My two cents. Note: I am the technical guy in a group of three involved directly in hiring developers. We tend to prefer folks who have lib arts degrees, but for the type of person they are rather than their degree.
In hiring here, a nameless little software company, we only look at current technical skills enough to determine how much training we'd have to do. We dig for problem solving skills and an ability to learn. We've hired old iron developers and folks without degrees. We've also hired some with years of experience who have gone back to school to earn their masters in CS.
My boss prides himself in our "not following convention," but my friends in other companies say they have similar policies.
"Politician's lack of focus and inability to understand the outcome of their actions, along with their perceived ability to attract crowds of civilians, make them ideal targets to be recruited as terrorists, according to me. Lack of planning skills make politicians good 'cannon fodder.' I offer that 'Politicians ideally make excellent use of words over action, and they make excellent cannon fodder. They think differently from how other people think.' That may sound like a stereotype, but I claim that 'because of those traits, terrorist groups actively recruit politicians.' I say that Al-Qaeda's top leadership have exhibited a survival instinct that can be compared to a politician's."
I do buy the trouble hiring. We're not in a large city, we're not even in a medium city. By a chamber of commerce estimate, the number of developers within 25 miles of our office is 600, roughly 40 of whom are seeking work -- meaning not working at all or not working as a developer. (I only know this because we recently went looking for a web developer). Of those seeking work, most only know Cobol (based off 23 resumes) and / or Excel.
Here are the criteria we used last fall. We use similar criteria to switch not only development platforms but outside code packs or services. 1) Our customers are asking for features that another platform can provide easier or faster. 2) This new platform is newer. Yes, this leaves out some good stuff, but it is one of our criteria. 3) The new platform is not too costly -- judged by the boss's gag factor. Also the cost of implementing the new platform can't cost our users (i.e. who have their own servers) above what we already charge in their service agreements (sometimes this means we eat any end-user fees). 4) We have at least one person on staff who already knows the new platform or nearly begs to learn it in their own time (if they offer to take a class, bonus points). 5) There is some path that allows us to release in both platforms for a while. Meaning we can link work in both so that we can release product that contains a mix. 6) The new platform is sufficiently powerful that within a couple years we can migrate all features from at least one old platform to the new one. Thereby eliminating an old platform.
We aren't making free software, we're donating our time writing software to help poor kids in continent/country get an education. Oh, and by the way, if you want to use our software in your classroom/business, we'll let you do that too for free, as long as you don't sell it and any feature changes to make to it are given freely back to FOSS.
The article seems to me to read like a fairly tale: always be passive and engage your users is a gentle manner.
How about some advice on handling the difficult situations. Such as:
Sorry, I can't spend any more time explaining what those configuration options on the Advanced screen mean -- frankly, you aren't prepared to handle them. I have other folks needing support (sometimes paying more than you are). When you find a task that you are unable to perform, contact me again.
You know, you're being abusive. You're allowed to curse at the computer all you want, but I have to cut you off until you learn to communicate with a human being.
I'm sorry, customer, your problems with the system are significant enough that we're going to return your money and ask that you not contact us again.
I can empathize. I subscribe to Science and read most of it outside of the research articles. I sometimes read the actual research articles when they are in my field. My secondary background is Biology and I have an avid interest in Astronomy. Without looking up a few words and searching any of several wikis occasionally, I don't have a chance of understanding the questions, assumptions, or even the conclusions of several lines of research. If you can, look over a copy of Science (try your local library) and see how they describe the same piece three times: first as a two-paragraph summary, secondly for those interested but not particularly from that field of research, and thirdly the actual research article as submitted by the scientists.
The best I've done when describing the deeper parts of research to less inclined friends is using pairs of analogy & example or example and question.
Example: the differentiation of Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos (evolution). I give a brief description of the big 1998 ENSO and it's affect on food and hence the finches. Then I ask, "Why did it take scientists so long to find it? I mean, ENSO has been around for a long time, and food cycles are well documented in many places,...."
Slashdot Mirror
If by improved you mean the improved readability of:
NewStatusPosition = 1 + Reflection.MethodBase.DeclaringType.Name.Info.Version.SelectSingleNode(CType(Cmo.Object("Top10List_8"), EnvDTE.ToString)).Value
over:
++StatusPosition;
Another year and I'll finally be able to throw away my Ada generics.
My two cents. Note: I am the technical guy in a group of three involved directly in hiring developers. We tend to prefer folks who have lib arts degrees, but for the type of person they are rather than their degree.
In hiring here, a nameless little software company, we only look at current technical skills enough to determine how much training we'd have to do. We dig for problem solving skills and an ability to learn. We've hired old iron developers and folks without degrees. We've also hired some with years of experience who have gone back to school to earn their masters in CS.
My boss prides himself in our "not following convention," but my friends in other companies say they have similar policies.
"Politician's lack of focus and inability to understand the outcome of their actions, along with their perceived ability to attract crowds of civilians, make them ideal targets to be recruited as terrorists, according to me. Lack of planning skills make politicians good 'cannon fodder.' I offer that 'Politicians ideally make excellent use of words over action, and they make excellent cannon fodder. They think differently from how other people think.' That may sound like a stereotype, but I claim that 'because of those traits, terrorist groups actively recruit politicians.' I say that Al-Qaeda's top leadership have exhibited a survival instinct that can be compared to a politician's."
I do buy the trouble hiring. We're not in a large city, we're not even in a medium city. By a chamber of commerce estimate, the number of developers within 25 miles of our office is 600, roughly 40 of whom are seeking work -- meaning not working at all or not working as a developer. (I only know this because we recently went looking for a web developer). Of those seeking work, most only know Cobol (based off 23 resumes) and / or Excel.
Here are the criteria we used last fall. We use similar criteria to switch not only development platforms but outside code packs or services.
1) Our customers are asking for features that another platform can provide easier or faster.
2) This new platform is newer. Yes, this leaves out some good stuff, but it is one of our criteria.
3) The new platform is not too costly -- judged by the boss's gag factor. Also the cost of implementing the new platform can't cost our users (i.e. who have their own servers) above what we already charge in their service agreements (sometimes this means we eat any end-user fees).
4) We have at least one person on staff who already knows the new platform or nearly begs to learn it in their own time (if they offer to take a class, bonus points).
5) There is some path that allows us to release in both platforms for a while. Meaning we can link work in both so that we can release product that contains a mix.
6) The new platform is sufficiently powerful that within a couple years we can migrate all features from at least one old platform to the new one. Thereby eliminating an old platform.
Then lets change FOSS's PR:
We aren't making free software, we're donating our time writing software to help poor kids in continent/country get an education. Oh, and by the way, if you want to use our software in your classroom/business, we'll let you do that too for free, as long as you don't sell it and any feature changes to make to it are given freely back to FOSS.
The article seems to me to read like a fairly tale: always be passive and engage your users is a gentle manner.
How about some advice on handling the difficult situations. Such as:
Sorry, I can't spend any more time explaining what those configuration options on the Advanced screen mean -- frankly, you aren't prepared to handle them. I have other folks needing support (sometimes paying more than you are). When you find a task that you are unable to perform, contact me again.
You know, you're being abusive. You're allowed to curse at the computer all you want, but I have to cut you off until you learn to communicate with a human being.
I'm sorry, customer, your problems with the system are significant enough that we're going to return your money and ask that you not contact us again.
Or, we'll get games based on movies or TV shows, instead of the other way around.
Imagine: a game where you sing into a microphone and get votes.
Imagine: a game where you use virtual tweezers to extract the funny bone from a virtual human while trying to date a virtual intern.
Imagine: a game where you have to shoot King Kong off skyscrapers.
Maybe we have these already and I'm just not much of a gamer or TV viewer. Ex. Karaoke.
1) Can past In-duh-vidual comments seed the filters.?
2) Will those members automatically included in a whitelist?
If not:
3) Does membership there qualify for a white list (or black list)?
I can empathize. I subscribe to Science and read most of it outside of the research articles. I sometimes read the actual research articles when they are in my field. My secondary background is Biology and I have an avid interest in Astronomy. Without looking up a few words and searching any of several wikis occasionally, I don't have a chance of understanding the questions, assumptions, or even the conclusions of several lines of research. If you can, look over a copy of Science (try your local library) and see how they describe the same piece three times: first as a two-paragraph summary, secondly for those interested but not particularly from that field of research, and thirdly the actual research article as submitted by the scientists. The best I've done when describing the deeper parts of research to less inclined friends is using pairs of analogy & example or example and question. Example: the differentiation of Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos (evolution). I give a brief description of the big 1998 ENSO and it's affect on food and hence the finches. Then I ask, "Why did it take scientists so long to find it? I mean, ENSO has been around for a long time, and food cycles are well documented in many places, ...."