h a l f b a k e r y
Like you could do any better.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
Should this be at pseudodictionary.com? |
|
| |
There's no way of telling. |
|
| |
Sounds like tridigital commerce to all but the aspringer |
|
| |
How much for alter table? |
|
| |
At least there seems to be an actual idea somewhere in here, one that doesn't involve putting prostitutes whose driving we don't like on a desert island with nothing to eat but custard to be filmed for a TV show called Fart Survivor. |
|
| |
Uh, guys?... *shudder* ... I think I get it. But I also think I like Dog's idea better. |
|
| |
the question is, why? Are there humans who already function in such capacities, and you wish to automate their jobs and obviate their product? Or are you attempting to change some dynamic associated with (posting|reading)*(jobs|resumes)? It sounds like an automatic rate calculator for services whose rates don't change all that drastically day to day, a simple thing made far too complicated to be useful. Ok, so, the pringents talk to each other; um, there is then aggregate data dictating what the rates for each of these services should be, right? Is that the point? |
|
| |
mmm, maybe I don't get it after all... nevermind. |
|
| |
Needs work in the used car sense? |
|
| |
Actually, this is a perfectly good idea under a strange name. In a "seller's market", it's cheap to post goods for sale and search for wanted-to-buy, and expensive to post wanted-to-buy and search for sellers. In a "buyer's market", it's the other way around. |
|
| |
This is particularly good because most existing middleman business models are fixed to take a cut from one side or the other. When the market changes, that model may no longer be appropriate. LoriZ's suggestion would adapt dynamically. |
|
| |
For example, most of the "job boards" out there were created when the labor market was very tight. As such, they're designed to be free for job seekers and expensive for employers. These days, the situation is a little different, but the systems are still set up. The result is lots of inefficiency, e.g. recruiters posting vague job listings and requiring job seekers to contact them directly for more information (and to agree to a contract). |
|
| |
Why is everyone so down on this? |
|
| |
I think people are down on it because they don't understand it. That's not entirely their fault; LoriZ builds on a lot of expected knowledge. |
|
| |
If you're unfamiliar with the term "servent", or have trouble with abstract reasoning in the form of equations ((A:B):C = (D:E):F), or, like me, stumble over the asymmetry between word fragments and roles (("client":"server") : "servent") = (("principal":"agent") : "agipal", not "pringent"!), the first two sentences are very confusing. (And I'm not sure whether the confusion is worth it - the proposed system is not really a combination of agent and principal, it's what I'd call a "market" or "board" where both negotiate according to a changing set of rules.) |
|
| |
If a reader doesn't recognize "insert" and "select" as database operations, the remaining text is very difficult to understand, too; there are a lot of words that look like verbs but are really nouns. (If, in contrast, you _are_ used to reading specifications for database systems, it's very easy to understand - so, there's a trade-off.) |
|
| |
please don't laugh but is it like the ads paper, LOOT? |
|
| |
There is demand to employ and the demand to be employed. A pringent offers services that help do both, and it adjusts the cost of those services so that revenue generated from searching for employment is equal to revenue generated from searching for employees. |
|
| |