On Fri, 30 May 2008 14:25:35 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
There, perhaps, though I'm sure they're looking for more backhanded ways
to annoy me. We'll see what's next. And of course the next thing with a
rather tight deadline, forcing me to look back on things I'd much rather
not looked back on, nevermind the monetary cost (that I can't afford).
Whatever happens I will be stuck paying off for a while.

I do need some source of income, yes. I don't care much where, either,
modulo a few places I'd rather avoid.

My current residence isn't great and I won't shed tears over leaving,
though the city isn't bad. And if I have the chance to extract a pound
of flesh from the new owners I won't refrain from doing so. Not that I
expect to find myself in that position. At least they found themselves
thorougly disagreed with by the judges regarding their arguments. If
anything it'll likely make them more hateful to deal with, though.


Laws of physics, cap'n.


Sounds like a nice opportunity to snap up a cheap, if somewhat
oversized, corporate jet. And I'd expect to see the railways (where
available) taking up the slack.


That is a poor show.


What, expect the drones to *think* now? Who do they think they are,
playing _a few good men_ or something?


It really is hard to understand that despite all the rules, accidents
can and will happen.


Anyway, time to wind up this thread. :-)


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 30 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng40p9k.qqb.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

Understand that, but one thing at a time (if possible).

Any news from that pimp?

Which is probably a good reason to bail.

The older stuff, like the MD-80s, are _relatively_ inexpensive, but the
'per hour' cost is significantly higher. I suspect many of them will be
reduced to scrap and recycled.

I'm supposed to be going to a 3 day meeting next weekend in Las Vegas.
The choice for me is two airlines ("one hour flight" of 410 KM, to
which you add 2 hours in the airports) or driving 5 1/2 hours. I don't
believe there is bus or train service. Were the trains still running,
the trip would take more than a day, as there never was direct service.

What can I say?

Good luck with the next endeavor.

Old guy

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:51:31 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
As it happens, I got a call yesterday from some girl with the same
organisation; he seems to be on vacation, so she asked all sorts of
questions. I told her she could send out my details to their tentacles
in the rest of Europe too, which she promised she would take up with
her supervisor, but that she could only keep my details for the next 3
months due to privacy issues. After that, well, I'll contact them if I
see something interesting.


[bloody-minded landlords]
True. I need an opportunity, though. Just bailing now probably won't do
me any good. No income means a harder time to find another place to rent.


Yay for security circus. But we mentioned that already.


Ouch. Just made a 6.5hr train trip (plus assorted 2.5 hr rides, then
4-odd hours back; family+friends tour). Flying would be somewhat faster,
but much more expensive. Certain trains offer early booking reductions
too, btw. And I didn't need to give all sorts of personal details just
to buy the ticket. Didn't get frisked either (yet, bloody british).

A quick look on the greyhound site shows a 8hr phoenix.az -> lv.nv direct
trip next friday, and 11 to 12.5 hour trips with one transfer. Of course,
that might be from the wrong place to the wrong end of town for you.

Traveling always tires me out, no matter what the method. Busses more
so than trains or airplanes. But at least busses are available.

On a completely unrelated note: Across-the-pond cruises by airship.


Thanks. And thank you for lending me your ear, of course. :-)


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 31 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng42659.sn1.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

Is this an EU requirement, or have pimps heard that honesty is useful?
This almost sounds as if they aren't working that hard otherwise. You
didn't sign an exclusive agreement, so you are free to try another.

Depends on what the legal climate is regarding harassment, but it's
usually an idea to plan on leaving when you are forced to get them
LARTed. But this is true everywhere.

With the security systems they're installing now, there's no need of
frisking the traveler, as the new crop of millimeter wave rigs give
a see-through view. The operator is located out of sight, so this
won't embarrass anyone - surely.

Well, the Hindenburg was making the trip in ~70 hours. We have 'blimps'
from several companies mainly used to provide overhead television
pictures at sporting events. One evening several years ago, I'm
returning from a short flight, call the tower, and eventually I'm
number two on the approach behind the Goodyear Blimp which is shooting
touch-and-goes while waiting for the event (and television coverage) to
start. There has been a lot of talk over the years about using
airships for transport - there's a company in Southern California that
is trying to get a new design certified. "120 Knots, 5740 KM range,
operating to 12000 feet, 64 meters long, _huge_ cabin area of 500
square _meters_ (5400 sq ft) for 28 passengers" The manufacturer hopes
to have it flying within 3 years and certified by mid-2011. Interesting
concept of varying the buoyancy by compressing/storing/decompressing the
helium gas as needed. (Worldwide Aeros - model ML866)

Old guy

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:31:39 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
It is a requirement *I* put in. I see I worded it wrong. I said:

- Please pass `me' on to your presences in other European countries.
- Please delete my details after three months.

I probably should've made explicit that all copies in all countries need
to be marked ``delete on $date'', but, well. This concept is probably
hard enough already. We'll see whether they come up with something and
then if it'll be usable.


Surely.


There's cargolifter(.com) who're based in Berlin who say they're working
on using airships for cargo transport. I'm not sure about their progress.


That part of their website is completely in flash so I can't access it.

Looks like the 120kn[1] is top speed, not cruise speed. Still, 48h for
crossing the atlantic would be acceptable. The space numbers sound
impressive, but they don't really surprise me: The thing with airships
is that space is relatively cheap, though weight (as usual) isn't.

It'll be an expensive toy for people who have too much money anyway,
unless someone manages to, say start an airship cruise company. I wonder
what sort of prices cruises would need to cost. Airships should be
relatively fuel efficient, though travel time is longer.


[1] The ``official'' abbreviation, says wikipedia.

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 1 Jun 2008 10:46:27 GMT, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng44vg3.vs2.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

Ah, OK - I know why this would be a requirement. I've seen all to many
complaints about pimps holding data far beyond the expected life, and
worse, submitting it to prospective employers (often to show that they
have a large selection of candidates who will be just perfect for any
opening.

I'm still a bit concerned that something usable hasn't been turned up
yet. Is the market really that slow? I'm seeing ups and downs here,
with some companies cutting back (like us), and others doing significant
hiring. The balance is marginally positive despite soaring prices.

========================

There's also a company in the UK, but I haven't seen anything on either
in the trade magazines lately.

I didn't try - I had seen the system reported in a trade mag, the
article more aimed at how they were coping with the current defense
budget (like the Internet, something else from DARPA).

I'd agree - though not sure how it would handle winter crossings. The
1930s airships tended to avoid the winter season, just as cruise ships
do today. And I think Hindenburg had a top speed of 73 knots.

Like the aluminum piano on the Hindenburg.

I dunno - existing cruise ships come in all sizes, from the 80000 ton
liners down to little more than canal boats. Quick scan through a
general readership magazine (Smithsonian) shows wind-jammers with 20
cabins (cruisearabella.com), up to 100 guests on smaller ships
(www.accl-smallships.com) (www.americancruiselines.com) - don't bother
with the web-sites, as they're full of stuff trying to attract customers.
Again, you're paying for the small size. I've seen ads for cruises on
various European rivers, as well as archipelagoes like the Greek islands
(or the fjords of Norway), the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and
similar. The Cunard White Star Line had a slogan "Getting There Is Half
the Fun." but that was originally for the trans-pond liners when they
were competing with the DC-4s taking 20 hours for the trip including
stops at Gander or Goose Bay, and Shannon or Prestwick, usually below
12000 feet right _in_ the weather. If you're talking the same _type_ of
"vehicle" (a 50 passenger DC-4 is no comparison to the ships of Cunard
or Holland-America lines), size usually scales the costs, with bigger
costing less per seat/cabin/what-ever. My experience with cruises is
that the smaller the better, but I've also had the worst experience
on a small (~35 guests) boat.

Old guy

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:42:07 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
It may be me, still twitching.

I have a stack of sent emails and letters (and now even one fax),
but very few reactions. If it isn't a form-letter of rejection, it's
fairly enthousiastic, so I'm unsure where the problem lies. Except that
non-recruiter reactions tend to be better. In fact, the best results I
get with competent tech people who've haven't seen my CV. I'm not sure
how I could improve my CV on that, but, well.

I've also heard comments that this city is a bit of a blackhole.


One of the factors in having a good programming gig fall through was that
the initial contact was over IRC, just like the job that saw me burn out.
There were a couple of other factors, of course (being high on adrenaline
during negotiations because I just got the first eviction notice for one).


135 km/h or 84mile/h -- presumably 1609-odd metre miles -- so 73kn, yes.
Cruise speed given as 125km/h (78mile/h, 67kn)


Which was removed later for weight reasons. Or maybe just because
the gimmick had been done, but nobody'll tell you that. Altough the
last flight had 36 passengers and 61 crew(!), though with 21 crew for
training. On a reported passenger capacity of 72, 40 crew is still a
lot. Nowadays they'd probably stuff in 10 crew worth of automation
hardware and run with another 10 or so.

The numbers I didn't make up are courtesy wikipedia, though some are
easily findable elsewhere too.


Apropos nothing, ISTR seeing (probably on discovery) a converted
catalina used for goofing around the amazon region. Comfy seats
and plexiglas bubbles instead of gun turrets.


So this 28 passenger thing is still going to be on the expensive side,
until it racks up enough reputation to fund a bigger version, then?


Sort-of same difference between big companies (tightly regulated
mediocrity all the way) and small ones (good service and agreeable
people, or miss big and wonder how they stay in business).


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 2 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng47965.13p6.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

It's quite varied here. The noon business report on the local radio
mentions a company I drive past in my commute deciding to cut 290 heads
this week. I did notice the prominent sign advertising job openings at
their site was gone this morning.

But do those "good" replies lead anywhere? Even just a request for the
CV?

Are they rejecting / black-holing after seeing the CV? Is there
_any_ feedback? One piece of advice is to find a HR type who is in
the same _type_ of business, and after making it plain that you are
not asking them for a job, ask them to critique the CV. This might
also be something to work through the alumni organization at your uni.

Can't say - I don't think you've identified the town.

That's best handled by having a local personal friend you can talk with.
Personal attitude is important too. You're not going to come across best
when you know the avalanche is going to hit momentarily. You want to be
attentive, and interested in the job, but desperation should never show,
even if that truck is going to hit you tomorrow. For the interviewer,
this is a distraction that scores down any good points you have made.
It also causes you to miss signs that maybe this places isn't the best
solution - even a TEMPORARY one. I imagine you know this all to well.

========================

Yeah, but what are the winds like? In the 40s to mid-50s, no one made
long journies by taking off, pointing the nose at the destination, and
flying straight to there. Like the old story about uphill both ways, in
the snow, without shoes, etc., it was rare not to see some adverse
winds even when flying with the prevailing winds. We called it "Pressure
Pattern" flying, where you sig-zagged around the barometric highs and
lows, in an effort to have a tail wind as much as possible. The skies
are to crowded today for this to work - it's now desired for you to be
within 12 miles of your assigned course worst case, and withing 100 feet
of the assigned altitude. If you can do that, you get the more desirable
routes. If you can't, you may wind up being assigned a course that is out
of the way, so you won't be a hazard to others.

[aluminum piano]

It was 60 kilos, and as you mentioned weight is a premium.

The Graf Zeppelin II (LZ-130) was under construction, and trained crew
don't grow on trees. But there are regulations about minimum crew
numbers. A 747 or A-380 needs just two people in the front, but there
must be no less that one cabin crew for every 50 passengers (meaning
11 required for 505 passengers), and airlines routinely assign more
to try to improve some aspects of the cabin service (except back in
steerage). It's a safety issue. There are also duty time limitations,
which is why I have to laugh at the 15 hour flights like SIN/NYC or
SYD/LON which means lots of extra crew members on board. The law
didn't exist back in the 1930s, but the manufacturer has to demonstrate
evacuating the aircraft in the dark, using a random set of half of the
exits a and untrained passengers representative of the flying public
in 90 seconds ABSOLUTE MAX. Get Out, Get Out, Get Out! No stampede, no
panic, but they will throw you out if they have to. We don't see it
demonstrated in real life that often, but it does happen - like the
incident at Heathrow earlier this year.

In a way that doesn't surprise me, even though the Catalina was a real
dog of an aircraft (and not to great in moderate seas either). An
outfit called Island Airways was flying 1930s Ford Tri-Motors (similar
to the Fokker F VIIb-3m from the late 1920s - smaller than the Junkers
JU-52/3m) at the West end of Lake Erie until recently, and there used
to be a sightseeing service out of Oakland California flying a pre-war
DC-3 fitted with large windows.

I dunno - it may be enough of an attraction on it's own.

Old guy

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:17 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
On occasion. Up to face-to-face interviews (though none of those had
recruiters involved anywhere), some abortive negotiation, even verbal
acceptance once or twice, but so far no actual job.

Some of it indubitably my fault, some of it less so.


Especially with recruiters, if I get anything it's a lot of enthousiasm
right until they have me in their database, then nothing.



That is a good point, of course. Also: jet stream.

You mentioned it took the Hindenburg 70 hours, so I speculatively
adjusted that figure down for this new toy based on the difference in
speed. I think I used max and cruise speeds of 220km/h and +/- 200km/h.
I made a couple guesses and settled on a convenient figure. Not much
hard math in there. :-)

On another note, 200km/h, comfy, and reasonably straight lines; with
the right price it'd be an interesting competitor to greyhound lines.
Probably easier to add intermediate stops than jetplane run lines, too.

In Europe maybe less so, as at least Germany has very reasonable high
speed long distance rail service. Even the ``IC'', which doesn't cost
anything extra, tops at 200km/h, and the ``ICE'', costing something like
10 EUR extra (on +/- 100 EUR tickets, seat reservation 4 EUR) top at
250 to 300 km/h depending on route. Some of those are available in the
Netherlands as well, (altough ICs don't go above 160km/h there), as are
selected French high-speed trains. But tickets for those are as annoying
as airline tickets, only less operator choice.


And, of course, the Hindenburg was booked low, so it's easy to stuff in
some extra crew for training. The capacity was there anyway.

But that doesn't change that 40 crew on a maximum of 72 passengers
is much more than you'd see today.


And for a two or three day trip you'd presumably need at least one more
so there are always two crew on watch in the cockpit.


Safety issues might be less of a problem with helium-floated blimps.
Still, one'd probably need some extra for filling multiple shifts.


Sardine can style airplanes stand a somewhat greater chance of blowing
up, or filling with (combustible or at least definately not-breathable)
smoke, then ``flashover''.

Heck, despite the hysterics, most people survived the Hindenburg
disaster. Most deaths were from people panicking and jumping 30 metres,
not from sedately burning hydrogen[1]. With the right timing people did
manage to just disembark and walk away in reasonable health, if shaken
and without their luggage.

So I think that there's no real need to be as strict with airships,
especially hydrogen-floated ones. Though, let's not forget that you
can't breathe helium either, so adequate ventilation construction
to remove any stray helium or smoke away from humans is probably a
good idea. At least there'll be lots of room to fit such systems in.


I hope it'll prove economically viable. It is a nice concept. Especially
now that more and more people figure out that trying to live ever faster
isn't going to work in the long run.


[1] As opposed to supersonically exploding ideal hydrogen-oxygen mix. It
is really easy to forget what could've happened instead, in theory.

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 3 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4a7qm.187d.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

Not knowing you personally, I can't make any constructive statement.
Do you have any indication if it's skill/experience problems, or do they
not like your physical appearance, or attitude, or the money or...

Thin evidence, but this sounds as if it's not the CV.

========================

A bus is still likely to have lower operating costs (fuel, maintenance,
single crew member, infrastructure at passenger pickup/drop-off minimal
to non-existent), but a much larger problem would be winds. Right now,
the winds outside my office look pretty light, but they're forecasting
20-30 MPH (9-13.4 meters/sec) tomorrow, and the winds are rarely smooth
or consistent. For a bus, this is meaningless, and as long as the
cross-wind component is within the certified range, is not a significant
problem to aircraft. An airship (at least right now) requires some
kind of handling crew on the ground, and perhaps a mooring mast.

I mentioned the Goodyear blimp doing touch-and-goes - that runway was
2500'/760 meters long with no overruns, and had a steep (VASI = 4.2
degree) approach due to powerlines and a dike on short final, but it was
more than adequate for the blimp. On the other hand, it's to short to be
usable for anything as small as a Beech KingAir at reasonable load/temps.

Flights over 8 hours require an extra - relief guy. I think 12 hours
requires a second relief. Flying beyond that (that's at least a third
of the way around the world), is going to involve a fueling stop, and
that means a crew change, because of maximum air time limits for crew.

I would expect so, but the current (American and ICAO) regulations
don't address airships in air carrier operations. IANL, but it looks as
if the existing _aircraft_ rules would apply, which are not a good
match for conditions.

Old guy

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:12:58 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
Since I cut off my pony tail in nov 2006, and I do put some effort
toward a reasonable appearance[1], I think it's not that. There's the
now rather huge 3 year CV gap, somewhat papered over with ``sabbatical
for health reasons''[7] and ``consulting''[2], and a lot of trivia I've
just plain forgotten. My skill always has come from intelligence and a
understanding of the background, then building from there; the trivia'll
amass once I'm running. This isn't the kind of thing you expect in an
operator and I don't have the ``proven track record'' to back senior
system platinum engineer architect. Pah.

I'm not the easiest to work with, though that isn't a problem until you
try to make me do 1st level support. I tell anyone who cares to ask that
I do neither that nor any windows. ``Bad for my blood pressure.''

Some interviews worked well, some less so. Some because I decided the
company wasn't the place for me[3] so I overasked[4], some because,
well, they didn't want to negotiate after all, or didn't like me, or
whatever. Even one where both parties wondered WTF they'd met up in
the first place[5] -- still, an interesting(.cn, somewhat) experience.
Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Move on.

One of the latter was an interview where they'd decided my skill level
was ok but I probably wouldn't fit into the corporate culture. I think
they were right[6]. Still, that was one of the better interviews so far.
Very constructive.


Apropos knowing, you probably had a better idea of ``me'' or my skill
level even before this thread than most recruiters rejecting me on
email alone. But then, we've already noted that recruiters, even those
specialising in ``IT'' or even ``Unix recruiting'', are little more than
glorified buzzword grepping shell scripts.


I've run my CV by a native Englishman ways back, and it's been polished
over and over since. If nothing else it's as correct as I could make
it in the skills and spelling departments, using the appropriate
no-negatives language.


True enough. Still, especially big airships could perhaps fill the gap
that the absence of reasonable passenger rail service leaves in the usa.

There seem to be el-cheapo long distance tour bus lines too, but I've
never had the heart to explore their services myself -- having been on
family skiing vacations in them and not enjoyed the experience. Though
the situation may be entirely different with greyhound busses.


Not entirely: There are regularly warnings that buses, lorries, and cars
with caravan should take care on the /afsluitdijk/ or even not use it
at all, due to wind. Of course, in the middle of a land mass you can
usually ignore wind warnings.

Airplanes usually only have to take care at start and landing and can
evade for the rest. An airship going up to 12k feet (3.7km) also has
some ability to evade.


But that is 70 year old technology. We could perhaps do better now.


Is there much of a difference anyway?


That would be pretty silly. If so, it's something for the various
governments to get on with right quick.


[1] Admittedly old, but reasonably fitting black suit, good quality
white shirt, nice silk tie, black socks, shined black leather shoes.
Variations depending on gig (no tie, swap the trousers for jeans,
that sort of thing). I still get occasional comments from family how
nice it looks if I turn up dressed that way. How much of that is
them meaning well I can't say. It might be I'm somewhat overdressed.
[2] I *have* been reasonably active in certain newsgroups, have I not?
That and I have an actual project going, though the greater thing it
depends upon has transformed itself into a classic software project
fsckup -- complete with denials and consultants seemingly only there
to spout aggravating lies and disinformation -- and the nature of
the deal means I don't get paid extra, maybe won't get paid at all.
I don't mind that toward my employer (nice guy, not his fault), but
I do mind that the people supposed to make the backend work, fail
completely. Cheap moneygrubbing scum, the lot of them.
[3] Like the fancy value-added webstat tracker startup. Very clearly
a marketeer-envisioned and -run gig.
[4] In response they'd emailed they'd chosen someone else, but a couple
weeks later they seemed to still be looking. Yep, right choice.
[5] I'd invested a week in reading background and about double the
price of the airplane ticket they refunded me in other preparations,
and somehow they still managed to completely blindside me in method
and content. Very strange. Surreal, even.
[6] Started as a VMS company, moved into windows (admin, custom device
drivers, whatever), with a unix unit bolted on. When asked they
still (and in chorus) proclaimed they were a vms company! despite
90% of the business being redmondian. Nice peope tho.
[7] When asked I'll explain it's a funny way to spell ``burnout''. Just
not something I like to spell out in my CV already.

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
I have long since switched from a chronological resume to
a functional one. I have a wrapper with my skills buzzword
list and contact data at the top, my chronological postion list,
security clearance history, degree and such at the bottom.
I maintain a list of paragraph sized skills bullets to insert
into the middle. So for each application I do careful exact
string matches (it says Solaris so I s/Sun/Solaris/ and such)
for each entry and I insert my skills bullet paragraphs in the
order they mention them in their write-up.

This modular approach has several advantages. I can do a
custom resume ready for submission in a couple of minutes.
Many positions sound the same so I can maintain a generic
rendition on www.dice.com that has the skills bullets sorted
by popularity of the skills. Since none of my skills bullets
have any dates associated with them a bean counter can't
assume that since I haven't touched AIX in 3 years I must
not be current at it. Instead I judge what I'm current on (a
trivial 3 years? May as well be under a week ago...) and
anyone able to do a technical interview gets to figure out if
I am or am not current.

There are a small number of companies that demand a
chronological resume, but so far I've only encountered one
end company that insisted and I passed on them. Several
recruiters have initially declined the format but I've pointed
out there are unlimited recruiters out there and none
continued to insist. There's also a down side if you're not
as current as you think you are and the company can pull
off a good technical interview.

Mentioning health issues is a kiss of death I think. While
new health issues get handled by insurance rate changes,
old ones are viewed as part of your initial salary. Until the
labor market is extremely tight many employers will chose
a less qualified candidate than one with known health
problems. So here's what I suggest - You didn't have burn
out. You went on a quest to enrich your personal
experience outside of the IT field. Maybe you did volunteer
work?

This makes a chronological format resume even worse.
You do as well on old topics as on new ones yet here
is a bean counter filtering out the resumes that list
the string matches too far down into the text.

Some job, any job, can be viewed as a way to get a
better job. Many employers are quicker to hire someone
already working than someone between jobs. Unfair
but real.

I've gone in as a UNIX generalist then splashed when they
turned out to need a very deep AIX specialist. I've had
interviews where I ended up with no idea why I was talking
to them. Interviews are a bizarre experience at times.

My goal as interviewer or interviewee - I am to ask and
be asked questions I can answer and questions I can't.
I am to learn something and teach something. I am to
solve a current problem as part of the interview, even if
as the interviewer I make up a scenario to have a problem
to solve.

Recruiters and HR departments are obstacles to getting
the interview. Power past them or circumvent them when
possible.

Language matters. That was a time of doing volunteer work
outside of IT to enrich your personal experiences ...

On 3 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4bg8f.1ceb.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

Pony tails and earrings - a problem with some, a neutral or positive for
others. OK on the [1]. I'd rather see slight over-dress than under, as
you are trying to give an impression to the management types, not the
actual slaves you'd be working with.

That's a much bigger concern - I wasn't aware of the larger gap in
permanent employment. Conslutting is a suitable substitute, for which
larger gaps between gigs are to be expected, but I'd still expect to
see some customer names that can be verified. Recall, a work history is
a form of confirmation of capability. On the other hand, you might want
to look at a Functional format, rather than the classic Chronological
version, which puts more emphasis on your capabilities/skills than on a
historical listing. ACK on the newsgroups, though it's not the plus it
used to be. It _does_ show skills of handling problems. Not sure
about the project - if the employer is happy, and will say so if asked,
that's great. The others - probably don't matter that much unless they
have to provide references. Re [7], that shouldn't be, and probably
doesn't have to be brought up - other than you're not looking in that
line of work TYVM.

ACK - you do have skills/knowledge that is transferable and valuable,
but the most important thing is how those match up against the
specific requirements on the job req. Recall that HR usually doesn't
have technical knowledge, but they sure can read and see if you
match up against their requirements. Given some of the skill levels
in HR, it's often a good idea if your skills list is in virtually
the same order as their requirements. The order doesn't have to match
exactly, but should be close.

What position are you shooting for - what's the _best_ position for
you, and based on that, what _other_ positions would be attractive or
acceptable. No first line, no windoze - that's reasonable. But what is
the place where you'd fit in best? Sys-admin? Tape Monkey? Second or
third line? Programming? Mail, net, or firewall admin?

That's fine. That got me out of second-line support rotation years ago
(I don't do well with idiots) - but where _do_ you think you'd fit?

'Overasking' may be acceptable in _this_ circumstance, but I'd rather
hear a "no, (you|your\ \(company|job\)) aren't right - thanks but no
thanks". Depends. If it's just the job that sucks, you don't need
to kill your chances elsewhere with the company. If it's the company
that sucks, remember that the interviewer may leave that company and
turn up elsewhere. (And your take on [4] is definitely correct - seen
that FAR to often.)

How did this... happen? Pimp mis-read? Either/both parties miss a
buzzword. clue, or similar? I'm assuming you are taking steps to
avoid a repeat.

Fact of life.

Early 1990s, I was living in San Francisco area, and had neighbors who
were working at NASA, Apple and at Intel. They all fit well, but I
couldn't imagine them swapping companies. Hell, they had enough problems
just being neighbors. (Both Apple and Intel had some rather strange
cultures, and NASA was off in a different direction.)

Mainly through seeing your posts in the BSD groups, which is a problem
because there is more time/incidents visible there than can be put into
a CV, job app, or even a cover letter. None the less, I am aware of
several people who have included a posting name and list of newsgroups
as an indication of past performance. Depending on the target job, this
may or may not be a good thing. (Though I don't think I've ever seen a
hell-desk phone with a kill/score file.)

But they have the same problem trying to sell bodies. Normally what is
delivered to HR (I never see the actual package) is little more than
a cover letter identifying the job, and a few brief bullet points, and a
copy of the candidates resume/CV. Most of the "sale" to get past HR, and
to attract the attention of the technical manager is the same resume/CV
that you would send in if you knew the requisition existed. What they
do try to do all to often is to rework the candidates papers so that it
better matches "this" position (but you should be doing the same thing
for each application) - sometimes papering over things that results in
the blindside questions at the interview if the pimp supplied version
doesn't match what the candidate actually knows/did. Recruiters are an
extra filter you have to pass through, but their advantage is that they
often are aware of jobs that the individual probably couldn't be aware
of - either because the company doesn't want 11000 droolers applying or
because the existence of the requisition might indicate sensitive
information (to competitors) about what the company may be looking at.

Are they the best tool to get a job? Hell, no. Nothing beats personal
contacts in the company, and in the industry. Are they useless and best
avoided? Overall, that answer would be no, though there certainly are
those who should be treated one level below spammers and nuked on
sight. Are they helpful? That's a definite "maybe".

What about temp agencies? I don't think these are as common in .eu
as here, but they often get you in the door. We don't do it all that
often because of the expense, but I see enough 'temp-to-perm' job
offers outside, as well as some well-known temp agencies listed on
CV job histories. Main advantage for a company is that you get the
worker, but not the problems of hiring only to have to lay-off the
individual if they're not up to expectations.

While that would be great for situations where English is the working
language, I also presume you've got things in order in German, Dutch or
what-ever is appropriate.

========================

It's not only passenger rail that's leaving - intercity bus service is
declining as well.

The tour services are relatively lacking. The biggest thing in several
parts of the country are what we call "Gambler Specials" - which are
busses that run to the casino areas. It used to be relatively few areas
(for years, Nevada was the only state with legalized gambling), but the
Native American (formerly called indian) nations tend to be able to run
casinos as a tribal industry, bypassing a lot of the "state" laws.
There's 4 "nations" within 80 KM of Phoenix, and each one runs a major
casino AND each one is the destination of privately run tour bus lines.

Not here. We have the same areas where high winds can and do occur,
such as the Interstate highways about 80 KM East of San Francisco,
and about 150 KM NNW and East of Los Angeles - to the extent that
these are major wind farms (each literally hundreds of modern windmills
that are turning generators). I recall several times when the Altamont
area (East of San Francisco) was not only _closed_ to big vehicles,
but "not recommended" to ordinary cars.

Depends - I've been in some awfully harsh turbulence at 12000, and
the insurance carrier who is covering the plane probably wants you
to have a high-altitude or mountain-flying endorsement (instruction
by a certified instructor in the problems of high altitudes and
terrain). Don't forget, we've got some places here where the passes
are above 10.5, and the MEA (minimum enroute altitude) is above
14.5

Possibly - but that would mean engines running and a crew on-board at
all times. That ain't gonna be cheap.

Some - though it may not be much more than legally significant.

There is a section on 'lighter than air' (mainly sports balloons), just
as there is one for air and sea planes. But the tourist balloons aren't
considered air carriers (airlines). and the limited applicable rules
are part of the 'lighter than air' section. And 14CFR121 which governs
air carriers is a large section (over 100 pages alone - never mind the
tie-ins to aircraft and air/ground crew certification requirements.
Even the airports are certified (mainly relating to safety issues).

Old guy

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:35:55 -0700 (PDT),
Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
This one starts with a fluffily worded objective, has the buzzword
avalanche, then a chronological part in the back. I've recently added some
extra blather so it's now three pages. I probably need to cut it back to
two again. The modular thing is worth trying to fit into the build system.


Whoops. Time for a different polite lie, then. Though it seemed to work
better than nothing at all already. Gaps are apparently euphemisms for
being a convicted serial criminal or something.


No volunteer work. Bought some books (on management, people skills,
things). Self-study? Maybe a bit optimistic.


Like the ``we haven't quite figured it out yet, but we want someone with
linux certifications and a trivial pursuit diploma'' one mentioned earlier.


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:26:15 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
Was afraid of that. So far one customer and a near-dead project. Once
that's finished/wrapped up/properly taken out the back and shot/etc.
I'll check with him if I can put something burbly in a portfolio.


As noted to Doug, I think I'm already doing that, apart from the
chronological appendix.


$lastjob _claimed_ to be unhappy to see me go, but, well, seeing how
they treated me I'd have trouble believing them if they'd say the sun
rises in the east. I don't give them out as references either.


I can do unix and lan admin, I'd like to expand some into wan admin,
I could do development, though I like to stay away from guis and the
desktop. I could probably do high-level design; I've done low levels
like designing and terminating a lan[1]. I can do lots of things.

In a way I don't really care what as long as I find it interesting (for
a while). I think I'd like to do the high level, not just because the
money's better[2]; long term planning done well can save a lot of day to
day trouble. The details always change, and in a way they don't really
interest me even though as noted the trivia'll stick anyway when I'm
working with something.

The programming I've done for myself lately tended to focus on toying
with protocol parsers (lots of fronts and backs and not much of a
program in the middle -- maybe someday). I probably should admit that's
something I like a lot and should put more structure into those efforts.

Something I also do fairly well is steersman-on-shore[3], ie observing
from a distance, then maybe recommending things. Though a problem with
consulting is getting meaningful feedback as to how it worked out.

Other things I've been toying with the idea of are software and hardware
projects that probably could use a bunch of venture capital, but I
wouldn't know the first thing where to start on how to make that happen.


So, I have so many options I fail to pick one.


My reaction depends quite a lot on how the interview goes. In that case,
it was the way they'd asked that one last question in standing that made
me flap out a large number. Given their response, I don't regret it much.


No pimp. Someone hopped by in a C++ related IRC channel, and he turned
out to work there, so he passed my details on to HR. The rest is, well,
I'd have to dig up the email correspondence, don't think I kept the IRC
logs. Interview turned out to be completely unrelated to programming.

Whoops.


In retrospect I think that with more patience I could've done the job
but plainly lacked the background to make the right noises right away.
They seemed to've been quite desperate to fill those positions too.


That could stand some improvement, though it'd require getting chummy
with HR and try and understand what sort of shopping list would be
useful for them; a filter that they *can* meaningfully apply, and if
it's not a technical one, well, that means you'll have to do that part
of the filtering.

Oh wait, I read this the wrong way (dept.->HR instead of recruiter->HR).


I should, but seeing the work it takes me to polish my CV after each
change I settled on keeping that general and tailoring the individual
cover letters. I may have to revise that, and going modular seems to be
a good compromise.


I've walked along and occasionally into a few, but most that I've seen
specialise in something I haven't a clue about or am not interested in
pursuing (pipe fitters, electricians, what-have-you). I may have to step
up the search for a suitable agency.


Actually, the English one is the only one at the moment. I've been
looking at international jobs mostly. This isn't much of a restriction
on the (internationally flavoures) ads I've been looking at. Though, I
will admit that if the ad is written entirely in French or Danish or
what-have-you, the mere listing of English as a requirement doesn't make
me understand the ad any more.


Oh? I would've thought it'd've picked up after the grand opening of the
circus war. Apparently not a lasting change, then.


Lowering a gondola could perhaps work in quiet weather. Fancy mooring
masts don't have to be expensive, even with an operator when needed, at
least compared to airports. Less real real estate needed too.

And to fill the gap between long distance buses and airlines, you'd need
an intermediate number of stopoff places too. I don't see any absolute
show stoppers with the plan.


Stands to reason that after 70-odd years of no airships the rules don't
make allowances for them. That'd still mean the rulemakers will have to
cook up some rules that are actually applicable to airship carriers.

Rules have their use, but if they're standing in the way of something
that would be perfectly viable with appropriate rules, then the fault is
in the rules, not the things that cannot comply. One'd think that the
airship manufacturers know this and would already be working with the
rulemakers to fix any problems.


[1] Left the actual pulling the wires to write-pulling-professionals
though some were electricians, not low voltage specialists. That is
an area where you just have to have experience to be efficient, and
while I could, I'd just as rather not do it myself.
[2] It's been noted that good people generally don't care much for the
money, but working too hard for too long AND getting paid too little
makes the whole extra painful. The latter is definately true. So I'm
still a bit twitchy about making sure I'll be getting paid enough.
[3] A Dutchism. Given the naval background, maybe excusable. :-)

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
I question having an objective at all in an on-line resume -

There are search engines that pull the first N words of a
resume to do keyword searches. The higher the buzzwords
in your on-line entry the more recruiters send you e-mail
leads. For these search engines every word of objective is
a word of buzzword bingo that gets dropped from their search.
So for years all of my on-line resumes have had a software
list, a hardware list, a supporting-field list with SAN and WAN
and database and NetBackup and whatever but no objective.

As to an objective I wonder if it's used as yet another filter.
Someone wants to move into management and this is a
small shop with no such options? Shred that one and move
on to the next. I have considered writing a brief objective
tuned to each submission but so far have left it missing.
Should I decide I'll only move for a management slot I'll
consider switching to having one that states that specifically
to get shredded by the shops where it's not possible.

Interesting that the technical behavior of on-line resume
search engines has effected my printed resumes in this
manner.

Mine has paragraph sized skills bullets not listing any
dates at all, and the chronological part is a solid block of
1-line entries giving date range, company, title with no
specified correlation to the skills bullets.

I even have two different versions of several of my skills
bullets. There's an outrageous but true one that I use
when not looking and a mild sounding one that i use when
I am looking. For AIX there's the time I was called in to
rescue a dead large server doing classifed data above my
current clearance that had not recovered from a data
center power outage and came up with spun down drives,
unsynced vlogical volumes, you name it. And there's a
revenue based one for consulting about when I led the
client through doubling their AIX footprint and thus doubled
billable hours. And there's one about using locical volume
manager to migrate to a new EMC disk array without
outages. I have similar levels of brag telling true tales of
my Solaris exploits, ending up as a classroom instructor
between other gigs and so on.

I can't imagine a 2 page resume for someone in the field
over a decade. That's for folks new in the field. I am aware
this is a minority view on my part. On the other hand if I
can't trim it down to 4 pages I don't know what matters and
what doesn't. In the end I struggle between 3 and 4 sheets.

A point of correction - No lies at all IMO. I don't have a
problem with not mentioning something. For burn out
did you go unemployed (you spent time doing self study
to refresh the theoretical parts of your skill base) or did
you work out of the IT field (you spent time doing another
career field but just didn't like it as well as IT so you're
ready to come home to IT). Whatever you did that's
positive and true, say that.

Yeah. Think of something honest, brief enough to fit in
1 line, put it in the chronolgical block near the bottom,
make it not an issue in the skills bullet section.

One thing I tried once before a tech screen interview is I
sent the interviewer a URL giving a search of my posts
here on CUA. It established technical answers to his
entire qualifications question list so I went in discussing
how he could improve his question list and moved on to
trouble shooting some of his recent issues. They ended
up hiring a junior in that slot for money reasons but it was
sure considered balls-ie. Not sure if I'd want to try that
again.

On 6 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4i7t6.25ep.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

That's probably the better solution.

Hmmm, you may want to hit the public library and see if they have
any books on creating resumes/CVs - it can be a complicated subject.
Minor comment, 3 pages may be OK in some cases, but not in all.
Again, the books might help.

I think I'd suggest being a bit more specialized. It's hard to be
good everywhere.

Think about that. How is that going to make an employer want to hire
you? Generally speaking, we're hiring to fill a specific position,
rather than a general person who _may_ fill unknown requirements that
might turn up later.

That's a good way to go

That isn't.

It's what is in the ad you are responding to. In many cases, the HR
types merely copy the requirements the technical type wrote. In some
cases, they may add some of their own (which can be a sticky point with
the technical manager if the added points are senseless or not relevant
to the job), but getting past HR

means jumping through the hoops they've included. Meaningful?
Applicable? Doesn't matter - because HR is merely checking to see
that you match the requirements (usually buzz-words) in the ad.

Don't forget, the recruiter can only do so much with what you provided
and matching that to what HR has on the ad.

Yes - polish the modules, so that they can be dropped in without much
work on the individual case. Note that this works best when you are
responding to a specific ad - and remember, you are _responding_ and
showing that you match what they are interested in. As far as a
generic resume suitable for "anything that turns up in the next N
months" thing with a pimp, you'd possibly have better luck giving them
modules - so that they can tailor the response they supply to "that"
ad and opposed to "the other" ad for a different job description.

I'd look a lot harder on that. They are a useful means of getting in,
and once you are in, the possibilities usually improve AND you have a
better view of "do I really want to work in that position".

========================

I think you'd want to consider that from the passenger viewpoint. Some
may not be thrilled with the perceived flimsiness. And again, how often
can you count on the winds being light (say less than 4 m/s)?

You ought to have a look at the "portable" mast used by the Goodyear
blimps. It's a foldable mast on the back of one of the support
vehicles. Still not something you'd be able to put everywhere. Also,
the airship has to be landing/departing into the wind, so that means
a circular area. Modern airports use few runways because the aircraft
can tolerate a significant crosswind.

14CFR139 - the requirements (even ignoring the "anti-terrorist
security") are not trivial. Yes, some of that is related to existing
aircraft need for lots-of-knots on the ground roll, and for the
presence of significant quantities of volatile fuels, hazardous things
like props or jet-blast, but some of that would carry over to airship
ground operations.

;-)

Bit problem is that none of them are (yet) envisioning competing
against the airlines. much less other modes of transportation. Many
concepts are advanced (such as using airships as an aerial crane to
lift trees from where they are cut to the lumber mills) but about
the only airships that have been built in the past 60 years are the
small ships used for advertising and aerial television camera. I
suspect a bit of that is due to the weather - an airship is a large
sail, and "the winds command".

Old guy

jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
Does www.dice.com support your geography? If it
does do some keyword searches on your skills in your
geography. Almost all entries will be by shops that
specialize in IT. Get a list of several, then search
their sites. Bingo, suitable agencies.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:48:19 -0700 (PDT),
Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, you could start with a section of keywords you _want_ indexed
right before the objective. But otherwise, good point.


I realize everything in the CV will be used to make decisions either
way. (But do I realize this _enough_?) Also a good point though.


:-)

Mine used to have macros to generate different stationery for online and
offline versions (I should put that back in); wouldn't be too hard to
extend the mechanic to blurbs. Though then it might be more useful to
just maintain two sources.


In that sense, I'm still new; at the very least WRT _paid_ unix work.


Then there were the silly valley folks who insisted it had to fit on one
page.

I picked a 10pt font 15pt spacing format and a somewhat spacious layout,
so three pages (2.5 really) would fit on two with a different layout.


Of course. Twisting the truth or being very selective with what I'm
saying still feels as if it only makes mere technical difference.


Then I'd have to reverse the chronological block since it's what
I'm stuck with *now*; it's not something that happened years ago.

It'd also require lots of creative writing because most of what I did
was sit on the couch, hang out on usenet and irc, and in the beginning
take long showers ranting at the world[1]. It was pretty bad, but mosty
over now. The reading books bit was more of a sideline.

But you're right, I'll try and come up with something.


:-)

Yeah, you'd have to have a very confident interviewer who'd still
seriously consider hiring you if you'd do that.


[and pulling in your other post]
Looks like they only serve North America. I'm in Europe, so no. Thanks
though. :-)


[1] I've since written some of it down, pushed the moral buck back to
the guy in charge (who hasn't reacted[2], well, that I now consider
his problem no matter what the financial cost to me), and I'm busily
leaving it all behind. Time for a less stressful challenge.

[2] Also the reason I didn't take the bait when the guy who effectively
took over after me[3] recently rather forcefully expressed his regret
at my leaving and his desire of someone of my capabilities.
[3] And whose introduction --but not himself-- was the last straw for my
stay there. ``HR's'' reaction? ``But we didn't mean it that way!''
Well, excuse me for taking yet another BOHICA all the wrong way.

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:09:18 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
Not always, but it sounds true enough.


Yes, this is more or less what the recruiter guy of previous discussion
said when asked. I'd seen a different advert with his name under it so
I dropped him a mail with a bit of sell-myself blurb and he returned a
call at oh-too-early 09:30 or so the next day. I happened to be awake
anyway. We'll see what happens next.


Unrelatedly, I dropped a mail to a completely different recruiting
outfit, asking about a recent ad identical to one I reacted to earlier
for which they had held a phone interview with me, and whether there
was an actual job on offer at all. The answer was a wooly ``no'' while
hiding behind not being able to pull the ad (wtf?), plus an expression
of hope they could perhaps assist me anyway. Countered with a question
how they'd envision that, seeing as how they have apparently nothing
to offer. Silence. I think I'll give them a week or so to answer, then
drop'em in the shitlist.


Alright then, let's see what I can come up with.


That heavily depends on locality. I was thinking of some sort of
functional equivalent of the movable ramps used on airports. How high
should a movable (mobile?) platform go to make it usable for contact
with a passing airship? A ``platform'' blimp that'll do the ground/air
transport and meet the airship in the air for? Take advantage of
nearby skyscrapers? Any other ideas?


You mean the one that attaches not on the nose but halfway between it
and the front of the gondola? It'd fit on most any support vehicle local
to the landing field.

The biggest concern would be just a large enough field to allow the
airship to land then be held such that it can turn around 360 deg. I
think that isn't much of a problem in rural America and in big large
cities, well, the skyscraper idea might work.

Or even a hangar open to the side and on top of a tall building or
something. Airships don't have the high speed landing problem that comes
with fixed wing aircraft, and neither do they have the choppy bits going
round like a helicopter does. The only problem is that they need *a lot*
of room, which'll pose structural challenges maybe, but not weight or
runway problems.

Yes, far out. But if you set that aside, how doable is it, technically?
Where's a skyscraper architect when you need one? ;-)


THF is circular. Hm. But will be closed now. Bleh.


There is that. Regular lines have a bit of trouble depending on good
weather, where cruises can adjust more easily. Still...

How about integrating several types of transport? Would that work as
a business model?


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.