Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:There's a clue shortage (Score 1) 574

If you want a career in software development, stay far, far from the places where there stuffed suits run the shop. It's a small and dirty corner of the industry.

I'm sorry, but while I don't have numbers on it, I don't believe that's true. It is my understanding that there are at least as many programmers, system architects, and all other sorts of software developers working in-house for companies that do not sell software, writing programs that will never be seen or used outside of that company.

Remember, in the modern world recruiters and hiring managers find your resume online, it's all "pull-based" now. Hiring manager want to solve specific kinds of problems. You want to list the specific kinds of problems that you've solved, because that's what they're actually looking for. Sure, sure, make sure to work in the keywords that recruiters search for, that's quite important, but those keywords can be anywhere.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that, at present, there are a significant number of big-corp hiring managers who will ignore any resume that doesn't "list specific kinds of problems that you've solved." However, I'm not willing to believe that it's every single hiring manager in the country, nor even every Fortune 500 hiring manager. Nor am I willing to believe that, if there are indeed a large percentage doing it, that is anything more than Yet Another Hiring Fad. Because I've heard about dozens of different hiring fads on Slashdot over the past decade and a half.

Me, I'm lucky. I got hired in academia, in a job that fits my skillset and temperament very well, so it doesn't actually matter just at the second (knock on wood) what my resume looks like. But if I took the advice of every person who comes along, like you, and says, "OK, you must have X in your resume or you'll never get a job," my resume would be about 20 pages long. (Except that one of the Xs I've heard is, in fact, "your resume must be no more than 1 page." So, go figure.)

If I had a way to evaluate such advice, to know which pieces are good, which are snake oil, and which are just out of date, it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, I don't—and I don't think you do, either.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:There's a clue shortage (Score 1) 574

Well, personally, I managed to snag a really nice job (for my own skills and temperament), and am not looking.

But it would shock me if there aren't places that "actually let HR do the hiring," but still have IT teams with good people on them that are worth working with. Sure, there are also places like that that you should run screaming from, but to say that "all businesses that do X are terrible places to work" is pretty commonly a false generalization, especially when X is a relatively common practice among large companies.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:There's a clue shortage (Score 3, Interesting) 574

(protip: no one cares about "duties and responsibilities" - explain cool problems that you personally solved instead)

Do you have any idea how many people will give different pieces of often totally mutually exclusive resume advice? Your "protip" sounds like a great way to never get looked at by a very large number of firms who actually let HR do all their hiring. And yes, those exist.

Your desires, requirements, and experience are not universal. They are yours. It is important to recognize that, and at least try not to penalize other people when their experience with the hiring process doesn't match what you expect or want.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:So What? (Score 1) 669

That interpretation is actually less of a break from the Old Testament, wherein Lucifer was just an extremely unpleasant Persian king, Satan is only mentioned a couple of times in passing, and God is as terrible as he is great.

Another part of the Old Testament that doesn't get talked about much, but intrigues me greatly is the degree to which it seems to be telling the story of (the followers of) a God who is, at first, fighting for supremacy against various other Gods, but who eventually emerges triumphant. Again, I'm not enough of a theological scholar to be able to speak with any real authority about this, but stuff in the Exodus story (the Egyptian priests being able to perform what were clearly supernatural feats, despite the fact that Moses was able to defeat them), through to Kings (Elijah calls down fire from heaven, while the priests of Baal are unable to do anything similar), and various phrasings (like "you shall have no other God before me") all seem to suggest it.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:So What? (Score 1) 669

For instance, the modern synthesis of descent with variation has no supernatural guidance, but the Catholic version does.

While that's true, it's something of a misrepresentation of the situation. Catholics (and many other religious people, and most Christians) believe that everything is influenced by their God. Depending on how excited they are about this, they may insist that God is capable of producing any individual result, or that he is responsible for every outcome, but His Hand is supposed to be everywhere, or at the very least, everywhere necessary for His Plan. With All Appropriate Capital Letters, of course.

I think far too many people—not just atheists, but theists of whatever sort who are less familiar with the thinking of Catholics—miss this important point. It's not that God specifically decided to control evolution, and left other stuff alone—it's that He, through whatever means, guides everything, all the time, in accordance with His plan.

Though one thing I've always been somewhat fuzzy on is to what extent free will—both of humans and of Satan—really enters into the equation. Sometimes, it seems like Satan or humans acting badly can mess up God's plan, and other times it seems like everything they try to do just plays back into God's hands. And I'm not aware of any specific blanket pronouncements on the subject within standard doctrine, either clearly stating that humans do have free will or that we don't.

Just part of why I'm much more fond of the theology in the Curse of Chalion series by Lois McMaster Bujold. Not only do humans have explicit free will there, the Gods can't even interfere in the material world in more than tiny, subtle ways without humans deliberately surrendering their free will to one or more of the Gods...

Give me something clearly defined like that any day, over the mishmash that is Christian doctrine and theology. ^_^

Dan Aris

Comment Re:So What? (Score 1) 669

If not who gets to make that call? The Pope?

Ummm...exactly. The Bible is obviously an important part of the Catholic belief system but it's the institution of the Church that has the final say. Catholicism is what the Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head, says it is. It may seem tautological but it actually isn't. For example, for many Protestant (especially Evangelical) sects, a layperson could make an effective argument about a controversial subject by saying "Here is what it says in Bible...", while an argument that appeals to an authority such as a pastor would not be (theologically) persuasive. But to a Catholic, the only real trump card is "The Church says..."

Except that, as I understand it, the Pope doesn't get to just declare which parts of the Bible (which has been accepted doctrine for well over a millennium) are true, which are false, and which are metaphor or allegory as it suits him. He can make pronouncements either about things that aren't directly covered by the Bible, or about rather specific pre- or proscriptions that it makes. If he wants to start chopping up the Bible, though, declaring large chunks to be something other than what has already been decided, I'm pretty sure he has to call some kind of doctrinal convention, like (IIRC) the Council of Carthage in the 4th century.

However, I'm neither a Catholic nor a particular scholar in these matters, so feel free to correct me if you have better information :-)

Dan Aris

Comment Wrong God, I think (Score 1) 669

he said what the Church has said for some time now: if evolution does exist, it exists God created it.

Which is basically a riff on the god of the gaps argument.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what the GP said, I don't think it's the God of the gaps, I think it's more along the lines of the "watchmaker God," who set up all the mechanisms to produce the results he wanted, then set them in motion and sat back and watched.

Can you explain why God creating the mechanism of evolution (as opposed to the development of certain features and/or species) is a riff on the God of the gaps, in which it is posited that the cause for anything we can't yet explain is God's will?

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Total nonsense (Score 2) 631

Far too few people are going to be interested in it.

Until, of course, paying with CurrentC gets you a 2% discount, 10% on select items during an introductory offer*.

( * with regular prices actually gradually going up )

I think you'll find that even for regular discounts, there are a LOT of people who will simply not be willing to give up their bank account and SSN details to retailers. I certainly won't. Not to mention it would still have the problem of being a horrendously clunky system to use.

And finally, don't forget that CurrentC isn't even ready for full deployment yet (various things have been quoting dates in 2015), while Apple Pay is live now, and over a million people signed up with it in the first 3 days. By the time CurrentC can get started, Apple Pay will have a very strong—and, I bet you, loyal, given how easy it is—installed base of users who are just not going to put up with their crap.

Dan Aris

Comment Sure, I'll pay it. Better than the alternative. (Score 1) 631

Why would I use it?

Because merchants are probably going to start charging you a fee to use your credit card. They may hide it by jacking up prices then offer a "CurrentC discount" or something (sort of like the so-called "cash discount" at the gas station), since it's still tricky to charge a CC fee, but merchants are getting reamed and are trying hard to find a way to stop it. Where do you think that cash back on your Visa card comes from?

I would rather pay an extra 3-5% on every transaction at one of these retailers (with the option of simply never shopping there, which, at present, I pretty much don't anyway) than expose myself to the possibility of having my entire checking account drained when just one of them manages to get hacked and lose my account information to thieves.

I don't care if they overhaul and rebrand this piece of crap so it's less pathetically insecure and inconvenient—even if they make it as simple to use as Apple Pay is now. As long as they a) demand my bank account number, b) demand my Social Security number, or c) demand to be able to track vast amounts of information about me, there isn't a way in Hell I'm signing up for CurrentC or any service like it.

As it stands, it's just a total no-brainer. I can't understand why anyone would rather use CurrentC than cash or a credit card, let alone Apple Pay.

Dan Aris

Comment Not the politics we *had*... (Score 1) 272

Maybe something like this?

Chapter 19 - Politics How we did it back then was we gathered up in entities we called "countries". Each country spent a sizable percent of its population's income to build weapons. The strongest countries built so called weapons of mass destruction. Those are the reason you are reading this. End of chapter. 19.

So what you're saying is, you strongly support a significant amount describing what not to do?

Nobody said the chapter on politics had to describe what we had in slavish detail. It should, in fact, explain what would be best based on our current understanding, which should, for example, include explanations of some voting systems that are significantly less prone to devolve into a two-party system with strong incumbent advantage than single-preference, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all like we have now.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Good luck with that. (Score 1) 558

I've never seen an NFC terminal. If it's industry standard where are they?

Are you sure you've never seen one? They look just like other credit card terminals, but have a protruding bump at the top with some of the various NFC brand logos on them, like PayPass, as well as the more generic NFC logo, which looks kind of like a wi-fi logo turned on its side. At least, that's what the ones I've seen usually look like.

There are some newer ones coming out, too, that also have the hoods around the number pad, so that you have privacy when typing your PIN.

If you really haven't seen one, that could range from astonishing to perfectly reasonable, depending on just where you are. In rural Upstate NY, they're not very common, but when I go buy groceries at Wegman's in Syracuse, or visit a Panera, they've all got them in one form or another.

However, the point here is that regardless of their current ubiquity or lack thereof, the technology behind them is an industry standard: any terminal that accepts Apple Pay also accepts Google Wallet and any of the various tap-to-pay NFC-enabled credit cards (like MasterCards with the aforementioned PayPass). Apple's not doing anything fancy and proprietary to communicate the authorization to the bank and merchant, just using the industry standard procedures for tokenized NFC payment.

It's important to remember that just because something is an industry standard (like, say, USB, or Thunderbolt), it won't necessarily show up everywhere immediately. In the US, Apple's a relatively early mover on this technology, despite how common it is in the rest of the developed world (and despite some geekier and less-well-known solutions like Google Wallet using it earlier), so for now, it seems to be a technology linked to Apple, but over the next few years, you'll start to see it more and more around the US.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Good luck with that. (Score 1) 558

And Apple is simple?

I don't understand what the story is really complaining about. All of Apple Pay is opt-in, there's no way to "block" it only ways to enable it.

For people to young to know how things work, stores did not all accept credit cards when they were first introduced either, and for decades afterwords many stores would only accept one type or another. Even today a lot of stores refuse to take Discover. So what's the big deal about not signing up with Apple?

You are misinformed.

Stores do not need to sign up with Apple Pay explicitly, though banks do.

For a store to support Apple Pay, it just needs to have an industry-standard (though slightly less common than a simple swipe-and-sign) NFC payment terminal. In order to disable support for Apple Pay, Rite Aid and CVS have had to disable NFC entirely at their checkouts.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Timing and Assumptions (Score 1) 652

By 2035, Americans won't have a 2010 American standard of living. There will be a reality check in the coming decades that America must have more real industry and that internet business and entertainment are not going to keep us in a dominant position in the world forever. The whole world doesn't need to come up to the 2010 American standard of living to mess up the balance, it will be enough of a disaster if even a large percentage of China and India elevate to that level. American diet and hunger for an endless supply of cheap disposable consumer crap is not sustainable on a global scale. Products need to become more expensive in the U.S. and the useful life of the things we buy must increase.

That...is also pretty well completely true. I'm not sure I completely agree with your conclusion (stated in the first sentence), but the argument you make is one I've made myself on numerous occasions.

But while, in the short run, the loss of China and India as endless sources of dirt-cheap consumer goods will be deeply disruptive to the American economy, and cause quite a lot of pain, in the long run, I believe it will be a very good thing. Once we can no longer hide the true cost of the things we consume, the Walmarts of the world will no longer be able to run everybody else out of business nearly as easily.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Timing and Assumptions (Score 1) 652

That there is enough solar energy in the "sunniest places worldwide" to power current usage speaks nothing of its feasibility of physical/technological possibility. People will tell you we can build a space elevator as well; it doesn't mean we got space travel on lock-down.

It is feasible with current technology to supply all the energy needs of a modern house in Upstate NY—hardly one of the "sunniest places worldwide"—with solar panels on the roof of the house. I know this, because I personally know people doing it. Granted, they're currently using the grid as a "battery," rather than actually doing local energy storage, but when averaged over a year, they are net producers of energy.

If this can be done in Upstate NY—just a few hours' drive from the Canadian border—then I posit that it can be done in the vast majority of the inhabited world. That's not to say that I think we should rely solely on solar power for the entire world's energy generation needs—wind, hydro, and some other renewables should be in the mix, as well—but it does mean that any suggestion that solar is only feasible in the "sunniest places worldwide" needs to present some kind of very compelling evidence that what I'm seeing here is a fluke.

Dan Aris

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Working...