players. If O'Brien does better in that regard then we would have the best of both worlds. However, both coaches have stubborn streaks and would not likely be able to coexist on the same sideline.
From a tactical standpoint Carlisle is better as a structured system coach, everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that our near championship caliber athletic team with all of our former troublemakers much preferred to be allowed to freelance and follow their own agendas. Perhaps O'Brien would have been the more appropriate coach for that group when compared to Carlisle. Maybe he would have coddled the players in a different fashion than Carlisle by allowing them to determine their own touches by simply staying out of their way. Maybe O'Brien would have stopped us from hearing the complaints out of the players that we were too predictable which made us easier to defend than we should have been. What better way to coach a group of guys who Reggie immediately labeled upon his departure as the deepest team in the league by far, but that also had too many guys with their own agendas to make it all the way?
The last thing that O'Brien would do would be to stop players from freelancing. He encourages it, in fact, which leads to our inconsistency. When we are hot, it is very difficult to contain us offensively. However, we tend to implode at inopportune times due to fatigue and carelessness borne of a feeling of desperation that as an individual the player with the ball feels like he must make something happen before it is too late. This is a contributing factor in the lack of effective ball movement in late game situations, leading to our guards taking (and more often than not MISSING, despite last nights win) last possession shots that are not often quality looks.
Coaches like Sloan, Poppovich, Stan Van Gundy, Carlisle, Brown, etc. always can be counted on to gather their players and set up situations in the huddle down the stretch that creates a sense of structure, forcing their players to concentrate more on the task at hand than the score, and calling plays that either lead to high quality looks with proper execution or, if the opponents stop the primary play, leads to a viable secondary scoring option to kick to. Freelancing does not provide any of this. Disciplined leadership does.


text:
In the jury trial surrounding the 2003 cold case stabbing death of a Fairfield woman, testimony on Wednesday shifted away from the suspect and back to a former boyfriend of the victim.
On trial for the murder of 55-year-old Kathryn Vitagliano, who was found stabbed multiple times in her Robin Drive home in Fairfield on Nov. 26, 2003, the defense case for murder defendant Ricardo Cruz, 36, has hinged on the possibility that another man is responsible. Called to testify on Wednesday in Solano County Superior Court was Larry D. Johnson, 65, a childhood friend of a man that Vitagliano had dated 10 years prior to her death.
Johnson, who is serving a 46-month prison sentence following his 2010 conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, testified that his friend Jose Gallego confessed to killing Vitagliano. He testified that he visited Gallego at his Oregon home in July 2008, when the admission was made.
"He said, 'I stabbed her until she stopped gurgling,' '' Johnson testified about their conversation.
Gallego lived in Oregon at the time of the killing and has already testified in the trial, denying he killed Vitagliano.
"I was really in shock," Johnson testified.
"He said he cleaned up as best he could and left there," he added.
Prosecuting Deputy District Attorney Terry Ray questioned why Johnson didn't tell authorities about the alleged confession until 2010, and why he added information that he didn't testify to in the first trial.
Johnson testified that he waited to say something because he was a convicted felon growing marijuana and didn't want to draw attention to himself. He had previously only testified that he was worried about the safety of Gallego's wife when, eventually, he alerted Solano County authorities.
Ray also questioned his timing, as Johnson was awaiting sentencing on the gun charge when he called authorities in Solano County.
Questioned as to whether he gleaned information about the murder from a police press release about the murder in 2003 and a 2006 reward offered by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Johnson testified that he didn't know of the $50,000 reward before speaking with authorities.
However, he did admit to a 2010 falling out with Gallego. Johnson admitted to posting his claims online that Gallego had stolen his dog.
"I'm still angry with him over my little dog," Johnson testified.
Cruz, who has pleaded not guilty, had dated one of Vitagliano's daughter's prior to the killing and is facing his second jury trial. After a three-week trial that ended in September, a Solano County Superior Court jury was left deadlocked and a mistrial was declared.
Testimony is set to continue at 9:30 a.m. on Friday in the Fairfield courtroom of Judge Peter B. Foor. Cruz remains in Solano County Jail with bail set at $1 million.
Follow Staff Writer Ryan Chalk at Twitter.com/RyanChalk1883.


text:
WINCHESTER residents are gearing up for a challenge to raise vital funds for the county's churches.
Run by Hampshire and the Islands Historic Churches Trust, the annual Ride and Stride event raised over £53,000 last year for essential church repairs, renovation and restoration.
It challenges people to a sponsored walk, run, cycle or drive around their local area, visiting as many churches as possible in a day.
This year over 100 churches will take part on September 13, with 34 in Winchester and the surrounding villages, 23 in Alresford and around, 19 in Bishop's Waltham and around, and eight in Eastleigh and Southampton involved.
Half the money raised goes to the HIHCT, and the other half to a church of the participant's choice.
Winchester Cathedral received £2,716 from last year's efforts – the most of any in Hampshire.
For a sponsorship form, and to find out which churches are taking part, go to hihct.org.uk.


text:
The University has developed Data Protection Standards as part of its Administrative Data Access policy. A downloadable copy of the current version of the standards (Adobe PDF format) is linked below.
These standards outline requirements for handling and protecting all the University's institutional data, whether it be highly sensitive, moderately sensitive or not sensitive. Moreover, following these standards is critical to compliance with the University's Protection and Use of Social Security Numbers and Electronic Storage of Highly Sensitive Data policies.
Because security requirements must be changed and strengthened over time as threats and technologies change, these standards will be regularly updated, with the current date and changes from the previous document indicated.
University Data Protection Standards 1.1 (PDF) (August 4, 2009) >>
University Data Protection Standards 2.0 (PDF) (Released for comment December 20, 2013) >>
If you have questions or concerns, please contact the Information Security, Policy, and Records Office.


text:
Why Push a Car?Situation puzzles (sometimes called lateral thinking puzzles) are ones where you need to ask lots of yes or no questions to figure out what happened in the situation. These are good puzzles for groups where one person knows the puzzle and answers the questions.
A man pushes his car to a hotel, pays the owner of the hotel and pushes his car away.
What was he doing?
HintThink small.
AnswerPlaying a game of Monopoly.
What Next?
See another brain teaser just like this one...
Or, just get a random brain teaser
If you become a registered user you can vote on this brain teaser, keep track of
which ones you have seen, and even make your own.
Back to Top


text:
Swiss Hip Hop Hoodies are an Idakoos specialtiy! Idakoos has many things to offer. Whether you want to get a Swiss Hip Hop Hoodie for a special occasion, give a Swiss Hip Hop Sweatshirt as a present or need to represent with a funny Swiss Hip Hop Hoody during Holidays or Family and Friends get-togethers, Idakoos is sure to have the right Swiss Hip Hop Hoodie for you! Even if it turns out you can't find the right Swiss Hip Hop Hooded Sweatshirt with the perfect design for your mother, father or children (or friends!); Idakoos offers all of its men's women's and children's Swiss Hip Hop Hoodies as Swiss Hip Hop Hoodies. Personalize any Swiss Hip Hop Hooded Sweater the way you want to ensure the perfect gift.
Showing 1 - 24 of 65 Hoodie


text:
SANTA CLARA — Former Butte College football player and current San Francisco 49ers head strength and conditioning coach Mark Uyeyama has high standards, both for himself and the players.
He has carefully designed and implemented a conditioning program that caters directly to each player's specific needs.
Whether the aim is to enhance quarterback Colin Kaepernick's arm strength and agility or increase linebacker Aldon Smith's explosive power, the former Roadrunner has made an art of matching players to workout regimens that actualize their potential.
Uyeyama has held every single position known in his field. He steadily worked his way up, going from being a student assistant strength coach at Utah State University in 2000 to being the head strength and conditioning coach at Utah State from 2004-2007. In 2008, he was hired as the assistant strength and conditioning coach for the 49ers. Ultimately, he was promoted to the head strength and conditioning coach position in 2011.
Uyeyama took great lengths to watch and learn from the coaches he was under, learning every nuance imaginable to perfect his craft.
"I am very observant to what is going on," Uyeyama said.
This mindset of always being attentive has manifested itself in the way he runs the strength and conditioning program in San Francisco.
"There are no cookie-cutter programs here," Uyeyama said. "What works for one doesn't the other."
Every program is tailored to a specific athlete in order to ensure that the player gains as much as possible from the assigned training regimen. Uyeyama is extremely mindful of the needs of everyone he coaches in order to best construct a beneficial workout for them. He said he always focuses on the positives in a player and strives to "maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses."
For Uyeyama, there is always room to improve. No matter how adept the player may be, Uyeyama believes they can always be even better.
"They (the players) are here for a reason. We identify what that reason is and we want to make that even more of a reason," Uyeyama said. "If you're fast, I want to make you really fast."
Uyeyama said that the health and fitness of the player is the most essential aspect of the game. He broke the components of the game down into three parts: "the physical component, the technical and tactical component, and the psychological component."
Uyeyama is of the opinion that "the physical is the foundation. If you don't have your health, it doesn't matter how good your technique is, if you know the plays, and if you have the right mindset to play."
Laying the groundwork for the physical component depends almost entirely upon Uyeyama's attention to detail.
"We take everything into consideration. Everything that involves the physical preparation of these athletes, we're going to make sure that we have a grasp on that," Uyeyama said. "I look at everything that comes at a physical cost and manage that."
Everything from the conditioning drills to the athlete's nutrition is monitored and tracked, leaving nothing unaccounted for.
Because of Uyeyama's unique approach, the program is constantly evolving and changing.
"There's always going to be some wrinkles and changes based upon the individuals you have on the team, based upon identifying what the strengths are," said Uyeyama.
He went on to say that he doesn't place value on programs that are stagnant and inflexible.
"If your program stays the same, you're chances of getting better are less and less," Uyeyama said.
Even with the ongoing changes to his programs, the one constant for Uyeyama is the pursuit of excellence. That attribute has been Uyeyama's defining characteristic, both in his time at Butte and now in San Francisco.
"There are very high expectations at Butte," Uyeyama said. "That is what is built at Butte. Once you leave there, you're always a part of something."


text:
Popular Posts
Good news! i just noticed that aprx packages already listed on Ubuntu repository. Aprx is a software package designed to run on any PO...
Apabila sampai waktu hari raya kurban sudah tentu ramai yang berebut mengambil peluang untuk mencari pahala dengan mengambil bahagian dalam...
Berikut adalah harga terkini bertarikh 22 september 2017. Lesen-lesen Perisian (SERIAL KEY SAHAJA. ISO, INSTALLER BOLEH DOWNLOAD SENDIRI D...
Introduction Of Amateur Radio Presenter: SALLEH HUDDIN BIN ABDUL RASHID Callsign: 9W2STT Event: HackInTheBox Security Conference 2009 V...
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Amateur radio operator clashes with code enforcement
KENNESAW – Lifelong amateur radio enthusiast Ritner Nesbitt, a grandfather of 10 who lives down the road from Dominion Christian Schools in west Cobb, has attracted the unwelcome attention of the county's code enforcement department.
Nesbitt said he moved to his home, which is located on a wooded slope across the street from Burnt Hickory Farms subdivision, 20 years ago precisely because it was an excellent spot to pursue his passion for amateur radio, also known as ham radio, a non-commercial radio communication service.
He erected three radio towers on the slope behind his home in the 1990s: two that crank up to 35 feet and one that is 70 feet in height.
Two years ago, he built a fourth 140 foot radio tower which he estimates cost him "easily" $30,000 to $40,000.
In March, the county received a complaint about the tower and issued Nesbitt a notice of violation. Nesbitt responded to this notice by arguing that ham radio operators are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and therefore are exempt from local ordinances. But just to be safe, he applied for a special land permit for the 140 foot tower, which the county's Planning Commission denied on Tuesday in a 5-0 vote.
The matter now heads to the Board of Commissioners on Oct. 16.
During Tuesday's hearing, John Pederson, the county's zoning division manager, said any tower above 35 feet needs a special land use permit unless it's a ham radio tower in which case the county allows a property owner to have one that is up to 70 feet in height.
Pederson also said the county did not have building permits on record for either the 70 foot or the 140 foot tower, something that was required.
Bob Hovey, Commissioner Helen Goreham's appointment to the Planning Commission, led the case to deny the permit during the meeting.
"Can you tell us how we got to the place where we basically ignored the law for land use permits and building permits for 10 years?" Hovey asked Nesbitt's attorney, Christopher Balch, during the hearing.
Balch said there was never an intention to defy the county's ordinance.
"We've tried to reach a balance based on Mr. Nesbitt's lay understanding of (the FCC) and its preemption status and respond appropriately under those circumstances," Balch said.
County attorney Dorothy Bishop weighed in with her opinion on the 140 foot tower.
"The tower does have to comply with local ordinances because it's a balancing act between the rights of the amateur radio operator and the county zoning, so this application should be considered under the same criteria as any tower of its size," Bishop said.
While no one turned out to speak against the tower during the hearing, one of Nesbitt's neighbor's, Jodi Siciliano, told the Journal she hopes the Board of Commissioners will deny the request.
"My objection is that my house faces his backyard, so I look right at them, and you know, we have nice houses here, and they're very unsightly, not nice to look at, these huge gigantic radio towers that you're facing, plus, they are very, very tall, and if one of them were to come down it would come down close to my driveway," said Siciliano, who said she moved in her house in 2006.
Nesbitt, who is retired from the telephone and construction industries, said he will defend his towers in court if necessary.
"If I knew I was wrong in what my privileges provide I'd take steps to change it or correct it," Nesbitt said. "But the FCC has given me this privilege, and I've had this privilege for nearly 50 years. I'm not about to let somebody take it because they just feel like taking it. That's wrong."
Nesbitt said he learned about amateur radio as a teenager in Miami when a classmate couldn't figure out how to work his short wave radio.
"After building that one radio, I got it to work, I bought other small kits, and then I started hearing these guys talking to one another, these were ham operators. And I said, 'I wanted to do that.'"
Nesbitt taught himself how to send and receive Morse code and later learned how to talk over the radio with a microphone. One room in his house is entirely devoted to the hobby, filled with various transceivers dating to the 1950s, all of them in working order.
"There are over 600,000 licensed ham radio operators in the United States," Nesbitt said. "We come out when there are national emergencies. We don't get any monies for our services. This is a voluntary group of operators. (The FCC) they recognize the importance of operators in national disasters and emergency conditions. There is no other service in the U.S. that does what we do on a 24/7 hour basis. So that is the reason they have an interest. When all else goes down in a natural disaster, when land line communication goes out, we're there, and we've been there under all conditions. When they had the earthquake in Haiti, when they had the problems over in the Far East, when they had several tsunamis and there was no communication, the only way communications got out was through ham radio."
Nesbitt said he has befriended fellow ham radio operators from all over the world.
"One of my most exciting conversations was when I talked to a guy in the Antarctic," he said. "He's on nothing but ice. There are research firms that are down there doing research and they use ham radio to communicate back to the States."
Nesbitt said he didn't want to calculate how much he has spent on his hobby, otherwise, his wife, Patricia, would use it against him next time he wanted to make a purchase.
As for the county, "They want to impose their law and the federal government is the law that I am governed by," he said.
Yet Hovey views it differently.
"These houses have a right to walk out their front door and not see what amounts to an illegal tower in their front yard," Hovey said. "Now, I have friends who are radio amateurs, and I can't even call them part of the day because they stay up all night on their radios. This is a serious thing, and I respect amateur radio, and I think this is a great civil service these folks provide, but it doesn't mean they can ignore the rights of their neighbors."
Source: http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/20398475/article-Amateur-radio-operator-clashes-with-code-enforcement-
Posted by 9M2PJU at Sunday, January 27, 2013
Labels: amateur radio, code, CW, licence, morse code, operator, permit, tower
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)