I don't know what I'd do with the playstations, but I learned yesterday that I could use the shipping container as a way to transport about 30EB of data more quickly than over the internet.
So I might just keep the container and use it to backup all the, er, images in the Chicago area.
In France (and probably other countries) most of the prices end in.00 and the taxes are already included (unlike Canada where I live). It's much simpler that way. If only there was a way to convince stores to do that in here...
You don't want it that way.
One of the only hidden sales taxes in the U.S. is the gas tax. And look how high it is.
Compare our sales taxes to those in hidden countries, same deal. They are higher in the hidden countries.
I'm of the opinion that *no* taxes should be hidden, ever. That way you know what you're paying for.
If you don't like it, then vote for folks who will shift the tax burden to something more clear than a penny here and a dollar there (like a single income/profit tax and nothing else), but don't hide the taxes our politicians have little enough to account for as it is.
People are focusing on the wrong thing. The point isn't $97T, $97B or $100K. The point is that the RIAA is finally going after a law breaker. They went after colleges and other carriers for too long even though *they weren't breaking the law*.
Now they are going after the kids that actually broke the law and everyone is still pissed.
Hell with that. These kids should be the ones being put to trial. Maybe now the laws can be shown for the unmitigated sillyness that they are and either shown unconstitutional or at least have a $97B judgement against some kids show the public how out of control this all is.
This is the right suit. Let's make sure it's the right result by now dwelling on the RIAA and instead dwelling on the law.
The question is whether there is a law being broken, not whether the company is liable. If the company provides this as a service and a law is being broken, it is liable.
ARPANET was about creating a network that was resiliant to bad things.
There are parallels. When an arpanet node goes down routing takes place on the other nodes instead.
In a grid there are many nodes. Some have speciallized resources that are fairly single point of failure suseptable (e.g. mass storage systems, large experimental devices), but most can be supplanted by another node.
That's where the analogy stops though. Where arpanet was concerned with networking, grids are concerned with networking on in that they use them. They are really about job movement, data movement, resource discovery and _security_.
All going to show that advice that works perfectly for one hiring manager is going to not work with another.
Yes, this was my point. I didn't mean to say you were wrong, so much as point out that you weren't casting out immutable truths.
No, no, not like that. More like 'Gosh, both Bob and Joe would be PERFECT for this position, but rather than flip a coin, I'll hire Bob, because he collects Beanie Babies, and so do I. We can swap humorous stories about yard sales, around the coffee machine.'
The resume gets you the interview. The evaluation you speak of comes much later and by that time you'll know the folks well enough to determine what interests you have in common and present those as educated disclosures rather than random bits hoping for a bite.
One thing I've learned is that no two people on the planet will give the same advice regarding resumes.
Yes! Let me reiterate that point. I've given advice here that is completely the opposite of what some others have said.
pmz has it right. This is a game of hope and luck. I'd add that it's important that your resume reflect your personality. Mine does that. And maybe that's the reason why I'm able to break many of the conventional wisdoms and still get both interviews and hires. I'm pretty good at what I do (as illustrated by the last couple pages), passionate about it and have made careers moves in order to produce good software. All this is evident in my resume and if it were much shorter some of it wouldn't be.
In short, be yourself and let your resume be a reflection of that.
Speaking as somebody who's hired, who's been hired, and who's been rejected, I'll tell you this.
I've hired many, been hired many times (consultant) and only been rejected twice. I find that my approach to resume building is very effective though it is clearly different from yours.
It will be automatically discarded for a spelling mistake, formatting error, or other stupid little mistake.
This depends on the position. Look, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't make your resume correct, but if you have experience you will likely get an interview. In fact, I've used resume errors as a way to throw someone off balance in an interview to see how they react to stress.
No wierd fonts, no water marks, no designs on the paper.
Agreed.
Speaking of paper, use good, heavy, textured white or creme coloured paper
My experience is that people who do this have pointed a finger to themselves and said that they aren't qualified. It's a bit like the spelling problem above in reverse. Sure, he should have checked his spelling, but I'm not going to deny a person a job because he used effect instead of affect. Conversly, the person with spiffy paper has made an active decision to attempt to differentiate themselves in an utterly unimportant way.
Similarly, ALWAYS put some hobbies/interests.
I know several people who think this is a bad idea and can only serve to reflect on you negatively.
When it comes down to two equally skilled/appropriate individuals, the fact that you share some hobbies with your boss is going to be enough to nudge you over the edge. After all, you work with people, not skill sets.
Any boss that is going to interview someone because he plays basketball I don't want to work for. Fortunately, I've been involved with hiring at four different companies and have never seen this kind of thing come up.
But if that's what you're printing and submitting, you're going to get tossed out.
Not my experience.
However, I will grant in a heartbeat that you have to know your audience. In 14 years I've only had a handful of interviews that I didn't recieve an offer from. I think this is because one must pre-qualify the position. If you've already talked to the person about the position and understood that you're going to be a good match, much of the rest of this stuff doesn't matter.
Similarly, if you haven't talked with someone, all the resume grooming in the world isn't going to help you much because you don't have enough information to properly groom for.
The thing is, you shouldn't have a resume. You should *create* a resume for every job that you apply to, that resume only listing what is of interest to that job.
I disagree with this. You should have one good resume and tailor the cover sheet to the specific instance.
I will admit, however, that the fact that I'm a consultant may be coloring my opinion on this subject.
My education is mostly unrelated to my career. Not putting it on there has consistently given me the chance to talk about this with prospective employers instead of having them write me off site unseen.
I retract my request. If anyone knows of a soup kitchen with especially fine fare, I'd appreciate a reference. I'll need something to eat starting around the end of April...
With resumes, size does matter and the shorter, "the better."
I find that this isn't true. If you only have two pages after ten years experience that says something about you. If you can't fit two years of experience into seven pages, that does to.
I think that resumes, like many things, are best in moderation.
You want something no shorter than is necessary to get your point across and no longer than is necessary to make sure the manager sees everything that might be germane to the position.
That said, I think my resume is about right, but may be getting a little long. I'm toying with the idea of having a traditional two or three page resume with an appendix of interesting material that wouldn't normally make the cut. For example, I already have one appendix that lists the really nice things my bosses have had to say about me over the years. I've had several positive comments about this. Then the skimmer type manager has what he wants, but the extra information is there for those who want a bit more depth.
I added a "Community" section to my resume and put things like that there. Similar to a 'hobbies' section, but community expresses it better. Would running the local Unix security SIG be a hobby? Not really.
Go ahead! Mark me redundent (i've already taken off my plus one bonus)!
But it must be said again. A few books, a couple good star charts, a tripod and a good pair of binoculars is, IMO, hands down the best way to start this hobby.
One of three things is gonna happen.
You're gonna think it's boring and you won't have lost much.
You're gonna think it's interesting and trot the gear out a few times a year.
You're gonna fall in love with it and be able to spend more money on a much nicer scope (and imaging computer and observatory and heaters and balance weights and eyepieces and filters and software and and and) than you would have gotten yourself saddled with now.
OK, I'll make it easier for you. Find yourself some solar cells that make electricity for less than the rate the power company will sell it to you.
I wasn't claiming I could. But that you were doing a comparison of electricity at a third the rate I pay and that's a unreasonable comparison.
*You* may think that the added costs in nukes aren't warrented, but the fact remains they are there and thus must be the compared value. But you admit this yourself, so there's no point in flogging that one further.
Your comment about disposal costs being included isn't quite accurate, you refer to nukes, but I was referring to gas, coal, hydro. Those environmental costs aren't at all included as much of the interesting waste goes into the air, but they do exist.
PV power generation is 25-30 cents an hour now, so it's still considerably more expensive than your utility bill, but if all the costs of conventional power generation were on your bill it would be a much closer comparison.
I think we largely agree though. Don't buy solar to save money, buy it if you have other motivating factors.
"It isn't clear to me how Symantec could know, hours in advance, about a worm which took ten minutes to spread throughout the entire Internet, unless they had something to do with its release."
Where are you getting electricity for 2.5 cents an hour? Mine is costing me about 8!
Now I agree that one should compare the total costs of solar (environmental costs in construction, total cost of deployment and costs of shutdown) to the costs of electricity, but 2.5 cents has got to be about a third of the national average.
Also, it would be more fair, if we're to do an apples to apples comparison, so look at the environmental costs of coal, gas, hydro, nuke in making the judgement. Yes, I know those costs aren't reflected in your power bill, but ultimately they manage to come back to you in other goods (e.g. more expensive fish because there are fewer clean waters to hold viable nurseries...)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what I'd do with the playstations, but I learned yesterday that I could use the shipping container as a way to transport about 30EB of data more quickly than over the internet.
So I might just keep the container and use it to backup all the, er, images in the Chicago area.
That's right, and start with this guy.
Ultraman is Airwolf
Heh. Apparently there is a subjective element. I liked Xenocide a lot!
You don't have to be 'into religion' as a practitioner, just interested in the religious story. That's what was meant by 'into religion'
IMO all the sequals accept Children of the Mind are worth reading.
Children might be worth reading if you are into religion, but otherwise is a real drag.
Free on PG and it's about time we, as a collective, got a little more broad in our selections.
In France (and probably other countries) most of the prices end in .00 and the taxes are already included (unlike Canada where I live). It's much simpler that way. If only there was a way to convince stores to do that in here...
You don't want it that way.
One of the only hidden sales taxes in the U.S. is the gas tax. And look how high it is.
Compare our sales taxes to those in hidden countries, same deal. They are higher in the hidden countries.
I'm of the opinion that *no* taxes should be hidden, ever. That way you know what you're paying for.
If you don't like it, then vote for folks who will shift the tax burden to something more clear than a penny here and a dollar there (like a single income/profit tax and nothing else), but don't hide the taxes our politicians have little enough to account for as it is.
What about something that can sync up with Linux using bluetooth.
People are focusing on the wrong thing. The point isn't $97T, $97B or $100K. The point is that the RIAA is finally going after a law breaker. They went after colleges and other carriers for too long even though *they weren't breaking the law*.
Now they are going after the kids that actually broke the law and everyone is still pissed.
Hell with that. These kids should be the ones being put to trial. Maybe now the laws can be shown for the unmitigated sillyness that they are and either shown unconstitutional or at least have a $97B judgement against some kids show the public how out of control this all is.
This is the right suit. Let's make sure it's the right result by now dwelling on the RIAA and instead dwelling on the law.
The question is whether there is a law being broken, not whether the company is liable. If the company provides this as a service and a law is being broken, it is liable.
ARPANET was about creating a network that was resiliant to bad things.
There are parallels. When an arpanet node goes down routing takes place on the other nodes instead.
In a grid there are many nodes. Some have speciallized resources that are fairly single point of failure suseptable (e.g. mass storage systems, large experimental devices), but most can be supplanted by another node.
That's where the analogy stops though. Where arpanet was concerned with networking, grids are concerned with networking on in that they use them. They are really about job movement, data movement, resource discovery and _security_.
Heh, the first GPLed resume. Funny.
;-)
You can, of course, crib the style. Try not to apply for my job, eh?
it's
Good, thanks.
Fermilab
I think it's a funny sentence even after you patch, I'm going to consider changes that obviate the need for that clumsy sentenece completly.
Landis
Good, thanks.
Swing master
Style matters. I'm not accepting this patch, but will consider it for a future release.
Thanks a lot, I appreciate the fresh eyes making my bugs shallow.
All going to show that advice that works perfectly for one hiring manager is going to not work with another.
Yes, this was my point. I didn't mean to say you were wrong, so much as point out that you weren't casting out immutable truths.
No, no, not like that. More like 'Gosh, both Bob and Joe would be PERFECT for this position, but rather than flip a coin, I'll hire Bob, because he collects Beanie Babies, and so do I. We can swap humorous stories about yard sales, around the coffee machine.'
The resume gets you the interview. The evaluation you speak of comes much later and by that time you'll know the folks well enough to determine what interests you have in common and present those as educated disclosures rather than random bits hoping for a bite.
One thing I've learned is that no two people on the planet will give the same advice regarding resumes.
Yes! Let me reiterate that point. I've given advice here that is completely the opposite of what some others have said.
pmz has it right. This is a game of hope and luck. I'd add that it's important that your resume reflect your personality. Mine does that. And maybe that's the reason why I'm able to break many of the conventional wisdoms and still get both interviews and hires. I'm pretty good at what I do (as illustrated by the last couple pages), passionate about it and have made careers moves in order to produce good software. All this is evident in my resume and if it were much shorter some of it wouldn't be.
In short, be yourself and let your resume be a reflection of that.
Speaking as somebody who's hired, who's been hired, and who's been rejected, I'll tell you this.
I've hired many, been hired many times (consultant) and only been rejected twice. I find that my approach to resume building is very effective though it is clearly different from yours.
It will be automatically discarded for a spelling mistake, formatting error, or other stupid little mistake.
This depends on the position. Look, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't make your resume correct, but if you have experience you will likely get an interview. In fact, I've used resume errors as a way to throw someone off balance in an interview to see how they react to stress.
No wierd fonts, no water marks, no designs on the paper.
Agreed.
Speaking of paper, use good, heavy, textured white or creme coloured paper
My experience is that people who do this have pointed a finger to themselves and said that they aren't qualified. It's a bit like the spelling problem above in reverse. Sure, he should have checked his spelling, but I'm not going to deny a person a job because he used effect instead of affect. Conversly, the person with spiffy paper has made an active decision to attempt to differentiate themselves in an utterly unimportant way.
Similarly, ALWAYS put some hobbies/interests.
I know several people who think this is a bad idea and can only serve to reflect on you negatively.
When it comes down to two equally skilled/appropriate individuals, the fact that you share some hobbies with your boss is going to be enough to nudge you over the edge. After all, you work with people, not skill sets.
Any boss that is going to interview someone because he plays basketball I don't want to work for. Fortunately, I've been involved with hiring at four different companies and have never seen this kind of thing come up.
But if that's what you're printing and submitting, you're going to get tossed out.
Not my experience.
However, I will grant in a heartbeat that you have to know your audience. In 14 years I've only had a handful of interviews that I didn't recieve an offer from. I think this is because one must pre-qualify the position. If you've already talked to the person about the position and understood that you're going to be a good match, much of the rest of this stuff doesn't matter.
Similarly, if you haven't talked with someone, all the resume grooming in the world isn't going to help you much because you don't have enough information to properly groom for.
The thing is, you shouldn't have a resume. You should *create* a resume for every job that you apply to, that resume only listing what is of interest to that job.
I disagree with this. You should have one good resume and tailor the cover sheet to the specific instance.
I will admit, however, that the fact that I'm a consultant may be coloring my opinion on this subject.
My education is mostly unrelated to my career. Not putting it on there has consistently given me the chance to talk about this with prospective employers instead of having them write me off site unseen.
Good point.
I retract my request. If anyone knows of a soup kitchen with especially fine fare, I'd appreciate a reference. I'll need something to eat starting around the end of April...
With resumes, size does matter and the shorter, "the better."
I find that this isn't true. If you only have two pages after ten years experience that says something about you. If you can't fit two years of experience into seven pages, that does to.
I think that resumes, like many things, are best in moderation.
You want something no shorter than is necessary to get your point across and no longer than is necessary to make sure the manager sees everything that might be germane to the position.
That said, I think my resume is about right, but may be getting a little long. I'm toying with the idea of having a traditional two or three page resume with an appendix of interesting material that wouldn't normally make the cut. For example, I already have one appendix that lists the really nice things my bosses have had to say about me over the years. I've had several positive comments about this. Then the skimmer type manager has what he wants, but the extra information is there for those who want a bit more depth.
By the way, for all you hiring managers out there, I'm available for contracts in April...
See my resume in the parent.
I added a "Community" section to my resume and put things like that there. Similar to a 'hobbies' section, but community expresses it better. Would running the local Unix security SIG be a hobby? Not really.
My resume
Go ahead! Mark me redundent (i've already taken off my plus one bonus)!
But it must be said again. A few books, a couple good star charts, a tripod and a good pair of binoculars is, IMO, hands down the best way to start this hobby.
One of three things is gonna happen.
You're gonna think it's boring and you won't have lost much.
You're gonna think it's interesting and trot the gear out a few times a year.
You're gonna fall in love with it and be able to spend more money on a much nicer scope (and imaging computer and observatory and heaters and balance weights and eyepieces and filters and software and and and) than you would have gotten yourself saddled with now.
OK, I'll make it easier for you. Find yourself some solar cells that make electricity for less than the rate the power company will sell it to you.
I wasn't claiming I could. But that you were doing a comparison of electricity at a third the rate I pay and that's a unreasonable comparison.
*You* may think that the added costs in nukes aren't warrented, but the fact remains they are there and thus must be the compared value. But you admit this yourself, so there's no point in flogging that one further.
Your comment about disposal costs being included isn't quite accurate, you refer to nukes, but I was referring to gas, coal, hydro. Those environmental costs aren't at all included as much of the interesting waste goes into the air, but they do exist.
PV power generation is 25-30 cents an hour now, so it's still considerably more expensive than your utility bill, but if all the costs of conventional power generation were on your bill it would be a much closer comparison.
I think we largely agree though. Don't buy solar to save money, buy it if you have other motivating factors.
I love guilt by implication!
"It isn't clear to me how Symantec could know, hours in advance, about a worm which took ten minutes to spread throughout the entire Internet, unless they had something to do with its release."
Kudo's to you michael, a masterpiece!
Where are you getting electricity for 2.5 cents an hour? Mine is costing me about 8!
Now I agree that one should compare the total costs of solar (environmental costs in construction, total cost of deployment and costs of shutdown) to the costs of electricity, but 2.5 cents has got to be about a third of the national average.
Also, it would be more fair, if we're to do an apples to apples comparison, so look at the environmental costs of coal, gas, hydro, nuke in making the judgement. Yes, I know those costs aren't reflected in your power bill, but ultimately they manage to come back to you in other goods (e.g. more expensive fish because there are fewer clean waters to hold viable nurseries...)