Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:23:47PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
 On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:01:56 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
  On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:01:13AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
   On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:36:13 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
 
 I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
 preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
 based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
 should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
 never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
 entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
 market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
 advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
 the employer is looking for skill A and B, crying to him/her that
 you have skill C is just a waste of both your times.

It *does* pertain to entry level positions, because (from what I have
seen) most entry level positions come with an experience requirement 
of
at least two years.
   
   But then this would invalidate ENTRY level. How exactly is
   an applicant supposed to get a job from that entry level pool
   when he doesn't have previous experience because he simply wants
   to ENTER that field of profession?
  
  Yes -- that is *exactly* the question that comes up.  These are not jobs
  that are entry level in terms of requirements, even if they are entry
  level in terms of pay and actual skill required to do the job to a
  reasonable level of competence.  Consider examples like first-level call
  center jobs that require a college degree and a couple years expericence,
  as pretty much the canonical example.
 
 Seems to exactly that way in Germany. I did talk to a HR guy
 last week and he explained that those requirements are typical.
 I think he wasn't honest about the reasons. One may be the
 continuous degrading of school education and the recent loss
 of quality in university education (due to european processes).

This may be an honest reason, but it is not a good reason.  It's the
thinking that if schools are worse, you have to require more schooling to
get the same effect -- and schools *are* getting worse, in large part to
satisfy the demand for more formal education to get even the most
mundane and easiest of skilled jobs, resulting in a vicious circle.
People may honestly believe increasing the education requirement is a
good answer to a bad problem, so that the problem is not their honesty
but rather their reasoning.  Obviously, if autodidacts with degrees are
much better than anti-intellectual lumps on a log with degrees (and they
are), autodidactism is of great value.  In many cases, that value greatly
outstrips the value of the degree itself, so that autodidacts without
degrees are better than anti-intellectual lumps on a log with degrees.
The approach to hiring that says we must require ever-more diploma
carrying education on the resume selects for anti-intellectual lumps on
a log quite often.



 Another reason might be that companies need to be _certified_
 theirselves in order to get orders from other companies, and
 for that kinds of certification, it seems they have to show
 that they employ lots of highly qualified personnel in order
 to justify their prices.

I have never seen a company that lists all of its tech support people and
their degrees.  In fact, the most I've ever seen for people in entry
level positions is that they have CompTIA A+ Tech certifications, or
something equivalent, which is easily acquired with a heavy weekend
course and a single test.  For autodidacts, you don't even need the
coursework -- just get a $40 book and some practice test software.  This
might be worth some marketing, when a company can say all its support
people are certified experts or specialists of some sort, but it's a
heckuva lot less onerous than demanding bachelor's degrees in computer
science just to get a twelve dollar per hour job answer the telephone and
reading from a script, and more prone to selecting for autodidactism
skills.  Offer people flexible schedules if they want to take college
classes while they're working, and you're even more likely to get people
who can think critically, learn quickly, and do good work, because people
who try to pay their way through college while working in a technical
field are far more likely to be good at such jobs than people who breezed
through college on a sports scholarship or parental support and have
never really learned anything on their own.

In fact, I'm generally of the opinion (based on my experience and what
I've observed in others) that the only way to really learn anything
useful in college is to be an autodidact, doing the coursework mostly to
get a piece of paper and get ideas of *what* stuff to learn on your own
time, rather 

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:01:13AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
 On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:36:13 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
  On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
   On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700 David Brodbeck articulated:
   
   Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
   popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
   Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
   from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
   already have a position and are looking to change jobs.
   
   I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
   preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
   based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
   should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
   never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
   entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
   market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
   advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
   the employer is looking for skill A and B, crying to him/her that
   you have skill C is just a waste of both your times.
  
  It *does* pertain to entry level positions, because (from what I have
  seen) most entry level positions come with an experience requirement of
  at least two years.
 
 But then this would invalidate ENTRY level. How exactly is
 an applicant supposed to get a job from that entry level pool
 when he doesn't have previous experience because he simply wants
 to ENTER that field of profession?

Yes -- that is *exactly* the question that comes up.  These are not jobs
that are entry level in terms of requirements, even if they are entry
level in terms of pay and actual skill required to do the job to a
reasonable level of competence.  Consider examples like first-level call
center jobs that require a college degree and a couple years expericence,
as pretty much the canonical example.

In some cases, these jobs may simple be advertised this way so hiring
managers can use the lack of qualified applicants to help justify
offshoring jobs.  In other cases, this is just an example of how HR best
practices have gotten ridiculously out of control, where everybody tries
to copy what everyone else is doing because if everyone else is doing it
you can't get in trouble for doing the same thing.  The end result, of
course, is that you only get people with experience who nobody else wants
to hire or people who lie well -- but on paper it looks like you went to
great lengths to hire the right person, and thus you (hopefully) can't
be blamed for hiring turkeys.


 
  You speak as though you think they're correctly identifying the skills
  they actually need from their employees.  A big part of this entire
  discussion has been about the fact that many responsible parties in the
  hiring process are utterly without capacity for correctly identifying the
  skills they actually need to optimally fill the open positions.
 
 Correct, at least that's my experience. To give you _few_ examples
 which are more the norm than exceptions:
 
 good MS standart knowledge
 (Yavoll mein Hare Heiny Standart-Leader von Sowercrowd!)
 
 programming knowledge in established programming languages, e. g. OS2
 (cc hello.os2, and it's OS/2 with slash)
 
 modern Microsoft operating systems (Windows 98 and XP)
 (yes, _very_ modern and current; hey, it's more than 10 years old!)
 
 extended basic knowledge
 (so what, basic or extended?)
 
 autonomous team-oriented working
 (maybe as a one man team!)
 
 It's funny when you encounter job offers by recruiters and HR
 services who _fail_ to properly spell our native language, but
 think they are in a positition to place _you_ (as a professional)
 into a good job! Okay, it's NOT funny. It's also not funny if you
 have to explain to such a senior consultant permanent placement
 how to open a PDF file containing your application documents, and
 it's even worse when they try to trick you to do their work, e. g.
 enter all your data again into their (!) HR database.
 
 As I said, the problem of the unclear expression _what_ skills
 actually are needed can make it hard to properly apply for a job.
 This problem isn't only present for written application, it's also
 there if you get invited to an interview and the guy across the
 table is simply asking the wrong questions, or unable to understand
 your answers.

I think a far worse problem than the failure to understand what skills
are needed is the failure to understand things like

1. what skills can be learned easily in a very short period of time so
that focus on other necessary skills already existing can be employed in
selecting candidates

2. why disqualifying candidates for stupidities that have nothing to do
with their skills and other actually suitable qualities for the job is
counterproductive

-- 

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Polytropon]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:36:13 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
  On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700 David Brodbeck articulated:
  
  Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
  popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
  Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
  from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
  already have a position and are looking to change jobs.
  
  I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
  preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
  based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
  should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
  never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
  entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
  market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
  advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
  the employer is looking for skill A and B, crying to him/her that
  you have skill C is just a waste of both your times.
 
 It *does* pertain to entry level positions, because (from what I have
 seen) most entry level positions come with an experience requirement of
 at least two years.

But then this would invalidate ENTRY level. How exactly is
an applicant supposed to get a job from that entry level pool
when he doesn't have previous experience because he simply wants
to ENTER that field of profession?



 You speak as though you think they're correctly identifying the skills
 they actually need from their employees.  A big part of this entire
 discussion has been about the fact that many responsible parties in the
 hiring process are utterly without capacity for correctly identifying the
 skills they actually need to optimally fill the open positions.

Correct, at least that's my experience. To give you _few_ examples
which are more the norm than exceptions:

good MS standart knowledge
(Yavoll mein Hare Heiny Standart-Leader von Sowercrowd!)

programming knowledge in established programming languages, e. g. OS2
(cc hello.os2, and it's OS/2 with slash)

modern Microsoft operating systems (Windows 98 and XP)
(yes, _very_ modern and current; hey, it's more than 10 years old!)

extended basic knowledge
(so what, basic or extended?)

autonomous team-oriented working
(maybe as a one man team!)

It's funny when you encounter job offers by recruiters and HR
services who _fail_ to properly spell our native language, but
think they are in a positition to place _you_ (as a professional)
into a good job! Okay, it's NOT funny. It's also not funny if you
have to explain to such a senior consultant permanent placement
how to open a PDF file containing your application documents, and
it's even worse when they try to trick you to do their work, e. g.
enter all your data again into their (!) HR database.

As I said, the problem of the unclear expression _what_ skills
actually are needed can make it hard to properly apply for a job.
This problem isn't only present for written application, it's also
there if you get invited to an interview and the guy across the
table is simply asking the wrong questions, or unable to understand
your answers.



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Jerry]

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. 

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Polytropon]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:36:03 -0400, Jerry wrote:
 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.

I don't agree here. The history in UI and behavioural changes
in prograns like Word made whole generations of its users
nearly completely RE-learn what they already could do before,
worse or better. During the many versions things massively
changed, and there is no _the_ Word version you find un
business.

Putting formatting options into the File menu is one of such
things that I call arbitrary, because logic dictates that it
would be expected to be where the other formatting options
(typeface, selection, paragraph - page) are found. Something
similar can be seen for visualisation settings: some of them
are in View, some other aren't.

Standard (at least in my idealized opinion) also includes
file formats. Instead of memory dump blobs, programs like
OpenOffice use a publically documented format which makes
it easy to implement output processors for OO-files without
further problems.



 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 

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Steve Bertrand]

On 2012-04-24 11:50, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:

My daughter is doing a touch typing course
that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
with pico, but now they want the kids to
practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
these particular combinations because that
is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.

I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
if any, editor from ports/editors will have
these particular combinations implemented.

Please recommend one, preferably as simple
and as small as possible.


I'm a serious vi(m) advocate, but in this case, due to the use case, I 
also ++ Abiword.


Steve
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

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.

2. Lying is bad.  Go fall in a hole, now.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Jerry]

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?

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?

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:32:24AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
 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.
 
 2. Lying is bad.  Go fall in a hole, now.

I appear to have forgotten about point 3.

3. This was about employers going to the mountain, by the way, so your
point is null and void in any case.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

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 ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Jerry]

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.
If those skills are the ones most requested then the applicant should
learn them. It doesn't get any simpler than that. 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?

 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.

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.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[David Brodbeck]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
 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.

Keep in mind in today's job market, and given Internet methods of
advertising positions, the problem isn't in finding qualified people
-- the problem is in whittling down the couple thousand or so resumes
you get to a manageable pile.  You can afford to reject some qualified
applicants in that process because there are always more looking.

Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
already have a position and are looking to change jobs.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Jerry]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700
David Brodbeck articulated:

Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
already have a position and are looking to change jobs.

I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
the employer is looking for skill A and B, crying to him/her that
you have skill C is just a waste of both your times.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 04:46:52PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
 
 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.

You say that as though I somehow argued that people don't lie, or that
all people who lie get caught.  I made no such statements.  If you're
going to argue against things I didn't say, you should just send the
emails to yourself and leave both me and the rest of the mailing list out
of the discussion.


 
 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.

Good job completely bypassing my actual statements to make a point about
something else entirely.  Congratulations on your irrelevance.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
 On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700 David Brodbeck articulated:
 
 Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
 popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
 Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
 from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
 already have a position and are looking to change jobs.
 
 I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
 preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
 based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
 should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
 never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
 entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
 market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
 advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
 the employer is looking for skill A and B, crying to him/her that
 you have skill C is just a waste of both your times.

It *does* pertain to entry level positions, because (from what I have
seen) most entry level positions come with an experience requirement of
at least two years.

You speak as though you think they're correctly identifying the skills
they actually need from their employees.  A big part of this entire
discussion has been about the fact that many responsible parties in the
hiring process are utterly without capacity for correctly identifying the
skills they actually need to optimally fill the open positions.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:33:29PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
  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.
 
 Keep in mind in today's job market, and given Internet methods of
 advertising positions, the problem isn't in finding qualified people
 -- the problem is in whittling down the couple thousand or so resumes
 you get to a manageable pile.  You can afford to reject some qualified
 applicants in that process because there are always more looking.

That's not exactly true.  The problem is cutting out the people who only
*claim* to be qualified, and end up with the best candidate for the job
(or to get as close to that as possible).  The fact that most
organizations' responsible parties in the hiring process just punt on
that and go straight toward I don't care if he's good at the job -- I
only care that I do things in a way that ensures I don't get blamed for
any failures does not change that fact.

That also completely ignores the fact that many employers complain that
they can't find qualified candidates, ever, for skilled technical
positions.


 
 Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
 popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
 Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
 from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
 already have a position and are looking to change jobs.

. . . which just reinforces the point that most organizations are
optimizing for finding people who land around the fiftieth percentile in
terms of a good fit for the job, when they could benefit much more from
getting somewhere up around the range of the ninety-eighth percentile.
Luckily for those who buck the trends, it's a lot easier to get someone
in that range than it should be, because many employers are cutting a lot
of those candidates out of their job searches based on essentially
arbitrary criteria.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Frank Shute]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:33:29PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
  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.
 
 Keep in mind in today's job market, and given Internet methods of
 advertising positions, the problem isn't in finding qualified people
 -- the problem is in whittling down the couple thousand or so resumes
 you get to a manageable pile.  You can afford to reject some qualified
 applicants in that process because there are always more looking.
 
 Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
 popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
 Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
 from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
 already have a position and are looking to change jobs.

Reminds me of an episode of The Office.

The manager gets a pile of resumes/CVs and immediately bungs half of
them in the trash.

His reasoning: he doesn't like employing unlucky people :)


Regards,

-- 

 Frank

 Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html




pgpAlG7w1RLFZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Erich Dollansky]

Hi,

On Saturday 28 April 2012 09:23:26 Frank Shute wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:33:29PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
 
 
 Reminds me of an episode of The Office.

sounds more like real life to me.
 
 The manager gets a pile of resumes/CVs and immediately bungs half of
 them in the trash.
 
 His reasoning: he doesn't like employing unlucky people :)
 
we have been called once to assist a MNC you all know with a simple software 
problem problem. A guy from India was working on the problem since weeks, 
months or years without result.

When I asked him for the sources, he showed me the executable.

You think now that this was a misunderstanding. No, he thought that the 
executable is what is needed to debug the program. He could not show me the 
source code of the executable.

I could not stop laughing what did not make the people very happy there.

Erich
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Polytropon]

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.

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.

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.



 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.



 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).



  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
  

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[David Brodbeck]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
 Thanks for that article, it's really sad. One of the main
 problems is (in my opinion) that GENERIC SKILLS aren't
 recognozed with the big importane they have.

This applies to hiring as well as education.  When they read a job
application, HR people seem to basically do keyword matching.  They
don't know or care about generic skills.  If the posting says
'Microsoft Word experience' the words 'Microsoft Word' better appear
somewhere in the resume.  Likewise, if they want experience with a
particular programming language, you'd better have experience with
THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE...never mind if you already know five and can
pick up another in a week's time.

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.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

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.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Jerry]

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.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Polytropon]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:45:53 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
  Thanks for that article, it's really sad. One of the main
  problems is (in my opinion) that GENERIC SKILLS aren't
  recognozed with the big importane they have.
 
 This applies to hiring as well as education.  When they read a job
 application, HR people seem to basically do keyword matching.  They
 don't know or care about generic skills. 

That's a shortsightet view, especially when you consider the
typical lifecyle of software. Being educated on one specific
version that doesn't share many similarities with competitor's
products or own follow-up versions, you're lost.

Generic skills (such as generic Linux and UNIX skills) enable
you to become familiar with _any_ Unix-like operating system
very quickly, and in a world software changing dayly this is
an important skill.

Additionally, generic skills enable you to learn _anything_
quickly, such as a new scripting language, or a DTP application.
They all share generic concepts (like some kind of syntax for
a programming language, or some kind of UI design for a GUI
based program).

And you're right: HR people don't do more than keyword matching.
That's the only thing they have time for.



 If the posting says
 'Microsoft Word experience' the words 'Microsoft Word' better appear
 somewhere in the resume. 

It's even worse. There are some standardized skill profiles
(which aren't standardized) that one is expected to include.
I currently have an example here. It contains 100 times the
word Microsoft, but lacks essential stuff that one would
assume when applying for a job as a virtualisation / system
administrator. Some non-MICROS~1 stuff is mentioned in footnotes,
most of it even improperly spelled or not attributed to the
proper company.

For example, if you're familiar with StarOffice, OpenOffice and
LibreOffice (which you can acquire knowledge in _for free_), you
should be able to conclude how the MICROS~1 products work, any
version of them (even though they are very different and incon-
sistent, and you _cannot_ learn them for free). So this would
match the skill office applications, but maybe because the
word Microsoft doesn't appear several times, this skill is
rejected.

This also works with commercial UNIXes that are hard to try
for free. But with your generic skills, you can find out how
things work, because the basics are the same everywhere. You
can even install Hercules on your FreeBSD machine and find
out how an IBM /360 mainframe is operated - teaching you basic
skills how to deal with z/OS, CMS, TSO, REXX, ISPF and other
(primarily commercial) applications you might encounter).



 Likewise, if they want experience with a
 particular programming language, you'd better have experience with
 THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE...never mind if you already know five and can
 pick up another in a week's time.

That is correct. But being able to do so depends on the
employer to _publish_ his expectations in an understandable
format. In a setting where job applications are typically
filtered by an external HR company which _also_ makes the
job announcement, you'll hardly find them. Instead, there's
lots of blahblah like we're an established company, a
prominent market leader or young and dynamic expanding
service provider - and then programmer or system
administrator. You often don't find any hint who the _real_
employer would be. And in the end, it turns out that they
are searching for a phone monkey in 1st level customer
support. :-)



 Generic skills aren't recognized because they're hard to judge and
 test for. 

Hard to judge - no, but only by try and watch which often
is not possible or not intended.

Hard to test for - true, as proper test would have to be
developed first, and I assume that's rather expensive.
There are generic tests like FizzBuzz, but it doesn't say
_that_ much, and it's not enough to use _only_ this test.
However, it's a nice fall-through test if you want to
hire a programmer and he doesn't get it done by any programming
language _he_ may choose. :-)

Generic skills are _the_ skills you need to learn something
new. Stupidly repeating things doesn't work. Being tied to
the one way of doing things doesn't fit a quickly changing
world. You can't rely on vendor lock-in everywhere.



 People want quantifiable, objective things to weed out
 applicants. 

They often _assume_ that this is provided by colorful paper,
typically hanging on a wall in your back, the wall of fame.
There are many certificates that state you actually know
something, but there are more than enough that just cost
money, and you get them, no matter what you know (certificate
spam, if I may say that) - those are _worthless_.

I think objective is very hard to find here. Many considerations
depend on assumptions and expectations. For example, you want
a programmer. You don't state for what precisely (kind of project
and programming language). 

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Arthur Chance]

On 04/24/12 20:02, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:33:58PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:



Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:50:26 +0100
From: Anton Shterenlikhtme...@bristol.ac.uk
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

My daughter is doing a touch typing course
that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
with pico, but now they want the kids to
practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
these particular combinations because that
is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.

I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
if any, editor from ports/editors will have
these particular combinations implemented.

Please recommend one, preferably as simple
and as small as possible.


Sorry *NO* 'text editor' has those capabilities, let alone has
them on those key sequences.

Those are 'word processor' functions.  word processor' software
is required.


I know, I know..

I don't know why in a touchtyping course
you need to teach kids this, but..

Anyway, abiword seems to do what I need.

Let me know if there's anything lighter.


For a no brain, no effort solution, how about Google Docs?

Otherwise, you might want to take a look at the port www/tinymce3. It's 
a JavaScript editor that runs in a browser and does word processorish 
things. You can see what it's like at


http://www.tinymce.com/tryit/full.php

(Javascript needed, fairly obviously :-)

Caveat: I've never used it seriously, Abiword and/or Google Docs cover 
the few times I need to be compatible with the Windows world.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Anton Shterenlikht]

My daughter is doing a touch typing course
that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
with pico, but now they want the kids to
practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
these particular combinations because that
is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.

I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
if any, editor from ports/editors will have
these particular combinations implemented.

Please recommend one, preferably as simple
and as small as possible.

Thanks

-- 
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 04/24/2012 12:50 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:

My daughter is doing a touch typing course
that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
with pico, but now they want the kids to
practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
these particular combinations because that
is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.

I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
if any, editor from ports/editors will have
these particular combinations implemented.

Please recommend one, preferably as simple
and as small as possible.

Thanks



I am not certain, but I think it is possible to create your own
keyboard maps in both joe and vim...

--
---
Tim Daneliuk
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Mike Jeays]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:50:26 +0100
Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:

 My daughter is doing a touch typing course
 that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
 with pico, but now they want the kids to
 practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
 CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
 these particular combinations because that
 is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.
 
 I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
 if any, editor from ports/editors will have
 these particular combinations implemented.
 
 Please recommend one, preferably as simple
 and as small as possible.
 
 Thanks
 
 -- 
 Anton Shterenlikht
 Room 2.6, Queen's Building
 Mech Eng Dept
 Bristol University
 University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
 Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Abiword will do this. It is a good bit bigger than vi, but if your daughter is 
being schooled in MS WORD, it is a good substitute.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Waitman Gobble]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.comwrote:

 On 04/24/2012 12:50 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:

 My daughter is doing a touch typing course
 that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
 with pico, but now they want the kids to
 practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
 CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
 these particular combinations because that
 is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.

 I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
 if any, editor from ports/editors will have
 these particular combinations implemented.

 Please recommend one, preferably as simple
 and as small as possible.

 Thanks


 I am not certain, but I think it is possible to create your own
 keyboard maps in both joe and vim...

 --
 --**--**
 ---
 Tim Daneliuk

 __**_
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questionshttp://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-**
 unsubscr...@freebsd.org freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org



try AbiWord, /usr/*ports*/editors/*abiword*

should be 'close match' to ms word...

Waitman Gobble
San Jose California USA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Anton Shterenlikht]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:33:58PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
 
  Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:50:26 +0100
  From: Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk
  To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
  Subject: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U
 
  My daughter is doing a touch typing course
  that presumes MS Word. So far she was fine
  with pico, but now they want the kids to
  practice CTRL/B (bold), CTRL/I (italic),
  CTRL/U (underline). She really needs to use
  these particular combinations because that
  is how the on-line assessment tool is set out.
 
  I use nothing but vi, so have no clue which,
  if any, editor from ports/editors will have
  these particular combinations implemented.
 
  Please recommend one, preferably as simple
  and as small as possible.
 
 Sorry *NO* 'text editor' has those capabilities, let alone has 
 them on those key sequences.
 
 Those are 'word processor' functions.  word processor' software
 is required.

I know, I know..

I don't know why in a touchtyping course
you need to teach kids this, but..

Anyway, abiword seems to do what I need.

Let me know if there's anything lighter.

Many thanks


-- 
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org