The actual origin of the @ symbol remains an enigma.

@ History tells us that the @ symbol stemmed from the tired hands of themedieval monks. During the Middle Ages before the invention of printing presses, every letter of a word had to be painstakingly transcribed by hand for each copy of a published book. The monks that performed these long, tedious copying duties looked for ways to reduce the number of individual strokes per word for common words. Although the word "at" is quite short to begin with, it was a common enough word in texts and documents that medieval monks thought it would be quicker and easier to shorten the word "at" even more. As a result, the monks looped the "t" around the "a" and created it into a circle-eliminating two strokes of the pen.

Another story tells the @ symbol was used as an abbreviation for the word amphora. Amphora was the unit of measurement that determined the amount held by the large terra cotta jars that were used to ship grain, spices and wine. Giorgio Stabile, an Italian scholar, discovered the @ symbol in a letter written in 1536 by a Florentine trader named Francesco Lapi. It seems likely that some industrious trader saw the @ symbol in a book transcribed by monks using the symbol and appropriated it for use as the amphora abbreviation. This would also explain why it became common to use the symbol in relation to quantities of something.


Excerpts from atsymbol.com

An Interesting Debate

Over the last years, an interesting debate has emerged about whether employers should use social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace, ‘Linked In’ to "screen" potential employees and what type of profiles should a potential jobseeker keep.


One corner, supported by the Delaware Employment Law Blog, argues that there are some real and tangible benefits to using the sites, as long as they are used within reason:

To speak in favor of this practice--so long as it is performed with certain safeguards.... Just as a person with criminal backgrounds, employers should not make a per se decision without first giving the candidate an opportunity to explain the results of the report and any circumstances surrounding the arrest and/or conviction. The same interactive discussion should occur if an employer finds something on the candidate's social-networking site that gives them concerns. From the jobseekers point of view, uploading and posting their leisure activities and hobbies .Say some one is engaged with a NGO, give the details of your work. If some one likes photography or painting or is interested in music, showcase your talents on the networking sites. This will have a favorable impact on the possibility of your C.V getting selected or short listed.

The other corner, one may argue that just because employers are using those sites more often doesn't mean it is the correct approach. On the other hand the potential Jobseekers should not post any unwanted and irresponsible pictures or any socially/morally unacceptable write-ups so that your application will be at stake of refusal.

From an employers point of view there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information that is posted on these sites, nor is there a way to confirm that the applicant actually posted such information. And as more people use the privacy settings, peeking at someone else's information isn't going to be that easy anymore.

So ,

Overall, employers should tread very carefully in using social networking sites as a screening device. There are very little substantive advantages to using such sites and there are several landmines employers need to avoid. While they may satisfy an employer's curiosity, the time-worn principles of checking references, conducting interviews and, if necessary, background screening, should typically satisfy most employer's need to hire the best candidate.