Slashdot Mirror
How To Hire a Hacker
itwbennett writes "If you want to hire a hacker, you need to take a more psychology-based approach to the entire interview process to determine whether he or she has changed their ways enough to be a trustworthy employee, says Mich Kabay in a recent Network World blog post. But this approach is also 'germane for highly skilled staffers, even those that don't come with arrest records or who have done something questionable in their pasts,' says David Strom. For example, in your next interview, ask a question that will suss out how much of a sense of entitlement a candidate has — or how much you or your company has. 'One time when I interviewed with Microsoft in Redmond I couldn't get over this sense of corporate entitlement — it was one of the biggest turn-offs that I had during my interviewing day there,' says Strom. 'I got the feeling that I wasn't going to fit in, no matter how smart I thought (or they thought) I was.'"
Sounds more like "how to hire a self important misanthrope" to me.
You failed to get the offer because you don't know how to use "accept" and "except"
The article is about how to not hire a self important misanthrope.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Perhaps you mean cracker
"If I was a real cracker, I'd want to be topped with a real cheese, maybe a strong stilton."
And I thought "hacker" actually meant someone who (literally) hacked on things. With a hatchet or similar. Or maybe language just changes, and we need to all get over it.
The interviewee must answer: "Yes, but to fully understand it, you must first understand recursion"
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Marshall Goldsmith nailed this in "What Got You Here Won't Get You There."
In many (most?) business structures, expertise only gets us so far - after that, it's all about how we deal with people.
If you want to have a part in the problem-solving drama called "Your Employing Company," you have to get along well enough to be allowed at the table.
There's not much justice or fairness in this - just some hard reality along with enough exceptions to make the rule fuzzy.
That's a hard way to make a decent product. If Billy's app doesn't talk to Sue's service because the two never speak to one another or sit down to do a review, it doesn't matter how brilliant either of them is. Their shit still doesn't work.
I don't agree. If this were true, then the foosball table in our kitchen wouldn't be busy all the time.
I think it's a subtler truth here. Many technical folks are more comfortable on working technical problems than people problems. Tech problems have at least one right answer that is unambiguous. People problems may not.
I think the way to keep tech people happy is to give them good problems to work on, serve as a diplomatic layer to insulate them from the annoying people surrounding them in the world, and facilitate making the rules clear on the floor to minimize conflict among the team. And provide free pop.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
and nobody here yet?
You kidding? We've all gone off to update our resumes.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Words mean things. Everyone has to agree what those things are. If your definition of a word doesn't match the rest of the world's definition, you have a problem, not the rest of the world.
When it is safe to have a hacker on your IT staff
It is always safe to hire and employ a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic they aren't a hacker. Maybe a cracker, hackivist, or script kiddie but not a hacker.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This is absurd. The term 'hacker' as it fits into the computing world, was originated by persons who called themselves or others hackers to define skill or drive. It was later BASTARDIZED by the ignorance of people not in the industry to indicate those who could be termed 'hackers' who were essentially black hats or crackers, even outcasts.
So the precedent this sets, and you support, is that just because jargon is misused and abused outside of a field, we should change its definition. Do you understand how silly that is? The term 'hacker' has a meaning that was completely agreed upon by the persons who coined it, therein lies its definition.
And i wouldn't put it on my resume either : it's like a written statement of you admitting a crime.
Slipping shoelaces ?
The folks in the first category could hurt you too. They're white/gray hat because they want to be, not because they have to be.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Oh, please. Like many words in the English language, the word "hacker" has distinct meanings in distinct contexts, and you and everyone else here knew perfectly well which was intended in this case. The guy who looks around for an aquatic bird when someone says "duck!" might have a valid semantic point, but he still looks like an elitist fool when something smacks him upside the head.
This space intentionally left blank.
Being a 'hacker' who can find solutions to problems most mortals deem impossible, I can tell you that the approach taken by the article is just plain and simply *WRONG*.
If you seriously want someone who thinks out of the box and can figure out complex problems, there really are just a few simple steps to take into consideration:
1) Realize you WILL be hiring someone smarter than you
2) Be okay with it since it will make you look smarter!
3) Allow them to do their job! Don't impose on them stupid ass schedules that require them to attend stupid ass meetings all the freaking time! Light bulb moments don't come on schedules, they come when you allow them to spend their own good time figuring out YOUR problem.
4) DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE TRY TO MICROMANAGE!!!!!!
5) Understand they are not after your job.. they just want to do THE job you hired them to do.. so chill out, give them raises and plain and simple, keep them happy!
Step #6 is of course "PROFIT!!!"
--thrill
Oh, I get it now. It's a first-post. I thought that was just an interview technique: if he shows up on time, he's too aware of his surroundings to be a real hacker.
I wonder what had happened if terry gave the passwords away earlier. Management probably would have crashed the whole sf infrastructure, hospitals and others.
It's more like you admitting you're a furry on the Something Awful site.
The proper definition of a hacker, a person who does interesting things with computers, is completely harmless.
Yet it too has been poisoned by negative connotations by propaganda to the point that only a fool makes it public knowledge.
It's more like you admitting you're a furry on the Something Awful site.
The proper definition of a hacker, a person who does interesting things with computers, is completely harmless.
Yet it too has been poisoned by negative connotations by propaganda to the point that only a fool makes it public knowledge.
Don't be bitter about the meaning of a word evolving over time. You wouldn't put that you are generally fun-loving and gay on your resume these days either.