 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.wolframalpha.com/jobs/application.cgi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/jobs/application.cgi
Well, did you?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Well, did you?
Not yet. I'm working on it. ;-)
Although I have to feel... damn, there has got to me *a lot* of interest
in this. I'm wondering how I make myself stand out as somebody who might
actually be worth interviewing inamoungs the inevitable stampede of
people who think this is a ticket to getting paid to set around all day
playing with equations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_(disambiguation)
Take your pick ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "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.)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_(disambiguation)
>
> Take your pick ;-)
****.
Right. So it's pointless applying to them anyway, since they only reside
in America. Cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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.)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_(disambiguation)
> >
> > Take your pick ;-)
>
> ****.
>
> Right. So it's pointless applying to them anyway, since they only reside
> in America. Cool.
Are you sure it's a US Oxford? If they had just one UK office, it might be
Oxford. It must say for certain somewhere on the website...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_(disambiguation)
>>>
>>> Take your pick ;-)
>> ****.
>>
>> Right. So it's pointless applying to them anyway, since they only reside
>> in America. Cool.
>
> Are you sure it's a US Oxford? If they had just one UK office, it might be
> Oxford. It must say for certain somewhere on the website...
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.
I suppose I could apply to them anyway just for the pleasure of being
rejected yet again...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/09 06:29, Invisible wrote:
> 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.
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.
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.
--
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's
too late." - Frank Sinatra
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Probably all of these are good enough for the resume. Some may need
> rephrasing or more details.
Really? They're all pretty tiny little things that took me a day or two.
They specifically said "large projects".
>> - 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).
Imagine Logo, but with a command and re-executes the entire program, but
with all the lengths scaled down. (And starting from the Turtle's
current position. And restoring that position when the sub-program
ends.) Makes it very easy to draw ferns, the Kock snowflake curve, etc.
It's more or less equivilent to an L-system. But I'd never heard of those.
>> - Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
>
> Put this in. Specify what language you used, though (and spell it
> properly!)
*cough* Haskell.
Actually, a Lambda calculus interpretter is fairly trivial. What I wrote
was a CGI script which shows a complete reduction sequence, and can also
"compile" an extended Lambda calculus expression into plain Lambda
calculus, and then into SKI combinator calculus, and finally into Iota
calculus. It accepts any of these 4 languages as input. Simultaneously.
This is not as trivial as it sounds. (!!)
>> - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
>
> Give more details - perhaps as bullets beneath it. What were its
> capabilities and in which language?
Borland TurboPascal 5.5 for DOS. And I basically implemented
Mathematica's pattern-matching and expression transformation language.
Of course, the thing that makes Mathematica so powerful is the
stupendously *vast* library of transformation rules it comes with. It's
the culmination of many man-centuries of R&D. Not something I could
duplicate in a hurry - especially since I don't know, for example, what
"hypergeometric functions" even *are*, never mind how to implement them.
>> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
>
> Good. Again, perhaps some bullets describing features.
TurboPascal again. Each "module" is an MS-DOS program that takes a bunch
of CLI args and maybe some input files, and dumps some sound data into
an output file. By writing batch files, you can design complex synthesis
algorithms. I've got modules for generating envelopes of various kinds,
an oscilator for generating any Fourier series, a variable amplifier,
and an FM operator. Any questions?
(If only I'd known DSP back then... I could have added a digital filter!)
>> - Built a collection of data compression modules.
>
> What language and which data compression formats (you could just put
> the latter in parentheses).
Haskell. Again.
It doesn't handle any well-known formats such as RAR or ZIP. Rather, the
modules implement basic algorithms such as LZW, Huffman, BWT, etc.
>> - Built a Mandelbrot generator with multiple colouring options.
>
> Good enough. Language?
Originally BASIC. Then assembly. Then Pascal. Then Smalltalk. Then Java.
Then PostScript. Then Eiffel. Then Haskell...
Special features include inversion of the complex plane, colouring by
the final value of Z, or the weighted average of the whole orbit, the
option of adding "orbit traps" (e.g., the well-known "epsilon cross"
option of FractInt). Special mention goes to the built-in
Floyd-Steinburg error distribution dithering built into the Pascal
version to enable psuedo-truecolour display on a 16-colour VGA monitor.
Also the special RLE file format for storing and retrieving the images.
>> - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
>
> Good enough. Language? You could give more details as above (what
> features did you implement, etc).
Haskell. I believe I may even have posted the source code (or at least
its derivation here). I *definitely* posted the Windows CLI binary. It's
basically straight out of a book, with a few Andrewisms added. (E.g.,
VGA colour text!)
Give it a predicate involving some variables. It will attempt to assign
values to the variables in such a way that the predicate is satisfied.
There may be zero, one, or multiple ways this can be done...
>> - Built a simple ray tracer.
>
> Language? Remove "simple" and put something like "prototype". Maybe
> list some basic features.
It traced spheres and planes. It had CSG though, so that means it
basically traces any polyhedron. In fact, there was a nonlinear scaling
operation which means you could turn a sphere into a cylinder, and then
a cylinder into a cone, so you actually have quite a few options there.
There's no particular reason for not adding other quadratics too; I just
never got round to it. I was too busy playing with texturing.
It had a texturing system based on several different kinds of "maps". A
scalar map assigns a value to each point in space. By using a [piecewise
linear] colour map, you could then assign a colour to every point in
space. You can also apply multilayer textures, where lower ones "show
through" upper ones. And each element of a CSG operation can be textured
seperately. (As you can see... it's basically a blatent rip of POV-Ray.)
But there were also "vector maps", which you could use to displace other
map types. So you could assign a red/green Y-gradient to an object, and
then sine-displace it in the Y direction, and then again at a different
frequency in the Z direction. In this way, you could make some pretty
complex textures. (Not to mention that you can checkerboard textures, or
have "texture maps" by applying a texture blend to a scalar map... As
you can see, I kinda went overboard on generality. It's probably
Turing-complete!)
>> ...should I continue?
>
> Sure.
Numerical intergration for physical motion simulations?
CPU emulators?
That grainular synthesis thing I played with?
Fractal image compression? (Maybe not include that one; it ever actually
worked!)
The graphing tool I never finished?
OK, I'm starting to run out now...
> 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.
Well, this is specifically for Wolfram Alpha. Check out the application
form. There's only space for, like, 300 words, and they specifically
want one "large project". I have many, many, MANY tiny projects.
>> 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.
You think??
Sure, *I* was impressed that I wrote a raytracer and it worked. But from
what I can gather, *everybody* writes raytracers. Hell, Warp wrote a
raytracer *inside* a raytracer!! Using a damned macro language. :-P
> Definitely put the recovery plan in there.
Done.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
It's more the fact that I didn't know how a raytracer worked (nor how to
solve simultaneous equations, by the way), and I worked it out from
first principles, and it actually worked when I typed it in. I was ilated!
...until I discovered that everybody else has already done it, and it's
considered a trivial college student exercise.
> 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.
I agree.
>> That's what I'm using. The form is basically filled out and ready to go.
>
> Good. :-)
The form is sent.
>> 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.
This is Wolfram. I'm sure they'll have heard of a heavily accademic
language such as Haskell. Doesn't mean they use it.
Anyway, I don't have any "working" code to hand right this exact second,
and the application has been sent in now, so...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:59:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It's more the fact that I didn't know how a raytracer worked (nor how to
> solve simultaneous equations, by the way), and I worked it out from
> first principles, and it actually worked when I typed it in. I was
> ilated!
>
> ...until I discovered that everybody else has already done it, and it's
> considered a trivial college student exercise.
Well, I was a college student in Computer Science, and it's not something
I could work out on my own. So don't worry about the second part, the
first part is the important part - you worked it out *on your own*, which
is more than the college students doing the exercise do, because it's
part of an assignment for them.
>> 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.
>
> I agree.
And there's your incentive to look for something more "in your field". :-)
>>> That's what I'm using. The form is basically filled out and ready to
>>> go.
>>
>> Good. :-)
>
> The form is sent.
Excellent!
>>> 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.
>
> This is Wolfram. I'm sure they'll have heard of a heavily accademic
> language such as Haskell. Doesn't mean they use it.
Doesn't mean they don't, either. Hopefully you mentioned your interest
in Haskell in the application. Comes under the heading of "don't do the
prospective employer's thinking for them". :-)
> Anyway, I don't have any "working" code to hand right this exact second,
> and the application has been sent in now, so...
So it's something to bring up in the interview.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...until I discovered that everybody else has already done it, and it's
>> considered a trivial college student exercise.
>
> Well, I was a college student in Computer Science, and it's not something
> I could work out on my own. So don't worry about the second part, the
> first part is the important part - you worked it out *on your own*, which
> is more than the college students doing the exercise do, because it's
> part of an assignment for them.
Well, I guess.
On the other hand, anybody with a real education would already know how
to do algebra and solve equations. It's only me who's had to guess that
stuff from what I can scrounge off the Internet and invent off the top
of my head.
>>> 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.
>> I agree.
>
> And there's your incentive to look for something more "in your field". :-)
Hey, I think the entire freakin' server is unanimous in this agreement
that I need another job. You won't find me arguing! The question is, can
I actually get one? Am I good enough?
>>>> That's what I'm using. The form is basically filled out and ready to
>>>> go.
>>> Good. :-)
>> The form is sent.
>
> Excellent!
I'm a little... concerned that I didn't get one of those "thank you for
your application" type emails when I sent the form in. It asks for an
email address, and typically they do that kind of them.
Oh... oh God. Did I type my address wrong?!? o_O
Also not amusing: Sending my details over an unencrypted link? What, you
couldn't afford HTTPS??
>> Anyway, I don't have any "working" code to hand right this exact second,
>> and the application has been sent in now, so...
>
> So it's something to bring up in the interview.
We shall see.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:14:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On the other hand, anybody with a real education would already know how
> to do algebra and solve equations. It's only me who's had to guess that
> stuff from what I can scrounge off the Internet and invent off the top
> of my head.
In other words, you overcame circumstances rather than giving up. That's
more than most people will do. You did real research instead of having
it handed to you in a classroom.
>> And there's your incentive to look for something more "in your field".
>> :-)
>
> Hey, I think the entire freakin' server is unanimous in this agreement
> that I need another job. You won't find me arguing! The question is, can
> I actually get one? Am I good enough?
You can get one, and you are good enough. Those that turn you down
aren't good enough for you because they're not willing to look at what
your capabilities are.
>>>>> That's what I'm using. The form is basically filled out and ready to
>>>>> go.
>>>> Good. :-)
>>> The form is sent.
>>
>> Excellent!
>
> I'm a little... concerned that I didn't get one of those "thank you for
> your application" type emails when I sent the form in. It asks for an
> email address, and typically they do that kind of them.
It may be that they don't do that, but rather they send the information
along and have someone personally reply.
> Oh... oh God. Did I type my address wrong?!? o_O
Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
Hey, it could be that their mail server is down.
> Also not amusing: Sending my details over an unencrypted link? What, you
> couldn't afford HTTPS??
After you get a job there, this would be something to ask about. Of
course, maybe not as "you couldn't afford a certificate" but maybe more
as "hey, you know, when I filled out the application I was a little
concerned about it being sent in the clear". Or something during the
interview, for that matter - if there's an opportunity. But it has to be
framed well, too.
>>> Anyway, I don't have any "working" code to hand right this exact
>>> second, and the application has been sent in now, so...
>>
>> So it's something to bring up in the interview.
>
> We shall see.
Yep. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/10/09 15:56, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, this is specifically for Wolfram Alpha. Check out the application
> form. There's only space for, like, 300 words, and they specifically
> want one "large project". I have many, many, MANY tiny projects.
My mistake. I thought it was for a resume.
Regardless, put it on the resume/CV. Take the details you put in your
post and make it a bit more organized.
Also, it'd be great if you make a static web page and put as much of
the above code there, with the descriptions that your provided. You
could put that on your resume.
>> Doesn't matter. Most of these are non-trivial.
>
> You think??
Yup.
I was talking to a CS Master's student in a program ranked in the top 5
in this country. He was taking a probability course where he had to
compute some expected values of stuff like coin flips with certain
constraints. Some were tricky to calculate, and he was asking for help.
I was busy/lazy, so I told him to first simulate the system
(straightforward - some would take less than 10 lines in a decent
language) and use that as a test of his calculations.
He had a great deal of trouble writing code for this, and he gave up.
Now granted, his background is not in CS (some other engineering). But
it gives you an idea of who you're competing with. And people like him
get hired.
In any case, I don't see too much harm in putting this stuff in the
Wolfram application if you can't think of a "big" project. I doubt they
keep blacklists.
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:01:54 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Now granted, his background is not in CS (some other engineering).
As a side comment, some of the best problem-solving coders I've ever seen
(not software engineers, mind) are people who come from engineering
backgrounds. I participated in several ACM programming contests when I
was in college, and one of the top ranked teams in the world was the team
from the University of Central Florida. Their top team had no Computer
Science students in it. What's more, ACM provided a choice of language
(C or Pascal) for the contests, and the UCF team worked *only* in Pascal.
The guy who was their coach was amazing as well - also only programed in
Pascal for the contests (don't know what other languages he knew, never
thought to ask the few times I met him), but he could solve all 7
problems in the test set very trivially. His co-coach would select the
problems so he had no idea what they were.
I guess part of the point is that knowing C isn't the end-all be-all of
programming. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...should I continue?
Other than the mandelbrot generator, I don't really have the math to do any
of those projects. (Or the patience anymore, for that matter.)
> But not massively relevant to this specific application.
Of course it is. It means "I can think, and write, and organize a document."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, anybody with a real education would already know how
>> to do algebra and solve equations. It's only me who's had to guess that
>> stuff from what I can scrounge off the Internet and invent off the top
>> of my head.
>
> In other words, you overcame circumstances rather than giving up. That's
> more than most people will do. You did real research instead of having
> it handed to you in a classroom.
On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
(I tell you, the number of times I've spent weeks working something out,
only to discover that there's some textbook somewhere with the exact
solution I was looking for already written down... If I had a thorough
knowledge of the subject, I'd have known the answer in the first place!)
>> Hey, I think the entire freakin' server is unanimous in this agreement
>> that I need another job. You won't find me arguing! The question is, can
>> I actually get one? Am I good enough?
>
> You can get one, and you are good enough. Those that turn you down
> aren't good enough for you because they're not willing to look at what
> your capabilities are.
I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will I
ever get past the initial deselection?
>> I'm a little... concerned that I didn't get one of those "thank you for
>> your application" type emails when I sent the form in. It asks for an
>> email address, and typically they do that kind of them.
>
> It may be that they don't do that, but rather they send the information
> along and have someone personally reply.
It's a web form. Any 6 year old with a web browser can submit an
application. They must be getting several hundred million *per hour*.
Obviously they will have been prepared for this, and will have an
automated system of some kind to filter out the garbage. I just hope
they don't filter *me* out!
> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
Don't have a way to do that.
>> Also not amusing: Sending my details over an unencrypted link? What, you
>> couldn't afford HTTPS??
>
> After you get a job there, this would be something to ask about.
Heh, yeah...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I guess part of the point is that knowing C isn't the end-all be-all of
> programming. :-)
I've been saying that for years, but nobody believes me... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Other than the mandelbrot generator, I don't really have the math to do
> any of those projects. (Or the patience anymore, for that matter.)
Well that's just it. Is it that you couldn't do this stuff? Or just that
you can't be bothered to do it?
>> But not massively relevant to this specific application.
>
> Of course it is. It means "I can think, and write, and organize a
> document."
Well, that's what I used in the end, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
This counts for very little in modern programming, really.
Someone did an analysis a few years ago of "unix gurus", to figure out how
they'd become gurus. The only commonality found was that they'd all learned
where to efficiently look for the answers.
I'm currently using very little that has been in a textbook. Even
programming languages these days are changing faster than books are written
about them.
No college is going to teach you how to port Linux to an embedded system, or
how to get hardware acceleration into Qt's drawing routines.
I remember only vaguely my ray-tracing class. If I wanted to write a
ray-tracer, I'd have to sit down with books or web pages and figure out all
the math again. What I remember is the basics of how the process works, so
I know what math I have to learn, for example.
> (I tell you, the number of times I've spent weeks working something out,
> only to discover that there's some textbook somewhere with the exact
> solution I was looking for already written down... If I had a thorough
> knowledge of the subject, I'd have known the answer in the first place!)
No, what you need to do is practice learning where to find the answers.
Unless you're the type that remembers all the details of everything you've
learned. I used to be like that, I think, but it seems to have been going
downhill over the years. :-(
>> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
> Don't have a way to do that.
Find a way. Of course they have an address, and a person works there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well that's just it. Is it that you couldn't do this stuff? Or just that
> you can't be bothered to do it?
Let's see...
> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter.
I could do that.
> - Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
I could probably do that really inefficiently, if I first sat down and
learned Lambda calculus.
> - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
I could probably do that with a whole bunch of work and learning, depending
on what you mean, as long as the actual mathematical notation didn't get in
the way.
> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
I have no idea how to do that. I've never done anything with sound, and
barely have used Fourier transforms on visual data.
(Did you see the virtual beat-box one in Haskell?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeks3mPvlGU )
> - Built a collection of data compression modules.
I could probably do that with good explanations of how the compression
works. I probably couldn't invent any kind of useful compression algorithm.
Assuming you mean lossless compression.
> - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
I barely remember how a prolog interpreter works, let alone how to code one.
I think I did a unification engine back in college for a class assignment, tho.
> - Built a simple ray tracer.
Other than knowing where to get the tutorials? I could probably spend a day
tracking down the math to eventually get something coming out. Anything
sophisticated? Probably not worth the effort, but I could probably learn to
do it.
So there you go. Mandelbrot and Turtle fractals are about the only thing on
your list I could do off the top of my head without sitting down for a day
or more to learn what I need to know. I don't think there's anything on your
list I *couldn't* do. You just wouldn't want to pay me to learn it first,
given folks like you are looking for jobs. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
> <snip>
> I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will I
> ever get past the initial deselection?
Have you considered changing fields? You could apply your aptitudes to
something that doesn't require such large backgrounds of knowledge. You
could get away from the Internet and this news server for large chunks
of time. You could, if you desired, go back to the tech field someday
KNOWING that it's what you really want.
Life works very differently with a change in career.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a
>> complete coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
>
> This counts for very little in modern programming, really.
True, but it probably counts of a hell of a lot in mathematics.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter.
>
> I could do that.
Course you could. ;-)
>> - Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
>
> I could probably do that really inefficiently, if I first sat down and
> learned Lambda calculus.
Um, dude... it's the Lambda calculus! Inefficiency is built-in. We're
talking about a programming language where the program to calculate 2+2
barely fits on one line. ;-)
>> - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
>
> I could probably do that with a whole bunch of work and learning,
> depending on what you mean, as long as the actual mathematical notation
> didn't get in the way.
I mean it could take a simple mathematical expression and collect like
terms, fold constants, and a few simple things like that.
>> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
>
> I have no idea how to do that. I've never done anything with sound, and
> barely have used Fourier transforms on visual data.
See my other reply. It involved envelope generators, amplitude shaping,
mixing, variable-frequency oscilators [which produce a Fourier series],
and FM operators. Only the latter is remotely complicated; ask Wolfram
Alpha about "sin(x + pi sin(x))".
> (Did you see the virtual beat-box one in Haskell?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeks3mPvlGU )
No, but... hmm, this looks like the kind of crazy stuff a Haskeller
would do. (Pity none of this works on Windoze.)
>> - Built a collection of data compression modules.
>
> I could probably do that with good explanations of how the compression
> works. I probably couldn't invent any kind of useful compression
> algorithm. Assuming you mean lossless compression.
Yeah, I've yet to get any lossy algorithm to work. (If by "work" you
mean "produce something vaguely resembling the input".) I only did stuff
like RLE, LZW, Huffman, etc.
>> - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
>
> I barely remember how a prolog interpreter works, let alone how to code
> one. I think I did a unification engine back in college for a class
> assignment, tho.
Heh. This coming from the guy who was telling *me* how unification
works. :-P
> So there you go. Mandelbrot and Turtle fractals are about the only thing
> on your list I could do off the top of my head without sitting down for
> a day or more to learn what I need to know. I don't think there's
> anything on your list I *couldn't* do. You just wouldn't want to pay me
> to learn it first, given folks like you are looking for jobs. :-)
Hmm... interesting perspective.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/11/09 10:32, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a
>> complete coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
Missed this the first time round.
Trust me - college courses are _never_ comprehensive. They'll teach the
basics, and go into one or two aspects in detail. Really good
courses/universities will make students do nasty projects that will
force them to learn things comprehensively, but that's rare.
There just isn't time in the classroom.
For some areas, someone may know it really well because he took 3
courses which utilized it.
> Someone did an analysis a few years ago of "unix gurus", to figure out
> how they'd become gurus. The only commonality found was that they'd all
> learned where to efficiently look for the answers.
++
I never met anyone who really knew his stuff AND boasted about not
reading manuals. Conversely, all the people I met who boast such a thing
never became experts in much.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Um, dude... it's the Lambda calculus! Inefficiency is built-in.
All the more reason to need to understand the efficient way to evaluate it.
>> I barely remember how a prolog interpreter works, let alone how to
>> code one. I think I did a unification engine back in college for a
>> class assignment, tho.
>
> Heh. This coming from the guy who was telling *me* how unification
> works. :-P
That's the point, tho. I vaguely remember how it works, well enough to know
why I care or would want it. If you asked me to *do* it correctly, I'd have
to look up how.
>> So there you go. Mandelbrot and Turtle fractals are about the only
>> thing on your list I could do off the top of my head without sitting
>> down for a day or more to learn what I need to know. I don't think
>> there's anything on your list I *couldn't* do. You just wouldn't want
>> to pay me to learn it first, given folks like you are looking for
>> jobs. :-)
>
> Hmm... interesting perspective.
Of course there are things I'm already good at. Just not the stuff you're
talking about. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:22:06 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> On the other hand, anybody with a real education would already know
>>> how to do algebra and solve equations. It's only me who's had to guess
>>> that stuff from what I can scrounge off the Internet and invent off
>>> the top of my head.
>>
>> In other words, you overcame circumstances rather than giving up.
>> That's more than most people will do. You did real research instead of
>> having it handed to you in a classroom.
>
> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
With advanced topics, it's rare that a classroom experience will give you
truly complete coverage of the subject. Remember that the line of work
I'm in is technical training? A 5-day class (or 15 days or 20 days) of
training on using Linux won't begin to scratch the surface of the full
capabilities of the system. People learn in different ways - some people
benefit from classroom training/learning experiences, and some people do
much better with self-study.
You seem to do very well with self-study. That's not a bad thing, and
many employers prefer people who say that they are self-motivated to
learn new things. Often times they'll prefer that over scads of formal
education, contrary to what the job posting says the minimum requirements
are.
>> You can get one, and you are good enough. Those that turn you down
>> aren't good enough for you because they're not willing to look at what
>> your capabilities are.
>
> I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will I
> ever get past the initial deselection?
You don't sound impressive to you because you're you. Don't guess at
what other people are or aren't impressed by, and trust those of us who
say that you are impressive.
> It's a web form. Any 6 year old with a web browser can submit an
> application. They must be getting several hundred million *per hour*.
Doubtful that they're getting that many per hour.
> Obviously they will have been prepared for this, and will have an
> automated system of some kind to filter out the garbage. I just hope
> they don't filter *me* out!
Well, we'll see - if they do for some reason, then it's on to the next
opportunity. And the next.
>> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
>
> Don't have a way to do that.
Or call them. I'm sure their office is listed in the phone book or the
number is available on the website. Be creative in finding a way to
contact them, especially a company like Wolfram would likely be impressed
by the application of some problems solving techniques to ensure that
they got the application.
Hell, it may even be part of why they didn't send an automated
response. :-)
>>> Also not amusing: Sending my details over an unencrypted link? What,
>>> you couldn't afford HTTPS??
>>
>> After you get a job there, this would be something to ask about.
>
> Heh, yeah...
Wouldn't be the first time it's been done. I've done it myself after
accepting a job (internal transfer or new employer). Sometimes an
outside perspective illuminates something that people working inside a
company never even thought about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:18:48 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a
>>> complete coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
>>
>> This counts for very little in modern programming, really.
>
> True, but it probably counts of a hell of a lot in mathematics.
Not likely. I don't think someone like Stephen Hawking learned his
advanced mathematics skills in a classroom. That happens when you're on
the bleeding edge of something and discovering new things. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:25:10 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I guess part of the point is that knowing C isn't the end-all be-all of
>> programming. :-)
>
> I've been saying that for years, but nobody believes me... :-P
Um, yeah, many people do. I used to do a fair amount of programming in C
and I've never considered it that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
>> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
>
> With advanced topics, it's rare that a classroom experience will give you
> truly complete coverage of the subject.
No, but it's hard to learn advanced stuff when you don't have a thorough
understanding of the basics yet.
> You seem to do very well with self-study. That's not a bad thing, and
> many employers prefer people who say that they are self-motivated to
> learn new things. Often times they'll prefer that over scads of formal
> education, contrary to what the job posting says the minimum requirements
> are.
Yeah, well, you can't really put that in a CV or an application.
>> I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will I
>> ever get past the initial deselection?
>
> You don't sound impressive to you because you're you. Don't guess at
> what other people are or aren't impressed by, and trust those of us who
> say that you are impressive.
I sound good to you guys because you know what I'm actually like. On a
CV or a job application, there isn't much space to communicate stuff,
and I fear I don't have the magical words that make me look impressive.
>> It's a web form. Any 6 year old with a web browser can submit an
>> application. They must be getting several hundred million *per hour*.
>
> Doubtful that they're getting that many per hour.
Hell, somebody somewhere probably has a PHP script hitting that form
trying to see whether the CGI has any buffer overrun vulnerabilities
which are exploitable. :-P
>> Obviously they will have been prepared for this, and will have an
>> automated system of some kind to filter out the garbage. I just hope
>> they don't filter *me* out!
>
> Well, we'll see - if they do for some reason, then it's on to the next
> opportunity. And the next.
Sure. They do grow on trees, after all...
>>> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
>> Don't have a way to do that.
>
> Or call them. I'm sure their office is listed in the phone book or the
> number is available on the website. Be creative in finding a way to
> contact them, especially a company like Wolfram would likely be impressed
> by the application of some problems solving techniques to ensure that
> they got the application.
>
> Hell, it may even be part of why they didn't send an automated
> response. :-)
Well I can't see any contact details on their website at all. (Not an
uncommon occurrance, actually.) I suppose I could just drive round
Oxford until I see a fricking big building with Wolfram written on it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:47:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a
>>> complete coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
>>
>> With advanced topics, it's rare that a classroom experience will give
>> you truly complete coverage of the subject.
>
> No, but it's hard to learn advanced stuff when you don't have a thorough
> understanding of the basics yet.
It's all relative.
>> You seem to do very well with self-study. That's not a bad thing, and
>> many employers prefer people who say that they are self-motivated to
>> learn new things. Often times they'll prefer that over scads of formal
>> education, contrary to what the job posting says the minimum
>> requirements are.
>
> Yeah, well, you can't really put that in a CV or an application.
Sure you can. How do you think I got my first job doing systems admin
out of school? I didn't learn NetWare systems administration in the
classroom, I am entirely self-taught, and after two years, I co-wrote
what is still thought by many as the definitive book on troubleshooting
the directory service for the platform. That led me to a job where I
taught people what I'd written about.
All entirely with ZERO formal education on the subject matter.
Out of all the job interviews I did, only one company was distressed by
my lack of formal education on the subject matter (and consequently they
were unimpressed with my being a co0author of the ONLY book on the
subject of troubleshooting the directory service on the platform). That
company was Iomega. And I'm glad that I didn't take that job - after
seeing the emphasis they put on "formal education" compared to
"experience", I would've been very unhappy there - probably moreso than
the company I was trying to leave.
>>> I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will
>>> I ever get past the initial deselection?
>>
>> You don't sound impressive to you because you're you. Don't guess at
>> what other people are or aren't impressed by, and trust those of us who
>> say that you are impressive.
>
> I sound good to you guys because you know what I'm actually like. On a
> CV or a job application, there isn't much space to communicate stuff,
> and I fear I don't have the magical words that make me look impressive.
That's why we've helped you. You still think you sound unimpressive, but
I can tell you that if I were a hiring manager looking for someone with
your abilities, I'd hire you on the spot. I've kept my eyes open
internally, in fact, for something that would be a good fit, but (a) our
nearest office to you is in Bracknell (about an hour south of you IIRC)
and it's not primarily a development centre. We have an office in
Dublin, Ireland as well, but your expressed desire to stay in or near MK
really limits the opportunities, certainly with my employer.
>>> It's a web form. Any 6 year old with a web browser can submit an
>>> application. They must be getting several hundred million *per hour*.
>>
>> Doubtful that they're getting that many per hour.
>
> Hell, somebody somewhere probably has a PHP script hitting that form
> trying to see whether the CGI has any buffer overrun vulnerabilities
> which are exploitable. :-P
Not if their sysadmin is doing their job - which is to say that if
someone is hitting the form that hard, the server utilization would be up
- and the first step would be to look at the logs, obtain the IP address,
and block it.
But on your part that's all supposition - you don't know that, so don't
assume the worst, either. :-)
>>> Obviously they will have been prepared for this, and will have an
>>> automated system of some kind to filter out the garbage. I just hope
>>> they don't filter *me* out!
>>
>> Well, we'll see - if they do for some reason, then it's on to the next
>> opportunity. And the next.
>
> Sure. They do grow on trees, after all...
If you'd expand the scope of your search, that would certainly help.
>>>> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
>>> Don't have a way to do that.
>>
>> Or call them. I'm sure their office is listed in the phone book or the
>> number is available on the website. Be creative in finding a way to
>> contact them, especially a company like Wolfram would likely be
>> impressed by the application of some problems solving techniques to
>> ensure that they got the application.
>>
>> Hell, it may even be part of why they didn't send an automated
>> response. :-)
>
> Well I can't see any contact details on their website at all. (Not an
> uncommon occurrance, actually.) I suppose I could just drive round
> Oxford until I see a fricking big building with Wolfram written on it...
Try Google. Search for "Wolfram Oxford Location" (without the quotes).
I did, first result gave a location AND a phone number.
As good as you are at research (and you are good at it), it's sometimes
shocking you miss the easy route.
Further, if you go to the wolfram.com website and drill into the company
pages, there's an application page (different than the one you filled
out, more specific to Mathematica it seems) and there's a contact e-mail
address listed at the bottom of the page: resumes (at) wolfram (dot) com.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure you can. How do you think I got my first job doing systems admin
> out of school? I didn't learn NetWare systems administration in the
> classroom, I am entirely self-taught, and after two years, I co-wrote
> what is still thought by many as the definitive book on troubleshooting
> the directory service for the platform. That led me to a job where I
> taught people what I'd written about.
I'm puzzled as to how somebody with no formal qualifications gets to
write a book.
>> I sound good to you guys because you know what I'm actually like. On a
>> CV or a job application, there isn't much space to communicate stuff,
>> and I fear I don't have the magical words that make me look impressive.
>
> That's why we've helped you. You still think you sound unimpressive, but
> I can tell you that if I were a hiring manager looking for someone with
> your abilities, I'd hire you on the spot.
Based on what you know about me from this forum? Or based on the 300
word description in a text box on a web application form?
If there's a box asking what qualifications you have, and another box
asking what commercial experience you have, it's very hard to convey
that you're not just some loser kid who wants a job, and that you
actually know stuff about stuff, even though you don't have the
credentials "on paper" to prove it.
> I've kept my eyes open
> internally, in fact, for something that would be a good fit, but (a) our
> nearest office to you is in Bracknell (about an hour south of you IIRC)
> and it's not primarily a development centre. We have an office in
> Dublin, Ireland as well, but your expressed desire to stay in or near MK
> really limits the opportunities, certainly with my employer.
Yeah, that's the wonders of the Internet - most people you talk to live
nowhere near wherever you are. ;-)
>>> Well, we'll see - if they do for some reason, then it's on to the next
>>> opportunity. And the next.
>> Sure. They do grow on trees, after all...
>
> If you'd expand the scope of your search, that would certainly help.
Such as...?
>> Well I can't see any contact details on their website at all. (Not an
>> uncommon occurrance, actually.) I suppose I could just drive round
>> Oxford until I see a fricking big building with Wolfram written on it...
>
> Try Google. Search for "Wolfram Oxford Location" (without the quotes).
> I did, first result gave a location AND a phone number.
>
> As good as you are at research (and you are good at it), it's sometimes
> shocking you miss the easy route.
>
> Further, if you go to the wolfram.com website and drill into the company
> pages, there's an application page (different than the one you filled
> out, more specific to Mathematica it seems) and there's a contact e-mail
> address listed at the bottom of the page: resumes (at) wolfram (dot) com.
You're looking at Wolfram Research Inc. I applied to Wolfram Alpha LLC.
Different company. ;-)
IIRC, Wolfram Research does have a little more contact info readily
available.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, well, you can't really put that in a CV or an application.
Sure. It goes under the "skills" section. "Self-motivated" or "self-started"
is usually how it's described in the help-wanted ad.
> and I fear I don't have the magical words that make me look impressive.
So ask. :-)
> Well I can't see any contact details on their website at all.
Call directory service. Look up scholarly papers until you get a name or an
email address of someone working there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:26:35 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Sure you can. How do you think I got my first job doing systems admin
>> out of school? I didn't learn NetWare systems administration in the
>> classroom, I am entirely self-taught, and after two years, I co-wrote
>> what is still thought by many as the definitive book on troubleshooting
>> the directory service for the platform. That led me to a job where I
>> taught people what I'd written about.
>
> I'm puzzled as to how somebody with no formal qualifications gets to
> write a book.
Well, I said "co-author". My co-author asked me if I was interested
because he was impressed with my level of knowledge. We've done 3 books
together (though the last one I didn't contribute directly to due to a
conflict of interest with work projects - he used material I'd written in
the previous edition so I had to be credited).
>>> I sound good to you guys because you know what I'm actually like. On a
>>> CV or a job application, there isn't much space to communicate stuff,
>>> and I fear I don't have the magical words that make me look
>>> impressive.
>>
>> That's why we've helped you. You still think you sound unimpressive,
>> but I can tell you that if I were a hiring manager looking for someone
>> with your abilities, I'd hire you on the spot.
>
> Based on what you know about me from this forum? Or based on the 300
> word description in a text box on a web application form?
>
> If there's a box asking what qualifications you have, and another box
> asking what commercial experience you have, it's very hard to convey
> that you're not just some loser kid who wants a job, and that you
> actually know stuff about stuff, even though you don't have the
> credentials "on paper" to prove it.
The 300 word application box is a foot in the door. It's not the entire
interview process. They learn the details after the first step is done.
>> I've kept my eyes open
>> internally, in fact, for something that would be a good fit, but (a)
>> our nearest office to you is in Bracknell (about an hour south of you
>> IIRC) and it's not primarily a development centre. We have an office
>> in Dublin, Ireland as well, but your expressed desire to stay in or
>> near MK really limits the opportunities, certainly with my employer.
>
> Yeah, that's the wonders of the Internet - most people you talk to live
> nowhere near wherever you are. ;-)
Yep.
>>>> Well, we'll see - if they do for some reason, then it's on to the
>>>> next opportunity. And the next.
>>> Sure. They do grow on trees, after all...
>>
>> If you'd expand the scope of your search, that would certainly help.
>
> Such as...?
Broader scope of locations for a start. If I limited myself to
businesses within a 4 block radius (not saying you are that restricted in
your scope, but I live in a larger city), I'd probably have a hard time
finding something, too.
>>> Well I can't see any contact details on their website at all. (Not an
>>> uncommon occurrance, actually.) I suppose I could just drive round
>>> Oxford until I see a fricking big building with Wolfram written on
>>> it...
>>
>> Try Google. Search for "Wolfram Oxford Location" (without the quotes).
>> I did, first result gave a location AND a phone number.
>>
>> As good as you are at research (and you are good at it), it's sometimes
>> shocking you miss the easy route.
>>
>> Further, if you go to the wolfram.com website and drill into the
>> company pages, there's an application page (different than the one you
>> filled out, more specific to Mathematica it seems) and there's a
>> contact e-mail address listed at the bottom of the page: resumes (at)
>> wolfram (dot) com.
>
> You're looking at Wolfram Research Inc. I applied to Wolfram Alpha LLC.
> Different company. ;-)
Same company, different department/division. There's a high probability
they're in the same building, and if they're not, there's also a high
probability that the person you talk to at reception at the number on the
site I found (or via the e-mail address I found) can point you in the
right direction.
> IIRC, Wolfram Research does have a little more contact info readily
> available.
Yes, and that's a starting point. Call the number and say you'd like to
speak to someone about your submitted application on the Wolfram|Alpha
site, and if that person is in that office location, they'll connect
you. If they're not, then ask if they have a phone number that you can
call for the other office because you'd like to follow up on your
application.
That shows initiative (and follow-through), and employers like that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/13/09 12:26, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm puzzled as to how somebody with no formal qualifications gets to
> write a book.
1. Open editor.
2. Start typing.
3. Convince publisher.
Step 3 is what I don't know anything about, given that I haven't
published anything. However, if no one else has written a book on it,
and the publisher knows there's a market, why wouldn't they publish it?
> You're looking at Wolfram Research Inc. I applied to Wolfram Alpha LLC.
> Different company. ;-)
>
> IIRC, Wolfram Research does have a little more contact info readily
> available.
Pretty much the same company.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:59:03 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Step 3 is what I don't know anything about, given that I haven't
> published anything. However, if no one else has written a book on it,
> and the publisher knows there's a market, why wouldn't they publish it?
Well, there's a few reasons they wouldn't - they may not understand that
the subject hasn't been covered before (first book we had that problem -
tried to publish through the software developer's imprint at Sybex, and
the acquisitions editor said "why do we need a book on that? We already
have one." - problem was, the one we wrote was troubleshooting, the one
they had was design. Two different subjects).
We shopped it around to one other publisher, and they picked it up, no
problem.
But I've also seen books where the author didn't know what they were
talking about and the publisher picked it up. There was one notorious
one that Peter (my co-author) dubbed "the book from Hell" because the
publisher asked him to do the technical review and he basically ripped it
apart. It was *awful*. So the publisher said "fine, if you think you
can do better, go ahead." So he ended up rewriting it and getting author
credit on that one as well (along with 4 or 5 other people I know; I'd
have to look, but I don't think I wrote anything but did some technical
review myself on it).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm puzzled as to how somebody with no formal qualifications gets to
>> write a book.
>
> Well, I said "co-author". My co-author asked me if I was interested
> because he was impressed with my level of knowledge.
Ah. So it's a question of knowing the right people then.
>> If there's a box asking what qualifications you have, and another box
>> asking what commercial experience you have, it's very hard to convey
>> that you're not just some loser kid who wants a job, and that you
>> actually know stuff about stuff, even though you don't have the
>> credentials "on paper" to prove it.
>
> The 300 word application box is a foot in the door. It's not the entire
> interview process. They learn the details after the first step is done.
Not if you're unsufficiently impressive to get an interview.
>>> If you'd expand the scope of your search, that would certainly help.
>> Such as...?
>
> Broader scope of locations for a start. If I limited myself to
> businesses within a 4 block radius (not saying you are that restricted in
> your scope, but I live in a larger city), I'd probably have a hard time
> finding something, too.
Well, I'm currently looking at Wolfram in Oxford. That's about 30 miles
or something. I'd prefer a job in my home town, but I don't mind
something slightly further away.
I don't care how much you pay me, I am NOT working in London.
>> You're looking at Wolfram Research Inc. I applied to Wolfram Alpha LLC.
>> Different company. ;-)
>
> Same company, different department/division. There's a high probability
> they're in the same building, and if they're not, there's also a high
> probability that the person you talk to at reception at the number on the
> site I found (or via the e-mail address I found) can point you in the
> right direction.
>
>> IIRC, Wolfram Research does have a little more contact info readily
>> available.
>
> Yes, and that's a starting point. Call the number and say you'd like to
> speak to someone about your submitted application on the Wolfram|Alpha
> site, and if that person is in that office location, they'll connect
> you. If they're not, then ask if they have a phone number that you can
> call for the other office because you'd like to follow up on your
> application.
>
> That shows initiative (and follow-through), and employers like that.
All true in theory. In practice, applying to such a vast company, I
doubt anybody is going to notice. I also rather suspect most of their HR
will be in the USA. But it's worth a go I guess...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, well, you can't really put that in a CV or an application.
>
> Sure. It goes under the "skills" section. "Self-motivated" or
> "self-started" is usually how it's described in the help-wanted ad.
Sure. Trouble is, *anybody* can say that. Words are cheap. Employers
want some kind of proof - and I don't have any yet.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
