>> Well, all the other locations listed are definitely in the USA. Seems
>> logical that the final one would be as well. Unfortunately, there's no
>> way to check.
> 
>     Faulty induction.

I'd tend to say "insufficient information". In that case, you make a 
best guess.

>     Also, there is no well known place called Oxford in the US. If they 
> said Oxford without clarification, there's a good chance it's in the UK.

OK. I've seen "Cambridge" without qualification several times, when they 
actually meant Cambridge MA.

>     But since you're going to argue:
> 
> http://wolfram.com/company/background.html
> 
> Locations: Champaign, IL (worldwide headquarters); Oxfordshire, UK 
> (European headquarters); Tokyo, Japan (Asian headquarters); with 
> additional locations in Cambridge, MA; Paris, France; etc.

If you want to split hairs, that's Wolfram Research Inc., and I'm 
debating applying to Wolfram Alpha LLC - but it would seem completely 
plausible that these two companies share the same premises...

Post a reply to this message

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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    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