From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 27 19:58:42 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5432F1065673 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:58:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0FEC58FC12 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 28392 invoked by uid 0); 27 Apr 2012 19:58:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by oproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2012 19:58:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apotheon.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=X/M11J5MDjenhi5YS6VlSrQIN2T9ob8M3SbF0p0uIgo=; b=cLJ2aUUnyImmpSqrOE/yifLLOz8Sadu/bsu+nq6OUHJpaLVWqko3/1YfGy90a+iaCrzBEv3++Qna8TTDcWV9hC/HRAEQ2eCaDiOHTFAAu4t2MY3oDcDnkKAO3fkW3tqm; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=localhost) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SNrJR-000402-5d for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:58:41 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:58:40 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: FreeBSD Message-ID: <20120427195840.GA15455@hemlock.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: FreeBSD References: <201204241833.q3OIXwTR013401@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120424190227.GA1773@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425053133.e920b091.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120425064507.GA4673@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425085555.36f91b3a.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120426215256.GA30059@hemlock.hydra> <20120426184306.783f9b4b@scorpio> <20120427163224.GA29149@hemlock.hydra> <20120427135710.2f66d2ac@scorpio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20120427135710.2f66d2ac@scorpio> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.com} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with perrin@apotheon.com} Subject: Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:58:42 -0000 On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:57:10PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:32:24 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: > >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:43:06PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:52:56 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: > >> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:45:53PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Generic skills aren't recognized because they're hard to judge and > >> >> test for. People want quantifiable, objective things to weed out > >> >> applicants. This is also why credit scoring has become so > >> >> popular -- sure, someone's credit score may not tell whether > >> >> they'd be a good employee or not, but it's a convenient, > >> >> objective way to throw out a bunch of resumes. > >> > > >> >Indeed -- and the employer who bucks this trend does him/her self a > >> >huge service, because large numbers of very skilled and/or talented > >> >people are being rejected on entirely arbitrary criteria that have > >> >little or no correlation to their ability to do the job. People who > >> >use such critera are forcing themselves to compete with everyone > >> >else in the industry using the same criteria, leaving a glut of job > >> >candidates who would be great at the job waiting for someone else to > >> >give them a chance. > >> > >> Wouldn't it be far easier for this "glut of job applicants" to either > >> become proficient in the skills stated in the job description for > >> which they are applying or do what everyone else does; i.e. lie on > >> their résumé. If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet must > >> go to the mountain. > > > >1. Pretty much every employer has a slightly different list of > >keywords. I guess you think all these job candidates should learn > >every skill in the world. > > No, I think they should learn the one(s) most sought after in their > chosen field. If 90% of the potential openings in a specific field are > requesting proficiency with MS Word, what do you think any legitimate > applicants should become proficient in? Right -- because all the keywords you need will always be Microsoft Word. Admit it: you're just making up half-baked excuses to disagree now. > > > >2. Lying is bad. Go fall in a hole, now. > > Yes, but it is never-the-less the norm on way too many resumes. I have > read where it is estimated that 1 out of every 3 is either a gross over > statement of fact or just a complete fabrication. My own (original) > resume, written by a professional resume writer many years ago, > absolutely astounded me. I had no idea I was as proficient and skilled > in so many areas. As the writer explained, it is not what you say > but how you say it. Just because I once wrote a two page article that > got published in a cheap magazine does not mean that I am an > accomplished author with numerous credits to my name -- or does it? No, it doesn't. Maybe "an accomplished author with one credit" to your name. Amusingly, that'll turn out to be a great way for employers to notice you're exaggerating with that "accopmlished author" bit, too. Only by lying ("numerous credits") can you allay suspicions for a moment in those credulous enough to not ask for samples (which absolutely does not make it okay). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]