A educacao a escola e o professor do futuro
Backlink: http://www.slideshare.net/edwardkeys/a-educacao-a-escola-e-o-professor-do-futuro
To celebrate GIS Day I put together a short demo video this week that I used in a presentation on mobile, social location technology. The video shows off 50 location-aware things you can do on your GPS-enabled smartphone that take advantage of your location and Geo technology… enjoy! The video was part of a [...]
Post originale: http://blog.gisuser.com/?p=8087
I recently graduated from college and have joined the IT consulting arm of a big accounting firm. I consider my compensation to be very good, the work exciting, and I am largely happy with where I am.
Lately I've had quite a few telephone calls from a number of headhunters. My questions really are twofold: How do these guys get my name, and how do I vet them? I am open to the idea of changing jobs, and I know that I have skills which are highly in demand right now, but want to ensure that the headhunters I select are going to do the best job for me with Fortune 100 companies. Any advice?
The good headhunter gets your name from people in your industry who know about you. (If you had more experience, they might get it from publications in which you are referenced.) In other words, they're experts in your industry and they do solid research to find you. The slothful ones get it from databases which they buy from all sorts of sources, including publishers of industry journals you subscribe to. It's debatable where the "line" is with regard to how random or thoughtful the process is. Since you're with a big accounting firm, your name is probably on a lot of lists.
"I want to ensure that the headhunters I select are going to do the best job for me."
Always bear one fact in mind: Headhunters don't work for you. They don't do a job for you. They do a job for the client who is paying their fee. The best ones will respect you and treat you fairly. Make sure that your interests and wishes are completely clear when you deal with a headhunter. If necessary, get certain things in writing; for example, their agreement to not distribute your resume to anyone without your specific consent.
Also remember that while you may not need a headhunter's attention now, you may need it later. If you like a headhunter, be helpful when he asks for suggestions and referrals of possible candidates for a search. Of course, you may ask that your name not be disclosed. Your assistance keeps you high on the headhunter's list of cooperative industry insiders, and increases the likelihood he'll keep you in mind when a good assignment comes along. It also makes it likely he'll take your call when you need help or advice.
Otherwise, there's nothing mysterious about headhunters. Feel free to ask them for references and for information about their firm. Check them out! And, always expect them to act professionally and courteously. You'll recognize the best ones from their behavior.
For advice about specific issues when dealing with headhunters, please check the resource book listed below.
Copyright © 2010 Nick Corcodilos. All rights reserved. Ask The Headhunter® is a registered trademark. Nick Corcodilos is president of North Bridge Group, Inc. and the author of two new e-books, How to Work with Headhunters and How Can I Change Careers? He shares his contrarian advice and hopes to learn a lot from you, too. Got questions or comments? Please join the discussion!
by Nick Corcodilos
As has happened with every job I've ever had, I've come in entry level, and have had more and more work piled on me until I'm a bundle of nerves and stress. I've handled this very well until now. My current job (software documentation) is the first I've had that recognizes my abilities and has compensated me fairly, both monetarily (not too fairly, though!) and with responsibility and management duties. However, I have now inherited more work than I can handle. I've absorbed the workloads of two individuals who are no longer working with the company. HELP! I'm only one person and can only do so much in a 16-hour day! (Isn't it supposed to be 8 hours?) I look forward to any suggestions or comments you are willing to provide!
I've known more than a few people with a good work ethic who don't know when to tell management "this is too much!" The fact that you keep getting yourself into these situations isn't surprising: It's a bit of a personality trait, I think. You've got to deal with it.
Part of what you're paid for is to tell management the truth. The truth is this: The documentation function in your company requires additional staff.
Prepare a simple plan that outlines:
1. The work that needs to be done (the source of the work, the nature of the work, the time it takes to do it).
2. The profit produced by the work. (Remember, Profit = Revenue-Cost: You contribute to either or both, but you must produce profit or your job gets eliminated).
3. The cost of manpower and tools required to do the work profitably (you, and any additional proposed staff).
4. A description of the relationship between size of the department and the amount of output you can produce (16-hour days are not allowed).
No matter how much work you keep taking on, as long as you accept it the company will continue to heap it on. It's their fault for expecting so much, but it's more your fault for letting them think you can handle it.
Schedule a meeting with your boss. Don't tell him you're having a problem. Tell him you think you have the documentation function organized now. Then show him your plan, including the requirements for additional staff. Don't complain, don't be defensive. Just give him the facts. Not wanting to work 16 hour days is not something you have to apologize for. However, it is your responsibility to show the company what needs to be done to handle the work effectively.
If you don't deal with this problem now, on this job, you will continue to face it at any future job. The sign of a good employee is dealing with the problem, not compensating by working 16 hour days.
One caution: Some companies prefer to kill an employee with work rather than spend what it takes to do the job fairly and do it right. If this describes your company, be prepared to start looking for a new job. I hope your employer is ethical. You owe it to yourself to have a job that's reasonable.
Copyright © 2010 Nick Corcodilos. All rights reserved. Ask The Headhunter® is a registered trademark. Nick Corcodilos is president of North Bridge Group, Inc. and the author of two new e-books, How to Work with Headhunters and How Can I Change Careers? He shares his contrarian advice and hopes to learn a lot from you, too. Got questions or comments? Please join the discussion!
I'm suddenly seeing badges everywhere. Location-aware apps like Foursquare and Gowalla award them for things like visiting more than four venues in one night (the "crunked" badge) or checking into the kind of venue known for a particular personality type (the "douchebag" badge). And now I'm getting badges in nearly every game and entertainment app I use, often with oddly low standards and...
Source : ReadWriteWeb
Explore : Read Write Web, Technology, Web 2
Rachel Maddow confirmed on her show last night that the reason Keith Olbermann was suspended was that he did not ask permission from management to make political donations:
“The reason that resulted in Keith’s suspension is that, here at MSNBC, there is an explicit employee rule against hosts making contributions like that. You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you ‘O.K.’
Maddow also confirmed that MSNBC believes its rules regarding political contributions make MSNBC "better" than FOX News:
Let this incident lay to rest forever the facile, never-true-anyway, bullpucky, lazy conflation of Fox News and what the rest of us do for a living. I know everybody likes to say, “Oh, that’s cable news. It’s all the same. Fox News and MSNBC, mirror images of each other.” Let this lay that to rest forever...
Well, sorry, it's not clear at all that the suspension makes MSNBC "better" than FOX. And MSNBC still has some explaining to do.
First, MSNBC needs to explain what it means that management needs to "approve" political campaign donations.
If MSNBC had a blanket policy that no one at the organization could donate to political campaigns, that might make sense. This would be the network's attempt to avoid the appearance of bias, even when the bias is freely acknowledged (and enjoyed) by everyone who watches the network and several people on the air (including Maddow and Olbermann).
But MSNBC does NOT appear to have this blanket no-donation policy. Instead, it has a "donations only with permission" policy. This raises many new questions, starting with this one:
Which political donations are okay?
Specifically, what criteria does management use when deciding whether it's okay for Olbermann or Maddow to donate to their favorite candidates? Do the candidates have to be Democrats? Do they have to be candidates that management personally supports? From a viewer's perspective, this rule raises more questions than it answers.
Secondly, MSNBC needs to explain what it is trying to accomplish by having this particular bizarre rule.
Rachel Maddow argues that "political donations are okay if approved by management" makes MSNBC obviously better than FOX, where hosts are explicitly allowed to make donations.
But, frankly, as viewers, we'd rather know explicitly that the hosts had made political donations--and what those donations were--than to wonder whether the hosts had made donations that happened to be "approved by management."
So we actually disagree with Maddow here: We have no idea why "political donations are approved by management" makes MSNBC's policy better than FOX's. Again, if MSNBC's policy were instead "political donations are banned," we might be able to understand that position. But that's not the policy.
Then, lastly, MSNBC needs to explain why it thinks "political donations are okay if approved by management" is a better strategy than FOX's "go ahead and donate all you want."
FOX's ratings are crushing MSNBC's. MSNBC's ratings, meanwhile, are crushing CNN's. In other words, the MOST PARTISAN network is watched by the most people, and the LEAST PARTISAN network is watched by almost no one. And now MSNBC seems to be congratulating itself for being more like the least partisan network. Is that what its viewers really want?
Again, if Keith Olbermann broke a network rule, we have no problem with his being punished (though "indefinite suspension without pay" seems a bit harsh). But we don't understand the logic behind the rules. MSNBC needs to explain them.
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
It's a dreary day here in the East, and we're tired of finding nothing to read except election analysis, even on tech blogs. But in our tireless scanning, we came across this little nugget, which shows you just how creative cubicle dwellers can be on other people's time.
-- Mark Feffer
Twitter is adding 370,000 new users a day. It now has 175 million users worldwide.
But Twitter still has yet to go truly mainstream in the US (at least relative to Facebook). According to Compete.com, moreover, U.S. visitors to the site grew only 13% year over year.
So this begs the question: What percentage of people who sign up for Twitter actually go on to use it regularly? And what percentage play with it for a while and then abandon it?
Our readers are major-league information-hungry tech users, so we suspect the percentage of regularly Twitter users is much higher than in the general population. But we're still curious. So please share your own experience below.
(By "regularly," we mean once a month or more).
Thanks!
Join the conversation about this story »
Our 11-inch MacBook Air has arrived, and before we publish our thoughts, we'd like to hear what you're interested in knowing.
Ask questions in comments below, and we'll try to answer as many as possible. We'll also address the best questions in our review, which you can expect early next week.
Ask away!
And don't miss: Here's What Next Year's iPad Will Look Like
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also: