It's hard to believe that page is not satire.

How can you possibly know without reading the actual review, and also at least skimming the paper?

Too many offers is a result of more demand for programmers than supply of programmers. This can happen because of a bubble, or it can happen for other reasons. You can't automatically conclude it's a bubble.

Look for valuations to become unreasonable, that is the true sign of a bubble.

Then say what is going while also being technically accurate. To do otherwise makes you look ignorant.

Oh. In your initial comment I interpreted your writing to mean that they were targeting science. Whereas I interpret their actions to be targeting the EPA.

I have a polite canned reply, which basically says that unless the recruiter's client is looking for developers to work 100% remotely, AND that their pay scales are likely to exceed Google's by a significant margin, AND that they do really cool stuff, then I'm not interested. Oh, and I don't do referrals of friends (they get plenty of spam themselves).

I don't actually mind the recruiter spam. It only takes a couple of keystrokes to fire the canned response, and there's always the possibility that someone will have an opportunity that meets my criteria. Not likely, but possible. I'm not looking for a new job, but if an opportunity satisfies my interest requirements, I'm always open to a discussion.

However, when they keep pushing even when they know their job doesn't fit my requirements, then I get pissed and blackhole their agency. That also takes only a couple of keystrokes :-)

I think you're saying the same thing with different words. Yes the target is the EPA, and the method employed is to put (inconvenient) Science on a short leash.

I suspect the article is full of half-truths, for example, legal aid for nutjobs to sue the government is nothing new, nor are the funds limited to green groups.

That seems like a better metric, but anything under 6% is 'full employment.' You don't want 100% employment because there will always be people who quit to look for new jobs, etc.

Instead of merely looking at the unemployment number, also look at the number of people who have been searching for over six months, and how many have dropped out of the workforce completely (although to get a clear picture, you should also try to determine why they dropped out).

oh? You can go innovate your buzzword into the cloud!

Men are constantly portrayed in both advertising and entertainment as buffoons and simpletons when they are anywhere near the kitchen, the kids, or the laundry. Everyone laughs when a man is kicked in the balls by a woman in a TV show/commercial. Where's the fake outrage about that violent sexisim in the name of humour?

I strongly suspect the paper was a "joke", and the reviewer was sarcastically reflecting the paper's bias back at the authors.

That's one way. There are always other options. The key is to hook in at the layer that you're debugging. The wire is almost never that layer, unless you're debugging the network card driver. Or the hardware, but in that case Wireshark (or Ethereal, as I still think of it in my head) is usually too high-level.

First results from a good search for "project manager job description"

http://hrcouncil.ca/hr-toolkit...

What you described here fits the typical definition of a project manager.

So they had one person, a "manager", keep an eye on people, keep an eye on projects, allocate resources, and basically manage the group

The difference between a project manager and a manager is that a manager has direct reports and is responsible for dealing with all of the human resource issues (hiring, firing, training, reviews, etc.)

In the situation that you described, who took care of those tasks? The boss? The manager?

We call those people Project Managers. Someone has to keep the timelines, project plans, meeting minutes, and other assorted paper work together. You do not want to waste the time of the people actually doing the work by forcing them to make sure that their co-workers are on task.