Firstly, if you're desperate for a job, ignore the advice below. If you're not desperate, and can afford to walk away and move on to the next interview, following the advice below will ensure you're not taken advantage of during the interview and recruiting process.
Two golden, inviolable, rules:
1. Never lie.
2. Never be the first to name a number.
For the "What is you current salary?" question, you can answer with any of the below responses. They get increasing stern, so gauge which one to use based upon your impression of how aggressive the employer is.
- "My current employer does not allow me to discuss the terms of my employment"
- "This position is not exactly the same as my current job, so let’s discuss what my responsibilities would be here and then determine a fair salary for this job."
- "I’m happy to help you evaluate what I’d be worth to your business based upon my skills, experience and the value that I can add to your organisation, but my current salary is personal and confidential, just as the salaries of your own employees are."
For the "What salary are you seeking?" question, use the Noel Smith-Wenkle method (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~shipman/org/noel.html). In a nutshell, you move through the following answers for each time they repeat the question or try to pin you down to a specific figure.
1st answer: "I am much more interested in doing (type of work) here at (name of company) than I am in the size of the initial offer."
2nd answer: "I will consider any reasonable offer."
3rd (and subsequent) answers: "You are in a much better position to know how much I'm worth to you than I am."
Of course I'd prevent it, and of course it means everything. I'm just saying that it's incredibly easy for terrorists to identify, without the help of Google at all, specific areas where humans congregate in greater numbers in order to increase the casualty count when their aim to to do so. Hence many terrorist atrocities that have already occurred have done so in places like airports, train stations, music/sports venues etc.
Moreover, these are venues with serious capacity and are unlikely to be the kind of places where users of Google's new service will look for. They're more likely to want to know, "Is my favourite downtown bar busy?" which might represent a few hundred people at most, whereas the average sports stadium is always busy when a game is on, and holds significantly larger numbers of people.
Troy's website is (or should be) funded out of his own pocket.
His website, is itself, one huge advert for himself, his skills, knowledge and experience as a security expert. His website, advert though it may be, is full of great content and gives him increased exposure. Through this, he generates additional revenue (i.e. his own personal income) far more than he would do if he didn't have the website and thus, the increased exposure.
Therefore, Troy Hunt is the advertiser and he should pay for his advert (his entire website) out of his own funds, since this is the very thing that generates him (additional) revenue.
At least with NO version control, you know you're not protected. Bad version control, such as VSS, gives a false sense of security that you're protected when you're really not, which is worse.
Like we can trust anything a politician says/has said today anyway!