If you are going after a specific job, don't just send them the plain vanilla version of your resume. Try to paint your experience so that it matches the job you are going after. I'm not saying to lie, but everyone has to pick and choose what to put in and what to leave out... just choose the things that are most appropriate to what the potential empoyer is looking for.
Remember, your resume is not so much about what you've done, but is more about what you can do for someone else.
Embarrassingly, a month ago I had almost forgotten... the flags were all gone, the banners taken down, the innocents killed were just a vague grey cloud in my mind... strangely today they are real again. The feeling I hold from that day a year ago is there are things out there that are much bigger than any one individual. Our only hope is to stand together and help each other in times of need. I pray that I remember that a month from now.
Don't the optical readers that Florida had so much trouble with (hanging chads and all) use some kind of software? If those are closed source why aren't we up in arms about that?
The U.S. federal government does not mandate machine voting... although there are guidelines, the methods used for voting are the responsibility of the various localities. I wouldn't be at all surprised if quite a few small towns count ballots by hand in the U.S.
What would the evidence look like? I really don't know... say we found a numbering scheme in DNA and each species was sequentially numbered? Maybe we contact humans on another planet that have the ten commandments. Granted this is all completely conjecture on my part and I make no claims that I believe any of it will happen.
What if your snake and meteor example happened two, five, or a hundred times in a row?
The real point of my reply was to show that the evolutionist side should look within and evaluate if they are as guilty of "blind faith" as the creationist side is.
But the fact of the matter is that no such proof exists, nor is there ever likely to be such proof
That statement shows the bias that I'm talking about. If you have already decided something can't be proven, would you even recognize the proof if you found it?
Although I know you were trying to make a point, this unfortunately comes close to the attitude of many people on both sides. Science with all of it's claims of unbiased interpretation of the facts completely shuts down when it comes to the possible existence of a creator. Isn't it possible there are facts waiting to be found that prove the existence of a creator? Why are proponents of evoltuion so closed-minded to this possibility? This is the same attitude hated in literal creationism, refusing to accept *any* evidence of evolution. Without being open to the most remote possibilities, science is just dogma and becomes a religion in and of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, your resume is not so much about what you've done, but is more about what you can do for someone else.
Embarrassingly, a month ago I had almost forgotten... the flags were all gone, the banners taken down, the innocents killed were just a vague grey cloud in my mind... strangely today they are real again. The feeling I hold from that day a year ago is there are things out there that are much bigger than any one individual. Our only hope is to stand together and help each other in times of need. I pray that I remember that a month from now.
Don't the optical readers that Florida had so much trouble with (hanging chads and all) use some kind of software? If those are closed source why aren't we up in arms about that?
The U.S. federal government does not mandate machine voting... although there are guidelines, the methods used for voting are the responsibility of the various localities. I wouldn't be at all surprised if quite a few small towns count ballots by hand in the U.S.
The real point of my reply was to show that the evolutionist side should look within and evaluate if they are as guilty of "blind faith" as the creationist side is.
But the fact of the matter is that no such proof exists, nor is there ever likely to be such proof That statement shows the bias that I'm talking about. If you have already decided something can't be proven, would you even recognize the proof if you found it?
Although I know you were trying to make a point, this unfortunately comes close to the attitude of many people on both sides. Science with all of it's claims of unbiased interpretation of the facts completely shuts down when it comes to the possible existence of a creator. Isn't it possible there are facts waiting to be found that prove the existence of a creator? Why are proponents of evoltuion so closed-minded to this possibility? This is the same attitude hated in literal creationism, refusing to accept *any* evidence of evolution. Without being open to the most remote possibilities, science is just dogma and becomes a religion in and of itself.