Slashdot Mirror

In HR's eyes, if you give pushback to this simple request, what other trouble will you cause?

How is it a "simple request" for them to ask me to purchase several hundred dollars worth of software in order to communicate with them? (Maybe even new hardware, I don't know if any of the boxes I have would run current versions of MS Windows.)

It's not "pushback" to say, "Sorry, I don't have Microsoft Word. But I can give you a version in the standard formats of ASCII text or HTML version that you can easily import into Word. Or if you prefer, I can send to PDF or PostScript."

This has happened several times and I've I had no trouble. (Of course, I am quite willing to make trouble when necessary...I won't pee in a cup, and I read contracts thoroughly and make them change things I don't like. But I don't think this counts.)

The problem is keeping a word version up to date.

So, don't. I've had no problem with making HTML, plain text, PDF, and Postscript versions available, and saying "Microsoft Word or other proprietary formats not available. If needed, please import the HTML or plain text version into your software."

It's the 21st century. Having your resume on the web where it can be spidered, searched for, bookmarked, e-mailed, etcetera, is orders of magnitude much more important that having a version in some indecypherable insecure proprietary format meant to provide a mediocre dead-tree printing.

Of course, I brand myself as a Unix geek, and am dealing primarily with Unix shops, which are generally more cluefull about such things. If you're looking for a MCSE job...well, you'll get what you deserve. :-)

I completely agree that unix is a much better product, but so was Beta (vs. VHS). ...But I don't even know if that assumption is true, and performance at the kernel level is becoming less and less of an issue with these faster and faster machines.

That's really only relevant for simple desktop boxes; there's a limit on how much power you can really use to run office software. For heavy-duty, interesting applications, more machine speed gets eaten up by more load. CPUs are getting faster, but that increase gets eaten up by projects getting larger. And faster CPUs don't help that an OS is unstable, insecure, and/or unsupportable.

I'm pretty much a pure Unix geek; I've never written a program on a Windows box. But even in this slow market, I get calls from recruiters a few times a month. Not as many as I did a year ago, but they're still calling. (Three times this week, in fact. If you're in Maryland, somebody's looking for a couple of AIX developers for a contract in Hunt Valley.) Unix is alive and well.

Yes, many Unix developers are getting laid off. Guess what? So are Windows developers. So are chip designers, grocery clerks, and auto workers. The economy's in "bust" phase. Welcome to capitalism.

I think that screen size falls under "function" and not "form". People with small screens need information (regardless of what it is) presented in a long tall format so they only have to scroll down, not side to side. People with huge screens need information presented in a short wide format so they don't have to scroll at all.

Does no one remember that ancient mantra, "Trust The Browser"?

Way back when (you know, like four or five years ago), there was this idea that web servers would serve content. And web browsers would format it and display it. So, if my server was serving up, say, my resume, you could make your browser window skinny or fat or whatever and your browser would format it long and tall or wide-screen as needed.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

and Big Blue, all have drug tests...

Appartently many place have different rules for contractors; I'm contracting at IBM (their Annapolis telephony lab, where I the token long-haired freaky person) and wasn't asked to pee in a cup. (I was suppsoed to have to sign a paper saying I agreed to testing if they asked, but I was able to write in "I don't consent to any drug tests".)

(Of course, you can always refuse to participate in FORCED URINATION, and help make the world a better place in the process...)

Damn straight. I pee in a cup for no one except my physician.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

I played with sponsorpool for a while. I was one of the only ones using it while Tom was first trying it out. After using it for a few months, the donations started picking up. I eventually sold the site, but I think that after a while this type of scheme could have at least payed my hosting/bandwith bill.

I guess the point here is twofold. It takes time for the donations to ramp up. And you're not going to make a million, but it might be worth your while.

If you're interested in sponsorpool, drop Tom Swiss a mail and ask him about it. It's kind of a cool project.

All your dangifiknow are belong to us.

IANAL, but I would think that they can't own a copyright on something you said. So you might as well just quote yourself on your web page.

Oh, I could, but there would be a definte coolness factor in linking from my vanity page to press coverage about stuff I've done. (Especially when one article has a big photo of me.) It would also be neat to link to coverage about my family and friends. It would probably even drive a few hits their way, making them more than a buck fifty they want to charge to retrieve the stories - certainly it would make them more then the non-link is making them now.

It just shows that many "old-media" companies are completely clueless when it comes to how the web works.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

You have a choice. "Just Say No". If you lose the job, fine, there are other jobs out there. If you don't say no, then don't bitch and moan when you're a second class citizen as a result.

Damn straight. I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from recruiters on my statement against drug testing on my resume site. Unfortuntely, many people simply don't have the range of job choices that skilled computer professionals have today.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

You have a choice. "Just Say No". If you lose the job, fine, there are other jobs out there. If you don't say no, then don't bitch and moan when you're a second class citizen as a result.

Damn straight. I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from recruiters on my statement against drug testing on my resume site. Unfortuntely, many people simply don't have the range of job choices that skilled computer professionals have today.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

never give out your real email account to anyone but close friends.

Set up a free account with excite mail and use that for everything else. When it gets too spam-ridden, cancel it. Set up a new one.

I don't see how that helps at all. I get a lot of mail that's not from close friends, but that I'm still interested in (technical recruiters who saw my resume on my website, people who want to give me feedback on a /. or mailing list post, concert announcements from local bands, etcetera). So I'd still have to go thru mail received from Excite and sort the wheat from the spam. Throwing away that address just means that people who want to offer me a job, or at least a kind word, can't find me. Why not just use mail client that sorts the mail from friends into a separate box?

Besides, I enjoy smashing spammers. A little header analysis, a little nslookup, a little traceroute, a little whois, and a note to postmaster@whatever.net, and away goes a spammer's account, even if it is a game of whack-a-mole. Maybe I'll get on one of the "do not spam" lists that I've heard some of these fsckers use; they know who knows enough to track them down and make trouble.

In the case of an e-commerce spammer, I'd start by forwarding each piece, along with a "cut it out!" message, to the domain contacts revealed by whois. If that didn't work, nslookup and traceroute will reveal their upsteam provider, and pointing out that a customer is using their resources to spam will usually light a fire under someone's ass.

I threw up a 50 cent donation link on the AOLiza site a few days ago and I've already gotten a good response. A few people decided to 'buy' multiple donations, upping the donation.

From the blatant self-promotion department: Might I also suggest checking out the sponsorpool project that I'm developing? In return for their contribution (processed with PayPal), donors get to place sponsored links on your page, a nice extra incentive.

BTW, AOLiza is great!

The solution to this problem may be to reward donors with special perks when the media is released...The perks may be more difficult to award for other media types, such as music, games, or movies, where there may not be any significant advantage to having a physical copy.

Blatant self-promotion: I'm working on a system that would allow donors the perk of placing a sponsored link on a website. The more they donate, the more often that link would be shown. I've just about got an initial version coded up, and could use some folks to help test it. Check it out: sponsorpool.infamous.net.

Can I sue resume spidering job boards that republish my resume without my permission?

I belive that you could, but the odds of getting anywhere with that suit are just about nil.

I just put them in my Hall of Shame.

Its a reaction to something someone said. Not 'your work'.

Commentary and criticism are legitimate works of literature.

You didnt spend any money to create the comment.

Anything I create is "my work". I didn't spend any money to create my music or poetry, but that doesn't make them any less real.

In the Constitution, in order to sue, the dispute must be for more than $20.

No. It's just that you have the right to a jury trial for suits over $20:

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I'm sure Leonardo "EarthDayBoy" diCaprio, owner of two SUVs, appreciates your disapproval.

You don't mean that corporate and government-approved Earth Day celebrations might be...a hypcritical scam? A means of paying lip-service to environmentalism without any real action? Perish the thought.

A little poem I performed at the 1995 Earth Day celebration at the University of Maryland College Park:

Happy Earth Day! The oil corporations
Invite you to their ironic celebrations.
Your corporate sponsors are indeed getting green,
The color of cash, from their profits obscene
A sham of environmentalism is such good P.R.
While our ancient growth forests, they cover with tar.

Yell ``Save the Earth!'' while the poison land and sea
A shining example of greed and hypocracy.

Harvest rare trees to build grandfather clocks
But send them to you in a recycled box.

For twenty-four hours, they'll hold Mother Earth dear.
But don't ask what they do the rest of the year.

I MISS PEOPLE. There's a lot to be said for human interaction during the day

Sure, but why should it have to be with the people you work with? I'd rather have my human interaction with the folks at my dojo, or get lunch with a friend, or go hang out at a bar and catch some music in the evening. While I get along ok with people at work, they're not socially irreplaceable by any means.

I telecommuted for about six months while working on a contract for a company in Northern Virginia (I'm near Baltimore and refuse to commute 3 hours a day). Worked great: I was very productive and happy, the dogs were glad to have me around, I worked the weird schedule I like (hack a little, play a little, hack a little, play a little, hack a little).

I hope to find a similar arrangement the next time I change jobs. (Looking for a good Unix/Internet geek to work off-site? Resume's on the web, drop me a line!)

1. Turn off these everywhere...

• HTML (except the browser)
• Java
• Java Script
• Active-X
• VBA or macro features
• Anything similar to the above

I'm with you on all except HTML - so long as we're talking straight HTML sans scripting, objects, or applets, I don't see a danger in rendering simple text markup in e-mail messages.

Also, turning off Javascript turns off style sheets; that may or may not justify leaving it on, depending on your browsing habits. Javascript is, I belive, less of a risk than Java, and orders of magnitude less of a risk than ActiveX.

3. Never open any message unless you...

• Know the person sending it
• Expect the message

Good advice for attachments, but for plain text or HTML formatted (assuming scripting, objects, and applets off) e-mail messages there's no danger. Otherwise you're getting so paranoid that the net becomes useless.

6. Don't give out your email address unless it's REALLY NECESSARY.

Again, I think that's overly paranoid. I want people to be able to reach me: for /.ers to praise or flame my posts, for headhunters to talk to me about job opportunities after reading my resume, for beautiful women to read about me and fall lovingly at my feet (a man can dream, can't he?)

I take a few anti-spam precautions. My address above is given in a spam-proof fashion, and so is the one on my web site (interestingly, it appears that many spambots read only the text of the page and don't parse the contents of a "mailto" URL). When I do get spam, I usually send it to the appropriate postmasters and the account is revoked within hours. And I use slocal (part of MH) to filter incoming mail and autobounce a few rouge domains.(Although now that I'm running my own genuine domain instead of a forwarded virtual one, I can make sendmail do the work.)

1. Turn off these everywhere...

• HTML (except the browser)
• Java
• Java Script
• Active-X
• VBA or macro features
• Anything similar to the above

I'm with you on all except HTML - so long as we're talking straight HTML sans scripting, objects, or applets, I don't see a danger in rendering simple text markup in e-mail messages.

Also, turning off Javascript turns off style sheets; that may or may not justify leaving it on, depending on your browsing habits. Javascript is, I belive, less of a risk than Java, and orders of magnitude less of a risk than ActiveX.

3. Never open any message unless you...

• Know the person sending it
• Expect the message

Good advice for attachments, but for plain text or HTML formatted (assuming scripting, objects, and applets off) e-mail messages there's no danger. Otherwise you're getting so paranoid that the net becomes useless.

6. Don't give out your email address unless it's REALLY NECESSARY.

Again, I think that's overly paranoid. I want people to be able to reach me: for /.ers to praise or flame my posts, for headhunters to talk to me about job opportunities after reading my resume, for beautiful women to read about me and fall lovingly at my feet (a man can dream, can't he?)

I take a few anti-spam precautions. My address above is given in a spam-proof fashion, and so is the one on my web site (interestingly, it appears that many spambots read only the text of the page and don't parse the contents of a "mailto" URL). When I do get spam, I usually send it to the appropriate postmasters and the account is revoked within hours. And I use slocal (part of MH) to filter incoming mail and autobounce a few rouge domains.(Although now that I'm running my own genuine domain instead of a forwarded virtual one, I can make sendmail do the work.)

Think of all the possibilities if the net were truely something you could really access and publish content on?...I could run anything that I wanted and publish information and content that I truely think that the world would benefit from.

Most ISPs provide a few megs of web publishing space; my personal pages (at infamous.net/lair) get a few hundred hits a day. If your ISP doesn't provide space, there are low-cost and advertising supported hosting companies.

And if you want to go independent of an ISP's possible content restrictons, a DSL line isn't out of reach for middle income Americans. I'm going to be moving my personal site, and starting a few new sites, on a home network of cheap used PCs with a 192k SDSL line; costs me $137 a month, plus a couple bucks for the electricity. I wouldn't spend that much just for kicks, I do expect to eventually make a few bucks off web services - but, some people do spend that much on cellphone or long distance bills. You can get a few folks together and split the cost, or find someone (like me) with a DSL line who will let you put stuff on their server for a few bucks.

So, publish away. If you've got something to say and a reasonable amount of tech-savvy, there's no reason not to say it on the web. The only real barriers are those of knowledge and comfort with the technology. Censorship looms as a possible future problem, but for now seems limited to things like the DeCSS harassment - which, while very serious, only affects a small portion of net communication.

more Windows knowledge will obviously better help my career in the future than picking up Linux.

Depends on what you want to do, I suppose. I don't see much interesting stuff on the desktop; writing another office suite interests me not in the least. So I don't do Windows, I do Unix. I have worked on some pretty nifty things for companies ranging from a dozen people to multinational behemoths (see my resume for details), I make good money, and recruiters contact me two or three times a week trying to hire me to do Unix stuff for them or their clients.

It's not a bad way to earn my daily bread. So go ahead and be Mr. Windows...you just make less competition for me. B-)

And your point is...? Yeah, I have a slightly goofy bio page at my site; my resume is also up there (although it needs an update), do you want to copy that to /. instead of providing a link, too? (And you could have at least preserved the paragraph breaks...)

If you find the tone a little too egoistic, I think you missed the punchline:

This page almost undoubtedly makes him sound more interesting than he really is.

Now does this have anything to do with my request for proof about "anybody can find out anything about anybody", or are you just feeling cranky?

And your point is...? Yeah, I have a slightly goofy bio page at my site; my resume is also up there (although it needs an update), do you want to copy that to /. instead of providing a link, too? (And you could have at least preserved the paragraph breaks...)

If you find the tone a little too egoistic, I think you missed the punchline:

This page almost undoubtedly makes him sound more interesting than he really is.

Now does this have anything to do with my request for proof about "anybody can find out anything about anybody", or are you just feeling cranky?

Why not have a setting in browsers that will require the presence of a certain meta tag (like meta name="rugrat-level" content="kidsafe" or whatever) before displaying the page?

So what happens when I put up my porn collection with a kid-safe META tag? (Hey, I think teens are safe looking at porn, didn't hurt me none.)

What happens when I put up my sex education pages marked as kid-safe? (Hell, not just safe but recommended viewing for teens.)

What about my collection of photos and painting that happen to feature nude images? Surely those are ok, right? Can I mark those kid safe?

Who decides? You're still relying on either the page creator to decide what's best for your kids (bad idea), or on some outside government agency to create and enfore rules about what's best for your kids (worse idea). Either make your own damn decisions or hire a third party to do it for you. Leave me the hell out of it.

Unless a reasonable alternative is presented we are going to get stuck with an RSACi type system.

Why do people keep saying this? We killed off the CDA, we can kill this off too.

First, protest like hell. Inform your congresscritters that this is unacceptable.

Second, if it comes about, engage in civil disobedience. I suggest a "This page has not been rated!" campain, in the footsteps of the Blue Ribbon campain.

Third, if all else fails, start shooting the censors.

Also next time you see a animal rights fanatic, take a *good* look at thier shoes, belt, purse and wallet. Then feel free to point out their hypocrisy.

Before you get all excited over my "leather" jacket or belt - they ain't really leather, although several people have been fooled. See my Leather Alterniteves FAQ.

If you seek logical arguments for AR, check the following:

• The Animal Rights FAQ
• Edgar Kupfer's "Animals, My Brethern"
• Some of my old USENET posts on the issue.

Also next time you see a animal rights fanatic, take a *good* look at thier shoes, belt, purse and wallet. Then feel free to point out their hypocrisy.

Before you get all excited over my "leather" jacket or belt - they ain't really leather, although several people have been fooled. See my Leather Alterniteves FAQ.

If you seek logical arguments for AR, check the following:

• The Animal Rights FAQ
• Edgar Kupfer's "Animals, My Brethern"
• Some of my old USENET posts on the issue.

Also next time you see a animal rights fanatic, take a *good* look at thier shoes, belt, purse and wallet. Then feel free to point out their hypocrisy.

Before you get all excited over my "leather" jacket or belt - they ain't really leather, although several people have been fooled. See my Leather Alterniteves FAQ.

If you seek logical arguments for AR, check the following:

• The Animal Rights FAQ
• Edgar Kupfer's "Animals, My Brethern"
• Some of my old USENET posts on the issue.

Citizens who find themselves in the minority on many political issues have found the Internet a very valuable tool to organize, share information, and make their views known to the mainstream.

Now it seems that the federal government is trying to censor such discussion. For example, we have the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999", which would criminalize many discussions of drug policy.

I believe that you can't have a meaningful discussion on, for instance, the sentancing guidelines for possession of crack vs. powder cocaine without an understanding of how crack is made. Thus, my drug policy site has such information.

Trying to censor "dirty" bits is bad enough, but to censor political discussion is utterly abhorant. Political censorship is a life-and-death issue - people will fight, kill, and die for free speech. What, short of bullets, is it going to take to stop the cybercensors? (Or should I just go buy more bullets while I still can?)

That already happened. It was when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the Constitution. And people howled...

Uh, no. The Constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal government. Article I, Section 8 ennumerates the powers of the federal government:

• to collect taxes and borrow money to fund its activities
• to regulate interstate and international commerce (which is a biggie)
• to establish laws on naturalization and bankruptcies
• to coin money, regulate its value, and fix the standard weights and measures
• to make laws against counterfeiting
• to create a postal system
• to make copyright and patent laws
• to create lower courts
• to make laws against piracy
• to declare war
• to create and regulate the army and navy
• to call out the militia to "execute the laws..., suppress insurrection, and repel invasions", and to provide for organizing and arming it
• to control a capitol district and other federal lands

Amendments gave the feds the power to ban slavery; to make the states provide equal protection, due process, recognition of civil rights to all citizens, and voting rights to blacks, women, and 18 year olds; to collect income taxes; and to prohibit poll taxes.

That's it. For good or ill, as far as the law is concerned, that's all that the feds have jurisdiction over. Anything else and they're out of line.

Amendment X states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Read the damn thing - meaningless as it may be today - yourself: http://www.infamous.net/document s/constitution.txt.

That already happened. It was when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the Constitution. And people howled...

Uh, no. The Constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal government. Article I, Section 8 ennumerates the powers of the federal government:

• to collect taxes and borrow money to fund its activities
• to regulate interstate and international commerce (which is a biggie)
• to establish laws on naturalization and bankruptcies
• to coin money, regulate its value, and fix the standard weights and measures
• to make laws against counterfeiting
• to create a postal system
• to make copyright and patent laws
• to create lower courts
• to make laws against piracy
• to declare war
• to create and regulate the army and navy
• to call out the militia to "execute the laws..., suppress insurrection, and repel invasions", and to provide for organizing and arming it
• to control a capitol district and other federal lands

Amendments gave the feds the power to ban slavery; to make the states provide equal protection, due process, recognition of civil rights to all citizens, and voting rights to blacks, women, and 18 year olds; to collect income taxes; and to prohibit poll taxes.

That's it. For good or ill, as far as the law is concerned, that's all that the feds have jurisdiction over. Anything else and they're out of line.

Amendment X states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Read the damn thing - meaningless as it may be today - yourself: http://www.infamous.net/document s/constitution.txt.

Being concerned about privacy means choosing what data to share and what not to share. I have my resume online, as well as a page of personal information - but I choose to publish them, and I choose the content.

It's about choice, not silence.

Being concerned about privacy means choosing what data to share and what not to share. I have my resume online, as well as a page of personal information - but I choose to publish them, and I choose the content.

It's about choice, not silence.