Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:36:03 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U Message-ID: <20120428073603.7767688d@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120428074118.298c2c04.freebsd@edvax.de> 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> <CAHhngE0OX=b15XSVh89kOurh_6riaL-L5oT_E%2B52Onyhsx7rQw@mail.gmail.com> <20120426215256.GA30059@hemlock.hydra> <20120426184306.783f9b4b@scorpio> <20120427163224.GA29149@hemlock.hydra> <20120427135710.2f66d2ac@scorpio> <20120427195840.GA15455@hemlock.hydra> <20120427164652.4f021ab1@scorpio> <20120428074118.298c2c04.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:41:18 +0200
Polytropon articulated:
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:46:52 -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:58:40 -0600
>> Chad Perrin articulated:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> If the requirement is for proficiency in MS Word, Excel or whatever
>> and you lack those skills then you are not qualified for the job.
>> Period.
>
>There are two problems "hidden":
>
>1. You typically cannot learn proprietary products for free.
>Of course there are books and online material to help you, but
>you cannot try the software. You have to buy it, and you have
>to buy the OS that supports it. There is no (legal) way for
>autodidacts to make theirselves familiar by "learning and doing".
Irrelevant. You cannot learn to be a doctor, lawyer, physicist,
etcetera sans an education. Unless you have managed to acquire a "free
ride", i.e. you are getting the education on someone elses dime, you
will need to pay. Quite frankly Poly, I would have expected a better
argument from you than that. It was really quite bogus.
>2. There are many different versions, so when you encounter
>"Microsoft Word" as a required skill, you cannot be sure that
>the skill _you_ have will be the right one. You know that
>products like "Word" differ from version to version. And of
>course they highly differ from established and standardized
>ways of doing things, so your generic knowledge (e. g. acquired
>by "learning and doing" OpenOffice or StarOffice or Abiword)
>isn't fully portable simply because of the arbitraryness of how
>"Word" does things.
"arbitraryness" [sic} is one way of describing it. Since MS Office is
the de facto standard it can be stated that the other entries in the
word processing field are guilty of arbitrariness in their approach to
the matter. For the record, would you please point me to the RFC that
gives the requirements for a word processor. I must have missed it
somewhere. By the way, have you noticed that StarOffice, OpenOffice nor
Abiword all work exactly the same either? Are they guilty of
arbitrariness?
Come to think about it, FreeBSD does not work the same as Ubuntu or
linux. In fact, none of them work exactly the same. Quick Poly, call
the "Arbitrariness Police?. This must be nipped in the bud immediately.
>But let's rest the "Word" case. There is other software much more
>expensive and far less present on home systems to "do and learn".
>Oracle databases, Enterprise Java Frameworks or SAP are just a few
>examples. There are _courses_ that you can attend in order to learn
>more. For example, such courses cost 2000-10,000 Euro here. This
>is nothing that "poor" people can afford, even though they are
>highly skilled "IT nerds".
For the most part, I fully concur with you. Several years ago my wife
was required to take a course in Microsoft Office Access in order to
get a promotion in her job. The course only cost $49 and was given over,
if I remember correctly, four or six nights over a two week period. A
very simple thing to accomplish. Most software courses that I have seen
are usually given at community colleges and are very reasonably priced.
I have know many individuals who have started learning c++ programming
at classes similar to this, although the course is considerably longer
and usually runs between $300 and $500. However, since these courses
are typically given at night and many of them allow the applicant to
schedule the classes to meet his/her schedule making them extremely
convenient.
>> If those skills are the ones most requested then the applicant should
>> learn them. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
>
>I fully agree with you here. If the employer is _precise_ on what
>he expects, you can "trim" your resume or your skill profile to
>make a good match. You can even acquire requested skills (if
>possible). However, at least on the german job market you won't
>find such situations. As I wrote in a previous message, externalized
>HR services do most of the pre-employment work, and they are not
>very specific in their application requirements they publish.
>"Programmer" and "Office" can mean anything.
Absolutely, except I am not sure about "trimming". Unless the entry was
counter to the job requirements, I would leave it in. The "shock & awe"
concept of feeding the interviewer more data than they will have
time to digest can work to your advantage.
>> If a job required
>> proficiency with 3+ years minimum experience in c++ and you only had
>> knowledge of Pascal, would you still believe you were qualified?
>
>Depends. If your intelligency is high enough, your ability to
>learn and to conclude is good, then maybe you have the chance
>to learn the required C++ skills that are _equivalent_ to 3+
>years of experience. But that's only an assumption, and you will
>face the problem that you cannot "prove" it (by shiny paper
>with signature and rubber stamp).
Honestly Poly, you lost me there. It is probably a language problem.
>> >> >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).
>>
>> Now you are being naive. There are numerous examples of people in
>> both corporate and government jobs that have made out right lies as
>> to their education, etcetera. Some of those frauds have gone
>> undetected for years. The majority of resumes for entry level jobs
>> are rarely if ever given more than a perfunctory look.
>
>Again, I fully agree with you. "Selling yourself" on the HR market
>includes the typical aspects of selling you'll find in consumer
>products. For example, in marketing... let's say a tablet, the
>manufacturer doesn't say you cannot remove the battery (which will
>be flat line after 1 year of use), and the device will be unsupported
>after 2 years of use; no, the manufacturer will only show positive
>aspects of the tablet: it's shiny, slim, lightweight, entertaining
>and so on. He will also exxagerate, e. g. it's the world's most
>popular, future-proof, revolutionary and so on.
"Selling Yourself" is always important, as you stated. You only get one
chance to make a good first impression.
>Doing something _comparable_ is fully valid in applications. Of
>course there's also fraud to be noticed, e. g. doctors who haven't
>studied medicine (happened in Germany), people who are dumb as
>bread and too stupid to hammer a nail into the wall, but being
>awarded "manager of the year" and applying for an important
>position. In the end, maybe they'll be successful in their
>positions, but in many cases (and I also wrote this before)
>you'll find people in workplaces they are _not remotely_
>qualified for.
It happens all the time. Forged documentation, especially in the
medical profession in poorer areas is becoming a serious matter. A
resume is really nothing more than a letter of introduction in many ways
now. There is no way to ascertain the validity of the document's
contents without physically checking each entry. Due to the number of
applicants, and in some cases privacy laws, that is just not going to
happen on a very large scale.
>Employers have recognized that. They've risen the barrier for
>entry. Even lower-end jobs now require higher levels of education.
>For example, I've recently encountered a job offer for a thing
>called "virtualization administrator (system administrator)"
>which turned out to be phone 1st level support. The requirement
>however was: university degree or professional education with
>experience. Interesting for something that even Timmy Dumbass
>could do: Read questions from a flowchart and mark the YES/NO
>answers before transfering the call to 2nd level. Of couse I
>don't have to tell you that this particular job won't be paid
>as other jobs typically done by people successfully leaving a
>university. This particular job was underpaid.
A sanitation worker in NY City now requires a college degree. That
requirement can be waived however. It is used to help weed out the
undesirables -- drug addicts, etcetera.
>> The bottom line is if you want a job, you either learn or acquire the
>> criteria required for the job, or find a way to BS your way into it
>> and hope you can pull it off. No legitimate employer is going to
>> change his criteria to accommodate your skills.
>
>Employers often have strange expectations. I also wrote that
>some of them, because a "shortage of skilled programmers",
>suddenly want the "geek" (who trained himself lots of programming
>languages and development methods in his free time), but they
>want him to have certificates and university degrees. Reality
>shows that the _really_, I mean ***REALLY*** good programmers
>often don't have any degrees at all, sometimes even no professional
>education! Those promising candidates drop out at the beginning if
>they don't "improve" their CV or resume. It's the only chance they
>can turn their knowledge and experience into money (by being
>employed by a boss who _recognizes_ what he can get). Needless
>to say that such skills aren't taught in schools, universities,
>professional education and IT courses. You can only teach them
>to yourself.
True, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Obviously, that never slowed
him down. Interestingly enough, Microsoft requires applicants to have a
degree(s) for it's various openings. In any case, to quote you, a
"***REALLY***" good programmer would have job experience. Without a
degree and sans job experience, I would seriously question his
qualifications. Lets look at it from this point of view. If I advertise
for a job opening, lets call it "XYZ", and you apply for said job,
sans any degree(s), certificates of certification or job experience in
said field, what, and please be honest now, do you think the odds of
you getting hired are? Very few companies are doing the OJT (On Job
Training) thing these days, although the associates or candidates
programs are alive and well. Unfortunately, many people can not work
sans pay for months or longer hoping to land the job opening.
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________
As Zeus said to Narcissus, "Watch yourself."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120428073603.7767688d>