Warning: Blatant self-serving text ahead... (and humor)
I have yet to talk to a recruiter who understands much of what they are looking for, nor do they understand the difference between number of years of experience and capability (the ability to learn things new).
When I finally do get to talk to a technical manager in a company, I impress, and I'm hired. The trick is to get through the "headhunter barrier". This is what it sounds like to me when talking to a headhunter (If applied to the construction industry):
Headhunter: "Mr. Brown, we specialize in placement in the construction industry, and we have a current opportunity for a bricklayer. We found your resume on the internet, and it appears that you've had some experience laying bricks."
Me: "Yes, quite a number of years laying bricks and many other related construction activities."
Headhunter: "Do you have any experience laying brown bricks?"
Me: "Brown bricks? No, but it's really quite similar."
Headhunter: "I'm sorry, but we need someone who has at least 10 years laying brown bricks. Do you know of anyone else who might be qualified?"
Warning: Blatant self-serving text ahead... (and humor)
I have yet to talk to a recruiter who understands much of what they are looking for, nor do they understand the difference between number of years of experience and capability (the ability to learn things new).
When I finally do get to talk to a technical manager in a company, I impress, I'm hired, and I am one of the most productive. The trick is to get through the "headhunter barrier". This is what it sounds like to me when talking to a headhunter (If applied to the construction industry):
Headhunter: "Mr. Brown, we specialize in placement in the construction industry, and we have a current opportunity for a bricklayer. We found your resume on the internet, and it appears that you've had some experience laying bricks."
Me: "Yes, quite a number of years laying bricks and many other related construction activities."
Headhunter: "Do you have any experience laying brown bricks?"
Me: "Brown bricks? No, but it's really quite similar."
Headhunter: "I'm sorry, but we need someone who has at least 10 years laying brown bricks. Do you know of anyone else who might be qualified?"
LOL
P.S. If you are a headhunter that does understand capability, check out my resume at http://bytered.com/resume.html
I understand that we can't get instantaneous communication from measuring the state of the entangled photons/electrons, but...
What precludes instantaneous communications using the timing of the measurements themselves?
I understand that we can't get instaneous communication from measuring the state of the entangled photons/electrons, but...
What precludes communications using the timing of the measurements themselves?
Just as we look dramatically different on the outside, we think dramatically different as well, and all have different approaches to problem solving that work equally well depending upon the environment and circumstances.
The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (http://www.hbdi.com/) clarifies this very well. (I'm not affiliated with HBDI in any way; I participated in a HBDI class a few years ago.) This class/test explained a great deal about these types of arguments/discussions/disagreements that have ensued over the years of my career.
I am an off-the-chart "yellow", which means I don't like specs. I find them confining and overly time consuming. I feel they slow down the development process, and get in the way of the need for a dynamic and ever changing development effort. I _need_ this flexibility to work effectively and enjoy my work. I am creative, holistic, big-picture, and a strategic thinker. But, I often start work without considering all the details and may trip across a "Whoops! Didn't think about that!".
However, my opposite, a "green", prefers specs, and can spend endless hours/weeks/months adding to the specification details. A "green" needs this structure to work effectively and enjoy their effort. A "green" can bring much needed structure and can cover all the details (avoiding the Whoops!). But, they are also the type that can end up in "analysis paralysis".
Neither method is better than the other - just different - and the effectiveness can change with the circumstances. This characterization has nothing to do with intelligence. Both methods can lead to success or failure. BUT, greater success and synergy can be achieved by a well balanced team represented by all four quadrant (yellow, green, red, blue) thinkers, who all have an appreciation for each others talents.
On a practical level then, I let the "green" people make their lists and plans (because they need to, and it helps), but I don't participate at a detail level. And conversely, they allow me to "bounce all over the place" with my ideas (because I need to, and it helps). Working together this way, we achieve synergy.
Just as we look dramatically different on the outside, we think dramatically different as well, and all have different approaches to problem solving that work equally well depending upon the environment and circumstances.
The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (http://www.hbdi.com/) clarifies this very well. (I'm not affiliated with HBDI in any way; I participated in a HBDI class a few years ago.) This class/test explained a great deal about these types of arguments/discussions/disagreements that have ensued over the years of my career.
I am an off-the-chart "yellow", which means I don't like specs. I find them confining and overly time consuming. I feel they slow down the development process, and get in the way of the need for a dynamic and ever changing development effort. I _need_ this flexibility to work effectively and enjoy my work. I am creative, holistic, big-picture, and a strategic thinker. But, I often start work without considering all the details and may trip across a "Whoops! Didn't think about that!".
However, my opposite, a "green", prefers specs, and can spend endless hours/weeks/months adding to the specification details. A "green" needs this structure to work effectively and enjoy their effort. A "green" can bring much needed structure and can cover all the details (avoiding the Whoops!). But, they are also the type that can end up in "analysis paralysis".
Neither method is better than the other - just different - and the effectiveness can change with the circumstances. This characterization has nothing to do with intelligence. Both methods can lead to success or failure. BUT, greater success and synergy can be achieved by a well balanced team represented by all four quadrant (yellow, green, red, blue) thinkers, who all have an appreciation for each others talents.
On a practical level then, I let the "green" people make their lists and plans (because they need to, and it helps), but I don't participate at a detail level. And conversely, they allow me to "bounce all over the place" with my ideas (because I need to, and it helps). Working together this way, we achieve synergy.
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to talk to a recruiter who understands much of what they are looking for, nor do they understand the difference between number of years of experience and capability (the ability to learn things new).
When I finally do get to talk to a technical manager in a company, I impress, and I'm hired. The trick is to get through the "headhunter barrier". This is what it sounds like to me when talking to a headhunter (If applied to the construction industry):
Headhunter: "Mr. Brown, we specialize in placement in the construction industry, and we have a current opportunity for a bricklayer. We found your resume on the internet, and it appears that you've had some experience laying bricks."
Me: "Yes, quite a number of years laying bricks and many other related construction activities."
Headhunter: "Do you have any experience laying brown bricks?"
Me: "Brown bricks? No, but it's really quite similar."
Headhunter: "I'm sorry, but we need someone who has at least 10 years laying brown bricks. Do you know of anyone else who might be qualified?"
LOL
P.S. If you are a headhunter that does understand capability, check out my resume at http://bytered.com/resume.html
Warning: Blatant self-serving text ahead... (and humor) I have yet to talk to a recruiter who understands much of what they are looking for, nor do they understand the difference between number of years of experience and capability (the ability to learn things new). When I finally do get to talk to a technical manager in a company, I impress, I'm hired, and I am one of the most productive. The trick is to get through the "headhunter barrier". This is what it sounds like to me when talking to a headhunter (If applied to the construction industry): Headhunter: "Mr. Brown, we specialize in placement in the construction industry, and we have a current opportunity for a bricklayer. We found your resume on the internet, and it appears that you've had some experience laying bricks." Me: "Yes, quite a number of years laying bricks and many other related construction activities." Headhunter: "Do you have any experience laying brown bricks?" Me: "Brown bricks? No, but it's really quite similar." Headhunter: "I'm sorry, but we need someone who has at least 10 years laying brown bricks. Do you know of anyone else who might be qualified?" LOL P.S. If you are a headhunter that does understand capability, check out my resume at http://bytered.com/resume.html
I understand that we can't get instantaneous communication from measuring the state of the entangled photons/electrons, but... What precludes instantaneous communications using the timing of the measurements themselves?
I understand that we can't get instaneous communication from measuring the state of the entangled photons/electrons, but... What precludes communications using the timing of the measurements themselves?
The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (http://www.hbdi.com/) clarifies this very well. (I'm not affiliated with HBDI in any way; I participated in a HBDI class a few years ago.) This class/test explained a great deal about these types of arguments/discussions/disagreements that have ensued over the years of my career.
I am an off-the-chart "yellow", which means I don't like specs. I find them confining and overly time consuming. I feel they slow down the development process, and get in the way of the need for a dynamic and ever changing development effort. I _need_ this flexibility to work effectively and enjoy my work. I am creative, holistic, big-picture, and a strategic thinker. But, I often start work without considering all the details and may trip across a "Whoops! Didn't think about that!".
However, my opposite, a "green", prefers specs, and can spend endless hours/weeks/months adding to the specification details. A "green" needs this structure to work effectively and enjoy their effort. A "green" can bring much needed structure and can cover all the details (avoiding the Whoops!). But, they are also the type that can end up in "analysis paralysis".
Neither method is better than the other - just different - and the effectiveness can change with the circumstances. This characterization has nothing to do with intelligence. Both methods can lead to success or failure. BUT, greater success and synergy can be achieved by a well balanced team represented by all four quadrant (yellow, green, red, blue) thinkers, who all have an appreciation for each others talents.
On a practical level then, I let the "green" people make their lists and plans (because they need to, and it helps), but I don't participate at a detail level. And conversely, they allow me to "bounce all over the place" with my ideas (because I need to, and it helps). Working together this way, we achieve synergy.
The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (http://www.hbdi.com/) clarifies this very well. (I'm not affiliated with HBDI in any way; I participated in a HBDI class a few years ago.) This class/test explained a great deal about these types of arguments/discussions/disagreements that have ensued over the years of my career.
I am an off-the-chart "yellow", which means I don't like specs. I find them confining and overly time consuming. I feel they slow down the development process, and get in the way of the need for a dynamic and ever changing development effort. I _need_ this flexibility to work effectively and enjoy my work. I am creative, holistic, big-picture, and a strategic thinker. But, I often start work without considering all the details and may trip across a "Whoops! Didn't think about that!".
However, my opposite, a "green", prefers specs, and can spend endless hours/weeks/months adding to the specification details. A "green" needs this structure to work effectively and enjoy their effort. A "green" can bring much needed structure and can cover all the details (avoiding the Whoops!). But, they are also the type that can end up in "analysis paralysis".
Neither method is better than the other - just different - and the effectiveness can change with the circumstances. This characterization has nothing to do with intelligence. Both methods can lead to success or failure. BUT, greater success and synergy can be achieved by a well balanced team represented by all four quadrant (yellow, green, red, blue) thinkers, who all have an appreciation for each others talents.
On a practical level then, I let the "green" people make their lists and plans (because they need to, and it helps), but I don't participate at a detail level. And conversely, they allow me to "bounce all over the place" with my ideas (because I need to, and it helps). Working together this way, we achieve synergy.