Not quite. Your resume should outline your employers, dates of employment, and responsibilities paired with major achievements. Today’s employers expect to see a track record of success on one’s resume. By the same token, if you submit an 8-page research-heavy c.v. to an employer for a non-academic/non-research position, HR is apt to think you’ve spent too much time in an ivory tower.
Right. I said that a résumé focuses on where you’ve worked, not that it should only list where you’ve worked.
For example, your résumé would be organized by job held, and show what you did for each company. In my case, many of my accomplishments (e.g., books, magazine articles, Web designs, patent applications, etc.) were for consulting clients or completely on my own. Those don’t fit the traditional résumé structure.
A CV, on the other hand, doesn’t group your achievements by company (e.g., “here’s what I did for company A, and here’s what I did for company B”); it’s laid out in a capabilities and accomplishments structure (e.g., “here are my patents, here are the books I’ve written, here are my published research papers”).
If you’re going to show off with accents on résumé, it’s “curriculum vitæ”.
They aren’t the same thing.
they are if the person asking for it thinks they are 
True enough. It’s amazing for how many things that is true.