 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> OK. I've seen "Cambridge" without qualification several times, when they
> actually meant Cambridge MA.
Cambridge in the USA is much more famous than Oxford in the USA. Cambridge
is where MIT is. Oxford is where the oxes forded the river.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK. I've seen "Cambridge" without qualification several times, when
>> they actually meant Cambridge MA.
>
> Cambridge in the USA is much more famous than Oxford in the USA.
Mmm, OK.
> Cambridge is where MIT is. Oxford is where the oxes forded the river.
"You people are crazy."
"Why? Because we dare to try? Because we're not afraid to defy convention?!"
"No. It's just... well... most folks use the bridge."
"...oh."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:44:38 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> "Our primary locations are Champaign, Boston, Chicago, and Oxford [...]"
>
> Um, maybe a stupid question, but... is there more than one Oxford? (I've
> made this mistake with Cambridge a few times; apparently there's a
> Cambridge in America somewhere.)
Massachusetts. Nice town.
There may well be another Oxford, GIYF. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/jobs/application.cgi
Uh, guys...?
What *is* the largest project I've completed to date? :-/
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:48:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/jobs/application.cgi
>
> Uh, guys...?
>
> What *is* the largest project I've completed to date? :-/
Not knowing every project you've ever done ever, it's hard to say. Maybe
some of the auditing preparation you've done?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Uh, guys...?
>>
>> What *is* the largest project I've completed to date? :-/
>
> Not knowing every project you've ever done ever, it's hard to say. Maybe
> some of the auditing preparation you've done?
Well, I can give you a list as long as your arm containing items like
- Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter.
- Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
- Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
- Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
- Built a collection of data compression modules.
- Built a Mandelbrot generator with multiple colouring options.
- Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
- Built a simple ray tracer.
...should I continue?
Every single one of these has been a small one-man project totalling
less than 1,000 lines of code, I would estimate.
Alternatively, I could say something about stuff I did at work.
"Prepairing for audits" generally just consists of checking I've signed
everything I'm supposed to sign, and hoping that the auditors don't find
any problems. I could perhaps mention the Disaster Recovery Plan I wrote
completely from scratch (and which client and government auditors love,
by the way). But not massively relevant to this specific application.
(Or maybe it is? Maybe I'll end up writing technical documentation for
these guys? Who knows...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:05:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Uh, guys...?
>>>
>>> What *is* the largest project I've completed to date? :-/
>>
>> Not knowing every project you've ever done ever, it's hard to say.
>> Maybe some of the auditing preparation you've done?
>
> Well, I can give you a list as long as your arm containing items like
>
> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter. - Built a Lambda
> calculus interpretter. - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer. - Built a collection of
> data compression modules. - Built a Mandelbrot generator with multiple
> colouring options. - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
> - Built a simple ray tracer.
>
> ...should I continue?
Sure.
> Every single one of these has been a small one-man project totalling
> less than 1,000 lines of code, I would estimate.
Size isn't important. The result is important. You could've written
some of these in more lines of code, but they wouldn't have performed as
well. Sometimes smaller is better (especially when coding).
> Alternatively, I could say something about stuff I did at work.
> "Prepairing for audits" generally just consists of checking I've signed
> everything I'm supposed to sign, and hoping that the auditors don't find
> any problems. I could perhaps mention the Disaster Recovery Plan I wrote
> completely from scratch (and which client and government auditors love,
> by the way). But not massively relevant to this specific application.
> (Or maybe it is? Maybe I'll end up writing technical documentation for
> these guys? Who knows...)
Doesn't really matter if it's relevant to the positions they have open
(you don't know what they are, do you?). They're asking about projects
you've worked on to get a sense of your capabilities when dealing with.
The DR project might be a good one. You'd do well, I think, doing
technical writing, and that type of project shows an aptitude for it.
But like I've said before, don't try to do the thinking for the
prospective employer - they are capable of doing that.
But while you're at it, if there's a place on the application to list
things like that (such as the part to provide code samples - you could
zip them up and supply them there), include some of the ones like the
language stuff, the mini-Mathematica engine, that sort of thing - that
shows an aptitude for the sort of thing they look for in coding - but
even if you don't end up doing coding, you're demonstrating a knowledge
in the area that can tie back to being able to write technical documents
about it. It's much easier to write technical materials if you
understand what you're writing about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/10/09 15:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
Probably all of these are good enough for the resume. Some may need
rephrasing or more details.
> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter.
What the heck is this? You mean similar to Logo? You may want to add a
line beneath it (indented a bit) that has a one line explanation of what
this is (but don't change the above description if it's accurate).
> - Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
Put this in. Specify what language you used, though (and spell it
properly!)
> - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
Give more details - perhaps as bullets beneath it. What were its
capabilities and in which language?
> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
Good. Again, perhaps some bullets describing features.
> - Built a collection of data compression modules.
What language and which data compression formats (you could just put
the latter in parentheses).
> - Built a Mandelbrot generator with multiple colouring options.
Good enough. Language?
> - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
Good enough. Language? You could give more details as above (what
features did you implement, etc).
> - Built a simple ray tracer.
Language? Remove "simple" and put something like "prototype". Maybe
list some basic features.
> ...should I continue?
Sure.
There's a danger of your resume becoming too long. In which case you'll
want a short version (2 pages) which have only the ones that you think
are really prominent or interesting to the job. Then, separately, you
can have a CV that has all of the above, with details on most as bullets.
> Every single one of these has been a small one-man project totalling
> less than 1,000 lines of code, I would estimate.
Doesn't matter. Most of these are non-trivial.
> Alternatively, I could say something about stuff I did at work.
> "Prepairing for audits" generally just consists of checking I've signed
> everything I'm supposed to sign, and hoping that the auditors don't find
> any problems. I could perhaps mention the Disaster Recovery Plan I wrote
> completely from scratch (and which client and government auditors love,
> by the way). But not massively relevant to this specific application.
> (Or maybe it is? Maybe I'll end up writing technical documentation for
> these guys? Who knows...)
Definitely put the recovery plan in there. If you're not too impressed
with audit preparations, then just put it as a bulleted entry under your
current occupation (along with the other entries under that - system
admin, recovery plan, etc).
--
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:05:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Uh, guys...?
>>>>
>>>> What *is* the largest project I've completed to date? :-/
>>> Not knowing every project you've ever done ever, it's hard to say.
>>> Maybe some of the auditing preparation you've done?
>> Well, I can give you a list as long as your arm containing items like
>>
>> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter. - Built a Lambda
>> calculus interpretter. - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
>> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer. - Built a collection of
>> data compression modules. - Built a Mandelbrot generator with multiple
>> colouring options. - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
>> - Built a simple ray tracer.
>>
>> ...should I continue?
>
> Sure.
>
>> Every single one of these has been a small one-man project totalling
>> less than 1,000 lines of code, I would estimate.
>
> Size isn't important. The result is important. You could've written
> some of these in more lines of code, but they wouldn't have performed as
> well. Sometimes smaller is better (especially when coding).
Yeah, I guess. But take a look at the application form. There isn't a
whole heap of space there. "I wrote a raytracer" doesn't seem very
impressive. Did it trace spheres and planes? Or did it do full global
illumination with physically-correct refraction, light attenuation and
volumetric sampling? It makes kind of a difference.
> Doesn't really matter if it's relevant to the positions they have open
> (you don't know what they are, do you?). They're asking about projects
> you've worked on to get a sense of your capabilities when dealing with.
I read it as "can this guy actually finish a big project, or will he get
bored and never finish it?"
> The DR project might be a good one. You'd do well, I think, doing
> technical writing, and that type of project shows an aptitude for it.
That's what I'm using. The form is basically filled out and ready to go.
> But while you're at it, if there's a place on the application to list
> things like that
Click the link at the start of this thread to see the exact form I'm
filling in.
> (such as the part to provide code samples - you could
> zip them up and supply them there), include some of the ones like the
> language stuff, the mini-Mathematica engine, that sort of thing - that
> shows an aptitude for the sort of thing they look for in coding - but
> even if you don't end up doing coding, you're demonstrating a knowledge
> in the area that can tie back to being able to write technical documents
> about it. It's much easier to write technical materials if you
> understand what you're writing about.
I don't know - is dumping a bunch of Haskell code on them which they
have no way of compiling going to prove anything? I could be making it
all up for all they know...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:26:26 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, I guess. But take a look at the application form. There isn't a
> whole heap of space there. "I wrote a raytracer" doesn't seem very
> impressive. Did it trace spheres and planes? Or did it do full global
> illumination with physically-correct refraction, light attenuation and
> volumetric sampling? It makes kind of a difference.
So summarize a bit on the projects that impressed you the most ("I've
written simple raytracers, foobars, and binfizes."). Supply the code and
let them evaluate. Remember that an application isn't a confessional of
the things that don't work in things you've built, it's a place to talk
positively about what you've built.
>> Doesn't really matter if it's relevant to the positions they have open
>> (you don't know what they are, do you?). They're asking about projects
>> you've worked on to get a sense of your capabilities when dealing with.
>
> I read it as "can this guy actually finish a big project, or will he get
> bored and never finish it?"
So use the DR project because it was finished. I imagine that given a
professional goal to complete some of the projects you've started on,
you'd finish them, but your interests are so varied that it's difficult
to focus on a personal project for a long time. I know a lot of people
like that.
And for people like that, being paid to do what they find interesting is
a good incentive to finish a project that's been started.
>> The DR project might be a good one. You'd do well, I think, doing
>> technical writing, and that type of project shows an aptitude for it.
>
> That's what I'm using. The form is basically filled out and ready to go.
Good. :-)
>> But while you're at it, if there's a place on the application to list
>> things like that
>
> Click the link at the start of this thread to see the exact form I'm
> filling in.
Yeah, I saw it - you should know that from the next paragraph.
>> (such as the part to provide code samples - you could zip them up and
>> supply them there), include some of the ones like the language stuff,
>> the mini-Mathematica engine, that sort of thing - that shows an
>> aptitude for the sort of thing they look for in coding - but even if
>> you don't end up doing coding, you're demonstrating a knowledge in the
>> area that can tie back to being able to write technical documents about
>> it. It's much easier to write technical materials if you understand
>> what you're writing about.
>
> I don't know - is dumping a bunch of Haskell code on them which they
> have no way of compiling going to prove anything? I could be making it
> all up for all they know...
Don't assume what their capabilities are. You compiled it, they can get
a compiler. They may even look at it and say "hey, I've never heard of
this language before", in which case you get bonus points for introducing
them to a new language. (I know it's hard, but resist the temptation to
reply to this with "well, obviously it's not useful for anything so why
would they have heard of it?" or something along those lines.)
Like I said, don't do their thinking for them. They're capable of doing
that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
