It has come to our attention that there has been controversy about Path Finder's use of some open source code. Path Finder uses a heavily tweaked version of the open sourceiTerm application as the basis for Path Finder's built-in Terminal window and drawer.
It always has been Cocoatech's intention to comply fully with the open source licensethat iTerm falls under. We believed that by releasing the complete framework that contains the open source code, this would fulfill the requirements of our usage of GPL'ed code.
We are investigating this issue in depth and intend to fully comply with the rules of the GPL. We are also working with the authors of iTerm to make sure this issue is resolved. We wish to reiterate that we support the spirit of the GPL and the open source community, and did not / do not intend to break the rules.
We will post another update to this web site to follow up on this issue. We hope to have a clarification and have this issue rectified as soon as possible.
The result of that fundamental difference is that OSS codes selfishly, while business codes for the user.
I would argue that they both code selfishly. And in both cases usefulness to a third party is a secondary consideration.
Of course there are exceptions but corportations are selfish in that what they do is not to please the user but to make money. And yes one way to make money is to please the user. But another is to dictate to the user what they can have.
The key differentiator is that with open source I can (in principle) make the product do what I want. That option is not available with most software and an increasing number of other products.
The original poster said "school funded" which is accurate in the case of the RPI chapter, officially at least.
Once upon a time, 1978 -1982, I called RPI home.
During those years all student clubs were student financed. Each student paid an activity fee and the student government, led by the Grand Marshall and the President of the Student Union, handled a multi-million dollar budget.
Today the studend union, "... directly oversees the budgets of all clubs and organizations, an approximate $8.5 million." (from RPI.
So it appears that it is still the students and not the school that makes the funding decision.
Frankly, I've always wondered why they didn't adopt this approach in the first place.
Because Microsoft makes decisions based on what is good for Microsoft, not what the client needs.
More and more we see companies putting their needs first, instead of providing value to the customer first. Of course, this is much easier when you are a monopoly. As another example, compare the on screen guide provided by Comcast Digital Cable and Replay TV. Comcast's has ~40% of the screen taken up by ads, while Replay is all info.
Or consider the practise of having ads on DVDs that the user can't skip.
Or banks that charge a fee for using ATM machines even though such usage saves them big time by cutting down on tellers.
Or Lexmark using the DCMA to prevent third party ink cartridges.
I'm trying and I really can't think of any solid benefits from trying this.
This statement could have two interpretations. One, that there are no direct benefits to what could be derived from this experiment. Two, that there are no benefits at all, scientific or otherwise.
I agree with number one. I disagree with number two. And furthermore, I think the assumption behind number one is faulty.
I believe there are practical, non-scientific benefits from doing this. You mention that you are in favor of getting kids involved in science. What better way then having them directly involved in real science? With real scientific equipment? This appears to me to be a valid scientific effort, albeit of little practical value. But is will no doubt have an immense effect on the self esteem of the kids involved. And don't tell me that you went through high school as a geek and couldn't have used a boost to your self esteem. (Another post in this thread complained of wasted tax dollars for field trips from NY to CO. I see no differnce between this and elite sports teams travelling for interstate games.)
The faulty asssumption is that scientific research needs to have immediate practical application. Because this assumption is so widely held, and in many cases not recognized as such, we have the situation where funding for basic fundemental research continues to shrink.
Consider the fate of the Superconducting Supercollider. The SSC designed to answer questions in physics that would have little or no immediate practical applications. But because of the assumption that all science has to be for something now, it failed to secure funding.
What that Newton, Maxwell, or Faraday had been forced to work under such constraints? Can you imagine Newton in a publish or perish environment? I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall for Newton's response to, "Yes, yes Issac, we all know prisms make pretty colors. But as to giving you money to play with such toys, well...". And I believe it was Faraday who when asked what use his work was replied, "Of what use is a newborn baby?" (I have seen this quote attributed to both Faraday and Ben Franklin.)
But without the basic work done by Faraday, Maxwell, et al, we would not have had the understanding of electromagnetism that many years later allows us to use computers to post comments on/.. Without the work done early in the last century on quantum mechanics we wouldn't have transistors or integrated circuits.
Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. No immediate practical benefit at all. And furthermore, one that obtained a negative result. They expected to measure the effect of the ether and did not. Imagine how it would be reported today? Experiment to measure ether a failure, no effect found. It was Edison who said, "I have not failed. I have found 10,000 ways that don't work." No well thought out and performed scientific experiment is ever a 'failure'. Unless your assumption is that all experiments should have the predictable result for practical benefits, stated in advance as justification in the funding grant request.
The faulty assumption of immediate practical benefit precludes doing fumdemental research of possible long term benefit. So what knowledge that we haven't gained because the SSC was canceled would have been useful in 2050?
There is a difference between basic research and applied research. The faulty assumption is that all research is/should be applied. This has the practical (i.e. in practise) result that in general, only those projects that have immediate payoffs get funded. This is a bad thing.
he PageRank values assigned by Google are not susceptible to being proved true or false by objective evidence
Unfortunately, that's false.
Internet searching is not a mathematical function, where google(term) = result. There is no right answer. Only possible answers, the appropriateness of which can only be determined by the requester.
Suppose I enter the search term 'apache'. By what objective criteria on Google's end would they be able to determine, based simply on that search term, what the best page is? They can't. They have no idea if I am interested in the indian tribe, the helicopter, the web server, or something else.
Furthermore the best result for me (indian tribe) may not be the best result for you, (1954 movie starting Burt Lancaster).
Thus there is no 'best' page for any given search term. There are only educated guesses and informed opinions. If we can't define the best page then we can't define the second best page, or third best, and so fourth. Thus we cannot have a completely objective page ranking system.
I have been using 'best' in the absolute sense, that there is a requester independent single best page that all parties would agree is so. I'm not using 'best' as works for most of the requesters most of the time. (The latter is one of the criteria that makes Google the 'best' search engine.)
Also note that there may exist a function, f(requester, term) = result, but it has not been implemented by Google, nor any other search engine.
For a while Sony was my first choice. I bought a Sony SDR 2010 receiver in 1990, that lasted close to ten years. Two channel stereo, 165 watts per channel, digital inputs, Dolby surround. In the end the unit started acting erratically, sound levels varying randomly, the display exhibiting interesting if unintelligible optical effects. (Since replaced by a Denon 3801). I was very pleased with this unit and thus with Sony.
I then bought a Sony TC-WR565 cassette deck, which still provides good, if infrequent, service.
I also have a Sony answering machine which works fine.
But...
I have a Sony CDP-C265 five disk CD player. It is the third unit because I had to return the first two. Both DOA. Even the third unit didn't always recognize all five CDs in the tray. And the shuffle feature would only work with four CDs, ignoring the fifth after playing one song. After a few years the audio out started to go with one or both channels dropping out. (Since replaced with a formerly beige now black PowerMac G3 as a dedicated MP3 player.)
Next I bought a Sony DVP-S550D DVD player. I wasn't sure about going with Sony, but the unit was getting very good reviews. This too had to be returned twice because of audio problems. Once for DVD playback and once for CD playback. My original unit was replaced with a refurbished one when the orginal was lost by either Sony or FedEx. Since getting the second unit I've had no problems.
I have a Sony cordless phone. After about a year the buttons started failing intermittently.
I'm on my second Sony portable CD player. The first just stopped recognizing CDs. (Since replaced by an iPod.)
I also have a pair of Sony noice cancelling head phones, purchased because they were $100+ cheaper than the overpriced Bose set. Most of the time they work fine but on some flights there is a continuous clicking that renders them unusable.
The only Sony product I've purchased in the past three years was an open box STR-DE525 receiver for less than $50. So they may have gotten their quality control problems fixed. But I doubt it.
Which Facts Were Missed?
on
ChronoSpace
·
· Score: 2
The reviewer writes:
The author seems infinitely more interested in name-dropping other, more successful sci-fi authors and scientists. Steele has done his research on obscure historical persona, but he can't seem to fix the holes in his own story.
And then:
A good example in terms of broken plot is the fictional scientific principle the author uses to drive his time-travel ships. It's called the 'Morris-Thorne' principle in the story, obviously named after the scientists who discovered it.
So to me it seems that the reviewer is saying that Steele has named the fictional principle after the real scientists. Albeit leaving out Yurtsever, as the Morris-Thorne-Yurtsever Principle doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
All of the OS/400 commands are like this. Three character 'words' combined in strings of one, two, or three 'words' as in your example.
There were exceptions. WRKSPLF for example,
WRK = work
SPL = spool
F = file
Note that WRK is always work. This is true for all of the three character codes. This made the commands easy to learn and remember. Contrast with *nix, where each command name has to be learned separately.
And it is not in condensed combinations of verbs, it is verb noun modifier.
As to the all caps requirement, are you sure that wasn't just a convention in the document you were reading to distinguish commands from the other text? OS/400 has no such restriction.
when Linux scales up to become 'mainstream' fewer and fewer of the userbase will be qualified to make the necesssary changes.
Which part of "Granted if everyone used Linux the percentage of users who also code will go way down." didn't you understand?
And it is probable that the absolute number of qualified programmers will go up even as the percentage goes down.
Having to hire some dude in a ThinkGeek t-shirt is going to alleviate the feeling of helpless and of lack of control?
It is not the hiring tht gives the feeling of control, but simply knowing that you can. And there are plenty of corporate programmers who currently work on windows who could work on Linux.
Haven't we then just painted ourselves into the same corner that Microsoft is in, and wouldn't Linux receive the same amount of critisism for a variety of other things?
Don't forget, Microsoft appears to do things for the benefit of Microsoft, not for its customers. This generates a lot of ill will.
The open source model has the users making the changes. Granted if everyone used Linux the percentage of users who also code will go way down. But the ability to make the changes that you want, even if you have to hire someone to do it, will alleviate the feelings helplessness and of lack of control. And this will help keep complaints to a minimum.
If your anology was completely apt, we would be living in a world where switching from a VW Beetle to a Ford Focus would require a new garage, different gasoline, and a new kind of steering wheel
New Garage? I have my G3 and PC sitting on the same desk...
Different Gas? I plug my G3 and my PC into the same power strip...
New Steering Wheel? Well, the PC does have a two button mouse...
If you get a different car, everything else works pretty much the same.
To answer your question, if the skills used in your OSS work or in your moonlighting are relevant to your career and are non-trivial, then by all means list them. But be ready to demonstrate that the skills are beyond the hobbyist level. And be ready to answer questions about your outside projects interfering with your ability to do the job you are seeking.
Remember, your resume is just a tool to get you an interview. The hiring manager is just interested in skills and experience relevant to the job they are hiring for. So list those skills, and only those skills, that are relevant to the type of position you are applying for. Don't pad your resume with skills that you cannot demonstrate proficiency in. And target your resume to the hiring manager, not HR.
My experience has been that HR has little to do with the hiring decision, it is the hiring manager that you are trying to impress.
I the jobs where I've had hiring responsibility I looked for:
- A skill set that matched my hiring criteria.
- Evidence of real word use of those skills.
- Previous work in a similar environment (i.e small vs. large shop) or on similar project or in the same or related industry.
On the other hand, skills padding usually resulted in a TNT letter (Thanks, No Thanks). For example, don't list every language, every computer, or every OS you've ever used. (Do list those you can demonstrate proficiency in.)
The one exception is when the job calls for a skill, for example C++ experience, and you've only used C++ on a couple of academic projects. Then go ahead and list C++ on your resume to get yourself in the door. But be sure to mention this to the interviewer before they dig it out. Thus someone with a strong programming background, proficient in C, who tells me that their C++ experience is limited has a much better chance of being hired then the person with the same skill set but which I uncover that his only C++ experience is a few college assignments. But this only works if you have all the other skills needed.
'Subtle is the Lord...' by Abraham Pais, pages 300 and 503.
From the book (page 300): "The divorce degree was issued on February 14, 1919. It stipulated that Mileva would receive, in due course, Einstein's Nobel prize money."
Newton modest!!! Perhaps you unaware of how he treated other scientists of his era. Look into his treatment of Flamsteed, Leibnitz, or Hooke sometime. The 'shoulders of giants' quote was a dig at the small statured Hooke.
Einstien? The guy who as part of his divorce settlement gave his ex the winnings from his not yet awarded Nobel prize modest?
Don't know about Feynman...
As to the technology bit, what technology did Newton give us? Maxwell? Einstein? Galilleo? Feynman? Darwin? Euler? [your favorite here...]
Note I didn't ask what technology did their discoveries give rise to, but what technology did they themselves develop? (And to make my point perfectly clear, not all scientists are inventors. I am perfectly aware that some are.)
Wolfram sounds like a lot of scientists. He also sounds like a lot of crackpots. His track record should at least get him a hearing. And he should be judged on his ideas. Not on his personality nor his treatment of others.
One final thought. Wolfram's modus operandi is at least superficially similar to Newton's. Both worked alone. Both were dismissive of those whose work came before them. And at least one changed the scientific worldview big time.
Why does an AI have to function the same way a human mind does?
As one example, the human mind has a lot of baggage for maintaining a functioning organism that an AI won't require.
Birds and airplanes both fly, but very few airplanes flap their wings.
There are a number of different types of flying machines, birds, bats, bugs, fixed wing, rotory wing, lighter than air, etc. So why must there be one type of intelligence?
Slashdot Mirror
From the Cocoatech web site:
The GPL and Path Finder
It has come to our attention that there has been controversy about Path Finder's use of some open source code. Path Finder uses a heavily tweaked version of the open sourceiTerm application as the basis for Path Finder's built-in Terminal window and drawer. It always has been Cocoatech's intention to comply fully with the open source licensethat iTerm falls under. We believed that by releasing the complete framework that contains the open source code, this would fulfill the requirements of our usage of GPL'ed code. We are investigating this issue in depth and intend to fully comply with the rules of the GPL. We are also working with the authors of iTerm to make sure this issue is resolved. We wish to reiterate that we support the spirit of the GPL and the open source community, and did not / do not intend to break the rules. We will post another update to this web site to follow up on this issue. We hope to have a clarification and have this issue rectified as soon as possible.
SteveM
The result of that fundamental difference is that OSS codes selfishly, while business codes for the user.
I would argue that they both code selfishly. And in both cases usefulness to a third party is a secondary consideration.
Of course there are exceptions but corportations are selfish in that what they do is not to please the user but to make money. And yes one way to make money is to please the user. But another is to dictate to the user what they can have.
The key differentiator is that with open source I can (in principle) make the product do what I want. That option is not available with most software and an increasing number of other products.
SteveM
At one point in time Einstein was an unqualified patent clerk.
Well, he may have been unqaulified as a patent clerk but he was a highly qualified physicist, having completed the work for his PhD.
See Subtle is the Lord by Pais.
SteveM
Fortunately, he won that case, ...
Yeah, but he also lost!
SteveM
Now, I'm an expert crypotgrapher, so I know all there is to know about obfuskation (sp?).
Obviously not!
Steve M
The original poster said "school funded" which is accurate in the case of the RPI chapter, officially at least.
Once upon a time, 1978 -1982, I called RPI home.
During those years all student clubs were student financed. Each student paid an activity fee and the student government, led by the Grand Marshall and the President of the Student Union, handled a multi-million dollar budget.
Today the studend union, "... directly oversees the budgets of all clubs and organizations, an approximate $8.5 million." (from RPI.
So it appears that it is still the students and not the school that makes the funding decision.
SteveM
Frankly, I've always wondered why they didn't adopt this approach in the first place.
Because Microsoft makes decisions based on what is good for Microsoft, not what the client needs.
More and more we see companies putting their needs first, instead of providing value to the customer first. Of course, this is much easier when you are a monopoly. As another example, compare the on screen guide provided by Comcast Digital Cable and Replay TV. Comcast's has ~40% of the screen taken up by ads, while Replay is all info.
Or consider the practise of having ads on DVDs that the user can't skip.
Or banks that charge a fee for using ATM machines even though such usage saves them big time by cutting down on tellers.
Or Lexmark using the DCMA to prevent third party ink cartridges.
Or [you're favorite example here].
Steve M
I'm trying and I really can't think of any solid benefits from trying this.
This statement could have two interpretations. One, that there are no direct benefits to what could be derived from this experiment. Two, that there are no benefits at all, scientific or otherwise.
I agree with number one. I disagree with number two. And furthermore, I think the assumption behind number one is faulty.
I believe there are practical, non-scientific benefits from doing this. You mention that you are in favor of getting kids involved in science. What better way then having them directly involved in real science? With real scientific equipment? This appears to me to be a valid scientific effort, albeit of little practical value. But is will no doubt have an immense effect on the self esteem of the kids involved. And don't tell me that you went through high school as a geek and couldn't have used a boost to your self esteem. (Another post in this thread complained of wasted tax dollars for field trips from NY to CO. I see no differnce between this and elite sports teams travelling for interstate games.)
The faulty asssumption is that scientific research needs to have immediate practical application. Because this assumption is so widely held, and in many cases not recognized as such, we have the situation where funding for basic fundemental research continues to shrink.
Consider the fate of the Superconducting Supercollider. The SSC designed to answer questions in physics that would have little or no immediate practical applications. But because of the assumption that all science has to be for something now, it failed to secure funding.
What that Newton, Maxwell, or Faraday had been forced to work under such constraints? Can you imagine Newton in a publish or perish environment? I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall for Newton's response to, "Yes, yes Issac, we all know prisms make pretty colors. But as to giving you money to play with such toys, well ...". And I believe it was Faraday who when asked what use his work was replied, "Of what use is a newborn baby?" (I have seen this quote attributed to both Faraday and Ben Franklin.)
But without the basic work done by Faraday, Maxwell, et al, we would not have had the understanding of electromagnetism that many years later allows us to use computers to post comments on /.. Without the work done early in the last century on quantum mechanics we wouldn't have transistors or integrated circuits.
Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. No immediate practical benefit at all. And furthermore, one that obtained a negative result. They expected to measure the effect of the ether and did not. Imagine how it would be reported today? Experiment to measure ether a failure, no effect found. It was Edison who said, "I have not failed. I have found 10,000 ways that don't work." No well thought out and performed scientific experiment is ever a 'failure'. Unless your assumption is that all experiments should have the predictable result for practical benefits, stated in advance as justification in the funding grant request.
The faulty assumption of immediate practical benefit precludes doing fumdemental research of possible long term benefit. So what knowledge that we haven't gained because the SSC was canceled would have been useful in 2050?
There is a difference between basic research and applied research. The faulty assumption is that all research is/should be applied. This has the practical (i.e. in practise) result that in general, only those projects that have immediate payoffs get funded. This is a bad thing.
Steve M
he PageRank values assigned by Google are not susceptible to being proved true or false by objective evidence
Unfortunately, that's false.
Internet searching is not a mathematical function, where google(term) = result. There is no right answer. Only possible answers, the appropriateness of which can only be determined by the requester.
Suppose I enter the search term 'apache'. By what objective criteria on Google's end would they be able to determine, based simply on that search term, what the best page is? They can't. They have no idea if I am interested in the indian tribe, the helicopter, the web server, or something else.
Furthermore the best result for me (indian tribe) may not be the best result for you, (1954 movie starting Burt Lancaster).
Thus there is no 'best' page for any given search term. There are only educated guesses and informed opinions. If we can't define the best page then we can't define the second best page, or third best, and so fourth. Thus we cannot have a completely objective page ranking system.
I have been using 'best' in the absolute sense, that there is a requester independent single best page that all parties would agree is so. I'm not using 'best' as works for most of the requesters most of the time. (The latter is one of the criteria that makes Google the 'best' search engine.)
Also note that there may exist a function, f(requester, term) = result, but it has not been implemented by Google, nor any other search engine.
Steve M
Film still rules for taking pictures in low-light.
So that's why the shuttle keeps visiting the Hubble Space Telescope, to pick up the film!
The is also a company called SBIG that makes a line of digital imagers for amatuer astronomers.
Steve M
Go to the View menu and select Status Bar (or command - \).
Steve M
Executive Summary: I don't buy Sony anymore.
For a while Sony was my first choice. I bought a Sony SDR 2010 receiver in 1990, that lasted close to ten years. Two channel stereo, 165 watts per channel, digital inputs, Dolby surround. In the end the unit started acting erratically, sound levels varying randomly, the display exhibiting interesting if unintelligible optical effects. (Since replaced by a Denon 3801). I was very pleased with this unit and thus with Sony.
I then bought a Sony TC-WR565 cassette deck, which still provides good, if infrequent, service.
I also have a Sony answering machine which works fine.
But ...
I have a Sony CDP-C265 five disk CD player. It is the third unit because I had to return the first two. Both DOA. Even the third unit didn't always recognize all five CDs in the tray. And the shuffle feature would only work with four CDs, ignoring the fifth after playing one song. After a few years the audio out started to go with one or both channels dropping out. (Since replaced with a formerly beige now black PowerMac G3 as a dedicated MP3 player.)
Next I bought a Sony DVP-S550D DVD player. I wasn't sure about going with Sony, but the unit was getting very good reviews. This too had to be returned twice because of audio problems. Once for DVD playback and once for CD playback. My original unit was replaced with a refurbished one when the orginal was lost by either Sony or FedEx. Since getting the second unit I've had no problems.
I have a Sony cordless phone. After about a year the buttons started failing intermittently.
I'm on my second Sony portable CD player. The first just stopped recognizing CDs. (Since replaced by an iPod.)
I also have a pair of Sony noice cancelling head phones, purchased because they were $100+ cheaper than the overpriced Bose set. Most of the time they work fine but on some flights there is a continuous clicking that renders them unusable.
The only Sony product I've purchased in the past three years was an open box STR-DE525 receiver for less than $50. So they may have gotten their quality control problems fixed. But I doubt it.
Steve M
Kinda like trying to figure out DNA.
Steve M
The reviewer writes:
The author seems infinitely more interested in name-dropping other, more successful sci-fi authors and scientists. Steele has done his research on obscure historical persona, but he can't seem to fix the holes in his own story.
And then:
A good example in terms of broken plot is the fictional scientific principle the author uses to drive his time-travel ships. It's called the 'Morris-Thorne' principle in the story, obviously named after the scientists who discovered it.
So to me it seems that the reviewer is saying that Steele has named the fictional principle after the real scientists. Albeit leaving out Yurtsever, as the Morris-Thorne-Yurtsever Principle doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
So which fact was missed?
Steve M
WRKSYSCTX is "work within the system context"?
WRK = work
SYS = system
CTX = context
All of the OS/400 commands are like this. Three character 'words' combined in strings of one, two, or three 'words' as in your example.
There were exceptions. WRKSPLF for example,
WRK = work
SPL = spool
F = file
Note that WRK is always work. This is true for all of the three character codes. This made the commands easy to learn and remember. Contrast with *nix, where each command name has to be learned separately.
And it is not in condensed combinations of verbs, it is verb noun modifier.
As to the all caps requirement, are you sure that wasn't just a convention in the document you were reading to distinguish commands from the other text? OS/400 has no such restriction.
Steve M
when Linux scales up to become 'mainstream' fewer and fewer of the userbase will be qualified to make the necesssary changes.
Which part of "Granted if everyone used Linux the percentage of users who also code will go way down." didn't you understand?
And it is probable that the absolute number of qualified programmers will go up even as the percentage goes down.
Having to hire some dude in a ThinkGeek t-shirt is going to alleviate the feeling of helpless and of lack of control?
It is not the hiring tht gives the feeling of control, but simply knowing that you can. And there are plenty of corporate programmers who currently work on windows who could work on Linux.
Steve M
Haven't we then just painted ourselves into the same corner that Microsoft is in, and wouldn't Linux receive the same amount of critisism for a variety of other things?
Don't forget, Microsoft appears to do things for the benefit of Microsoft, not for its customers. This generates a lot of ill will.
The open source model has the users making the changes. Granted if everyone used Linux the percentage of users who also code will go way down. But the ability to make the changes that you want, even if you have to hire someone to do it, will alleviate the feelings helplessness and of lack of control. And this will help keep complaints to a minimum.
Steve M
If your anology was completely apt, we would be living in a world where switching from a VW Beetle to a Ford Focus would require a new garage, different gasoline, and a new kind of steering wheel
New Garage? I have my G3 and PC sitting on the same desk ...
Different Gas? I plug my G3 and my PC into the same power strip ...
New Steering Wheel? Well, the PC does have a two button mouse ...
If you get a different car, everything else works pretty much the same.
Until you need replacement parts ...
Steve M
To answer your question, if the skills used in your OSS work or in your moonlighting are relevant to your career and are non-trivial, then by all means list them. But be ready to demonstrate that the skills are beyond the hobbyist level. And be ready to answer questions about your outside projects interfering with your ability to do the job you are seeking.
Remember, your resume is just a tool to get you an interview. The hiring manager is just interested in skills and experience relevant to the job they are hiring for. So list those skills, and only those skills, that are relevant to the type of position you are applying for. Don't pad your resume with skills that you cannot demonstrate proficiency in. And target your resume to the hiring manager, not HR.
My experience has been that HR has little to do with the hiring decision, it is the hiring manager that you are trying to impress.
I the jobs where I've had hiring responsibility I looked for:
- A skill set that matched my hiring criteria.
- Evidence of real word use of those skills.
- Previous work in a similar environment (i.e small vs. large shop) or on similar project or in the same or related industry.
On the other hand, skills padding usually resulted in a TNT letter (Thanks, No Thanks). For example, don't list every language, every computer, or every OS you've ever used. (Do list those you can demonstrate proficiency in.)
The one exception is when the job calls for a skill, for example C++ experience, and you've only used C++ on a couple of academic projects. Then go ahead and list C++ on your resume to get yourself in the door. But be sure to mention this to the interviewer before they dig it out. Thus someone with a strong programming background, proficient in C, who tells me that their C++ experience is limited has a much better chance of being hired then the person with the same skill set but which I uncover that his only C++ experience is a few college assignments. But this only works if you have all the other skills needed.
And good luck.
Steve M
What's your source on this?
'Subtle is the Lord ...' by Abraham Pais, pages 300 and 503.
From the book (page 300): "The divorce degree was issued on February 14, 1919. It stipulated that Mileva would receive, in due course, Einstein's Nobel prize money."
Steve M
Newton modest!!! Perhaps you unaware of how he treated other scientists of his era. Look into his treatment of Flamsteed, Leibnitz, or Hooke sometime. The 'shoulders of giants' quote was a dig at the small statured Hooke.
Einstien? The guy who as part of his divorce settlement gave his ex the winnings from his not yet awarded Nobel prize modest?
Don't know about Feynman ...
As to the technology bit, what technology did Newton give us? Maxwell? Einstein? Galilleo? Feynman? Darwin? Euler? [your favorite here ...]
Note I didn't ask what technology did their discoveries give rise to, but what technology did they themselves develop? (And to make my point perfectly clear, not all scientists are inventors. I am perfectly aware that some are.)
Wolfram sounds like a lot of scientists. He also sounds like a lot of crackpots. His track record should at least get him a hearing. And he should be judged on his ideas. Not on his personality nor his treatment of others.
One final thought. Wolfram's modus operandi is at least superficially similar to Newton's. Both worked alone. Both were dismissive of those whose work came before them. And at least one changed the scientific worldview big time.
Steve M
If you think that's all the human mind does ...
Why does an AI have to function the same way a human mind does?
As one example, the human mind has a lot of baggage for maintaining a functioning organism that an AI won't require.
Birds and airplanes both fly, but very few airplanes flap their wings.
There are a number of different types of flying machines, birds, bats, bugs, fixed wing, rotory wing, lighter than air, etc. So why must there be one type of intelligence?
Steve M
Where exactly on Apple's site is it referred to as Mac OSX v10.2?
Steve M
As much as it's a joke about South Jersey, Wawa is actually a Southeastern Pennsylvania phenomenon.
From the Wawa site you were kind enough to link to (from the 'history' link on the main page):
Our Rich History 1800s The Company was founded in 1803 in New Jersey, ...
Although at first they were a textile manufacturing company, only later getting into the dairy business.
Steve M
Steve M