Hiring Rembrandt
I recently read a very good blog post on More Than a Living in which the author, Rick Turoczy, posits that an artisan is more important than their tools. Seems rather obvious when it's worded like that, eh?
The author makes an excellent point.
People are quite protective of their “tools.”
Oooh. Tools. They’re oh-so-valuable. Lah-di-dah.
Their software. Their methodology. Their ways of doing things. Little flowcharts. Templates. Processes. Scorecards. Whatever.
The perceived value of these tools is huge.
But what about the actual value?
I’d say that there isn’t much value in the tool, at all.
...
In reality, a tool only becomes valuable by being a tool. By becoming something more in the hands of an artisan to manipulate it.
An artisan can quickly transition to new tools. In the MTL article, the author discusses Toby, an Excel whiz. A spreadsheet is Toby's tool. Excel may be his choice of paintbrush today, but I'm sure he can very quickly pick up any other spreadsheet program and quickly produce a masterpiece. He is master of financial modeling.
Over the years, I've seen technology job postings become extremely tool-specific, e.g. the following required applicant skill set pulled directly from a job listing on dice.com. I've edited the layout of the post for reasons of legibility, brevity, and removal of pure BS.
- ...
- Experience in Web-based software application development experience to include:
- VB.NET / T-SQL / Reporting Services / JavaScript / XML / HTML / DTS / Classic ASP / HTML / web-based forms
- internet integration server (iis) / active directory (ad) / SQL Server 2003 & 2005, SSIS, Visual Studio Team system.
- Understanding of intranet / extranet development / reverse proxy/Share Point portal / windows Share Point services.
- Understanding of impacts of multiple locations spread out globally connected by wide area network of varying speeds with varying desktop configurations.
- Understanding of multiple language, currency and locality impacts
- Use and development of web services
- Good software development practices including controlled processes and separation of development, test, and production environments.
- ...
Contrast these job requirements with the idea of an artisan being more important that their tools. One cause of this type of job posting is the need of headhunters and HR personnel -- through no fault of their own -- to have a checklist with which to filter candidates without consuming valuable interview time and resources.
But even so, this type of job posting seems peculiar to technical industries. Have you ever seen a job posting for a carpenter that required 2 years experience with a Stanley 22 oz Antivibe Framing Hammer? Of course not.
Given an applicant's demonstrated competency in my field (programming in my case), I don't hire based upon experience with specific tools. Instead, I've always tried to hire based upon three criteria.
- Motivation. Does the candidate show a history of completing tasks and projects? If presented with a problem, do they truly attempt to solve it? Are they lifelong learners? Do they read technical books and journals? Do they play with new technologies? Is this a profession or merely a job?
Intelligence. How do they solve problems? When presented with a problem, do they latch onto the first solution they dream up, or do they develop and evaluate multiple possible solutions? Are they open to new ideas? How well do they think through the balancing of conflicting ideas, requirements, and solutions?- Personableness. How well will this person fit on the team? I try to imagine the person on the team and how the other team members will relate with them.
Given the potent combination of motivation and intelligence, a Java programmer quickly becomes a C# .NET expert -- or vice-versa; experience with specific tools is nice, but relatively unimportant. But even motivation and intelligence must be balanced with how well the candidate will fit in with a team; even the most talented performer isn't worth the cost of disrupting your team. Terrell Owens is arguably the best receiver in the National Football League, but he has eventually poisoned the locker room of every team for whom he has ever played.
I would never turn down a top-shelf developer because they didn't possess experience in a particular toolset.
I don't hire carpenters because of the type of hammer in the tool belt, but rather their knowledge of construction techniques, materials, and craftsmanship. It was Einstein the artisan that revolutionized physics, not his writing implements and certainly not whatever brand of slide rule he used. Mario Andretti not only won auto races in many different types of cars, but also in many different types of auto races.
If you wanted a portrait done in watercolors, would you rule out a Rembrandt because he primarily worked in oils and engravings? I thought not.
Of Hearts and Penicillin
As I'm often wont to do, I checked out This Day in History on the History Channel web site.
Besides being the day associated with romance, today is also the day that penicillin was discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming.
Coincidence? Hmmm. How much penicillin has been consumed as a result of "love"?
Interestingly, the History Channel lists today as the day of discovery of penicillin, yet Wikipedia lists September 28, 1928 as the date of discovery.
If A=B & B=C
Here's the middle school joke of the day, courtesy of my son.
If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?
Chinese Water Torture
Drip, drip, drip, drip.
Let's take a road trip. I want you to drive me to California from South Carolina, but I'm not sure exactly where in California, just somewhere in the southern part of the state. I'll know it's the right spot when we get there. I need you to provide me with an extremely detailed itinerary, specifying the exact time and location of waypoints along the route. And you must provide this itinerary by merely consulting a map, you cannot check weather or traffic conditions. In fact, you're not quite sure when we'll be making the trip, so you can't even take into account the season. Now imagine we'll be using a bus on this trip, and all the passengers will be giving you directions and asking for stops along the way -- but you're not allowed to talk to these passengers before the trip. I still need you to provide a firm timetable and cost estimate for this trip.
This hypothetical trip is an example of a wicked problem - a problem whose requirements and limitations cannot be entirely known before completion.
Drip, drip, drip, drip.
Three weeks ago, my company was presented with a small project that we estimated would take about a man-month to perform. Since that time, we have met with the Business Analyst (BA) on the project three more times, and each time, the requirements have changed and we've been asked to re-estimate the project. Moreover, with each estimate, we're asked to provide more detail and clarification. We have had no direct contact with the ultimate users of the proposed system. During this time, the BA has produced a few versions of a very nice requirements document, but right now, the customer has no working software. Instead, the project is going through an endless loop of analysis paralysis.
If the project had kicked off three weeks ago, it would likely be complete by now. The customer could be using the software and providing feedback to the development team so that the software could be further refined to solve the users' particular and unique needs.
Drip, drip, drip, drip.
This situation is the inevitable result of the use of the waterfall project management methodology. The benefits of working software are being sacrificed for the illusion of control. I view this as shooting a bullet at the moon; if your assumptions, calculations, and aim are absolutely perfect -- and no unforeseen circumstances occur -- it just might work. But wouldn't it be better to embrace change? To build flexibility into your methodology to accommodate change, mistakes, and unforeseen circumstances? Wouldn't it be better to pilot a projectile to the moon?
To go back to our California trip analogy, instead of creating an extremely detailed itinerary, why not create a general overall goal and timetable with smaller chunks of milestones. For instance, let's just say our target for the first day is to reach Jackson, Mississippi and spend the night there; we'll cover a good amount of ground, but we'll allow for a bit of time to deal with traffic in Atlanta and maybe a bit of weather near Birmingham, Alabama. We anticipate arriving in Jackson in time for dinner, but if we decide as a group to take a detour to see Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta, we won't stress about arriving a bit later in Jackson. Conversely, we may breeze through Atlanta and arrive in Jackson in early afternoon. If so, we may decide to keep going and perhaps stay overnight in Vicksburg, overlooking the Mississippi River.
But we will have a goal of getting to California. We will have a general strategy (itinerary) developed from maps and previous experience. And we will have a set of tactics to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Some of those tactics may be mitigating the risk and impact of unforeseen challenges by carrying extra maps or a GPS, cell phones for communication, credit cards for ready access to cash, and most importantly an adventurous attitude willing to embrace change.
The point being that we will drive "within our headlights". We will set short, reasonable goals that we can accurately predict and work to achieve those goals daily. If any of those goals are not met for some reason, they are reassessed and tomorrow's goals may be adjusted -- perhaps we won't be able to go see the world's biggest ball of string tomorrow. Who knows, with a more relaxed atmosphere on the bus, everyone might even enjoy the trip.
As stated in the Principles of the Agile Manifesto for Software Development, working software is the primary measure of progress.
Instead I'm reviewing yet another change in the requirements documentation. Three weeks of "planning" and "nailing down requirements" for a 4 week project.
Drip, drip, drip, drip.
Dead End Jobs
A week or so ago, my partner and I were discussing dead end jobs -- the "would you like fries with that" variety. That led me to think about truly dead-end jobs.
- Drummer for Spinal Tap.

- A red-shirted ensign on the Starship Enterprise.
- Keyboard player for Grateful Dead.
- 27 year old musician.
- Imperial Stormtrooper.
- Sparring partner for Chuck Norris.
- Attorney for Jurassic Park.
- Backhoe operator at Chernobyl
- Driver for Princess Di.
- Female companion to a Kennedy.
- Bomb defusal expert.
- Rap artist or entourage member.
- African prostitute.
- Any job that causes you to piss off Bruce Willis, Arnold, Steven Seagal, or Charles Bronson.
- Bombmaker for a terrorist cell.
- Bomb delivery boy for a terrorist cell.
- Any U.S. President associated with Robert Todd Lincoln.
What others can you come up with? Which have completely offended you and demand that you write an atomic flame?
The Quiet Pools
I'm reading a sci-fi novel titled The Quiet Pools by Michael P. Kube-McDowell. The story started a bit slow, but now has my complete attention; it's an extremely well-written story with multiple threads of conflict. And the story touches on many themes ranging from marital and parental relationships, to the psychology of mob violence, to humans as Von Neuman universal constructors.
The plot revolves around Project Diaspora, the building and staffing of a colonizing starship sent to seed the universe with mankind. Much of the conflict occurs between the two camps of humanity that support or oppose the project. However, the twist that has really grabbed my imagination is the selection process for the 10,000 colonists. The colonists are subjected to DNA testing and are secretly screened for the "Chi sequence", a genetic sequence of three genes A-B-C where A controls Ambition, B controls Breeding instinct, and C controls the Call. The three genes create 8 combinations that determine the type of person.
| A | B | C | Attributes |
| Y | N | N | Adventurers. Restless explorers. Examples of Sir Edmund Hillary, Amelia Earhart. |
| N | Y | N | Breeders and nestmakers. Resistant to change. |
| N | N | Y | Dreamers. Pure faith, pure reason, pure art. Priests, physicists, philosophers. |
| Y | Y | N | Ambition + nestmaking = kings and tycoons. |
| Y | N | Y | Ambition + dreamer = a creator. An artist or inventor. |
| N | Y | Y | Nestmaker + call = good citizens. The Call expresses itself as duty and allegiance so BC's make good workers and soldiers. |
| Y | Y | Y | Statesmen, saints. Wise, altruistic leaders. The rarest combination. |
| N | N | N |
To quote the book:
|
Of course, a reader's immediate thought is to stock the ship with people who have all the genes, the so-called Chi-positives. But no, the author argues that would be impossible, that Chi-positives are difficult. They are the glue, and have you ever tried to build something from glue alone? A large part of the project is dedicated to determining an optimal genetic mix on the ship; the only group completely excluded are the Chi-negatives -- the empty people. The population mix is described as:
[the ship] needs a core of stable, loyal, dedicated people who know their plac in the plan. It needs a leavening of creative types to keep the vision alive and deal with the unexpected. And it needs wise, unselfish leadership.
From the table above, this equates to a mix of BCs, ACs and Chi-positives. But when the ship arrives at a world suitable for colonization, it will need kings and adventurers and nestmakers to build empires, explore, and make homes. Since these people will not be needed during the trip, they will be carried in gamete banks -- egg and sperm banks, to be "created" as needed.
As you can undoubtedly see, this is a cool and disturbing concept, fraught with promise and peril. What a great fulcrum for conflict.
I haven't finished this book and I already highly recommend it. I've already given away one of the big ideas/twists of the book, so I'll wind up this post before giving away any more.
Something foul in Denmark
A little over an hour ago, Microsoft announced it is making an unsolicited bid to buy Yahoo. Microsoft is bidding $44.6 billion dollars for Yahoo, or $31/share -- a 60% premium over Yahoo's closing price of $19 on Thursday.
Yahoo's stock price opened at $28 this morning, before the offer was announced -- obviously a case of insider trading. But I guarantee the SEC will turn a blind eye to Yahoo's overnight 50% stock jump on the eve of their largest news announcement ever. It seems that unless your name is Martha, you will never be a investigated target for insider trading. How much more blatant can it be?
Playing Poker with Pascal
"Tut, tut, child!" said the Duchess. "Everything's got a moral, if only you can find it."
I was raised in a Christian household; Sundays, and a lot of Wednesday evenings, were spent at the church. As a kid, I was a fervent believer; I knew I was saved and going to heaven. Hallelujah!
As I grew up, I questioned, and ultimately became disillusioned with, the idea of church and religion. The more I learned of history, the more I saw religion as a divisive force on humanity. Many of history's atrocities were, and still are, committed in the name of religion. The more I learned of science, the more I saw religion as superstition. It simply doesn't stand up to scientific method and reason. The more I learned of psychology, the more I saw religion as an ego defense mechanism. It's used to help people deal with circumstances beyond their control.
I've heard the argument put forth, perhaps most eruditely by C.S. Lewis, that mankind's age-old and constant search for religion is, in itself, proof of a higher being. How can man suffer from this persistent and common delusion, unless there is indeed something to it? I call this the "where there's smoke there's fire" argument, and I just don't buy it.
First, just because a meme is ancient and persistent doesn't mean it's correct. People have believed in magic since the dawn of time. Racial stereotypes still tragically persist. The common cold is not caused by a person becoming chilled. Habitual knuckle cracking does not cause arthritis, nor does masturbation cause blindness, cats don't steal air from baby's mouths, and you can't see the stars during the daytime from the bottom of a deep shaft.
Secondly, if the existence of a persistent religious meme is proof of a God, then why are there so many very diverse religions? Many religions have multiple deities. Some religions practice ancestor worship (even the Catholic church to some extent). Many religions have practiced blood sacrifice, both animal and human. Some religions worship nature and animal spirits. How can the smoke/fire argument be used to prove a single God when, in fact, for most of history, the majority of mankind has practiced forms of religion that are not mono-theistic?
So, I am now, at best, extremely agnostic; one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. I cannot find any proof that God exists, but, of course, there isn't any proof that God doesn't exist either.
French mathematician, and philosopher Blaise Pascal, pondered this paradox and developed an argument for the belief in God based on probability and decision theory; his argument has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. Pascal postulates that it is better to believe in God because the expected reward is greater than the expected reward of not believing. If you believe and God exists, then you gain infinite reward; if he does not exist, you lose virtually nothing by comparison. If you don't believe and God exists, you get infinite punishment; if he does not exist, you gain virtually nothing by comparison. Of course, Pascal assumes that we have an eternal afterlife and that our life on Earth is negligible by comparison.
A counter-argument to Pascal's Wager exists called the Atheist's Wager. Wikipedia sums it up nicely as:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
I've always had issues with the Christian philosophy that salvation comes through faith and never through works. By that measure, the most vile torturer of the Inquisition is listening to harp music while strolling streets of gold, and Gandhi is screaming his agony as his flesh boils off his bones. Is the man that taught the world the power of peaceful protest roasting in a Christian hell? I know Christianity is about forgiveness -- being absolved of guilt because of your faith. I view that as similar to inherited wealth. If you had to follow someone's advice for the attainment of wealth, would you choose someone who inherited their wealth or someone who earned their wealth? Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett?
Interestingly, a good friend recently told me of the Apostle Paul's struggles with problems such as 'the Gandhi question'. Compare the Atheist's Wager to what the Apostle Paul said in a letter to the Romans.
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. --Romans 9:14-16
It dovetails nicely with the Atheist's Wager, doesn't it? Of course, I would wager that the Atheist's Wager was developed with knowledge of that particular scripture.
So, in the end, the whole question is a conundrum with no proof in either direction, but I lean heavily towards my logical side that does not believe -- nay, scoffs -- at the idea of an omnipotent being. Nevertheless, there's the small part that says, "What if?"
"There is no use trying," said Alice, "one can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
There’s U308 In Them Thar Hills
Uranium ore, that is.
On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union exploded their first atomic bomb. Needless to say, this created quite a stir in the U.S. which launched a massive bomb building campaign to counter the Soviet threat. American policymakers strategically decided the develop native sources of uranium ore (aka U308) so as not to be dependent on foreign sources. The newly created Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was designated as the only legal buyer of the ore. For several years, the AEC had already been paying top dollar for the ore, touting it as the energy source of the future. AEC chairman, David Lilienthal, crossed the country telling audiences that a uranium pellet the size of a peanut contained the energy of a ton of coal; holding up a lump of coal, he would tell his audience the equivalent size rock of uranium would heat a large city for an entire winter. With the combination of a successful Soviet atomic bomb test, the Korean War, and the beginnings of the domino theory of the fight against communism, the pressure was on the AEC to develop enough weapons-grade uranium to reduce the USSR to pea-gravel several times over.
In March 1951, the AEC doubled the price it was paying for uranium ore and offered a $10,000 bonus to anyone who developed a productive new mine. The AEC also provided guidebooks and geology reports, built supply roads, and constructed ore processing mills -- all in support of uranium miners. A uranium rush occurred in Utah. Moab, Utah went from 500 to 5,000 people virtually overnight. There were stories of prospectors renting planes and throwing out claim stakes in an massive mineral rights grab. Not coincidentally, Moab was the first place in Utah to allow alcohol.
Into this rush came Charlie Steen, an unemployed geologist from Texas, hitchhiking into Utah in 1952. Until this time, most uranium was either found on the surface or in excavated mines. Steen believed the ore could be found using drilling derricks to bore vertically to the ore. Legend has it that, in July 1952, he was down to his last dollar, wearing boots so worn his toes stuck out through holes, when his drill bit broke off in his bore hole. In disgust, he collected his samples from that day and drove home. On the way, he stopped at a service station where a friend had a Geiger counter. Apparently, everyone in Moab had a Geiger counter in those days. When he put the counter on his samples, the needle pegged all the way over. Steen had found a huge vein of uranium ore. His mine eventually produced over $100 million of ore. Steen had his worn-out boots bronzed.
The AEC continued its favorable pricing policies until 1966. By the early 70's the price of uranium ore had bottomed out. Then came the oil embargo of the 70's, and ore prices again skyrocketed as America was again electrified about nuclear power as the solution to America's energy needs. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island -- less than 2 weeks after the opening of the movie The China Syndrome -- violently swung the public opinion pendulum against nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) halted the construction of any new nuclear power plants. In 1986, the Chernobyl reactor explosion occurred, releasing 400 times the radiation as the Hiroshima bomb, further contaminating the reputation of nuclear power.
In the late 80's the fall of the Soviet Union, was another shock to the price of uranium ore. Ironically, much of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal was recycled into fuel for nuclear power plants in the U.S. In fact, 20,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled and recycled into fully half of the uranium used for power generation in U.S. reactors. By the year 2000, uranium ore was selling for roughly the same price as it was 50 years before. In summer 2000, Invention and Technology magazine published an article detailing the history of uranium mining and its demise, saying that "uranium mining will not be a profitable venture any time soon." The market was dead and its prospects for a recovery were very dim indeed.
Now, however, the U.S. government is on the verge of granting permits for the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years. The soaring price of petroleum in recent years has again highlighted the folly of U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources. Growing concerns over global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are fueling the demand for forms of energy other than coal and oil. Even hard-core anti-nukes are warming to the idea of nuclear power; Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, said in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, that nuclear energy is "the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce greenhouse emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power."
And the U.S. isn't the only country with a re-energized nuclear power industry; Russia has unveiled plans to build 24 new nuclear reactors, and China has scheduled building more than 30 reactors (two 1,000-megawatt plants every year for the next 20 years). India is also going nuclear at a rapid pace. Worldwide, there are 160 power plants proposed or currently under construction.
Today, demand for uranium is outstripping the supply and the price for uranium ore has not just risen, it has absolutely skyrocketed. There's an ore rush occurring in Moab, Utah again -- almost 60 years after the first rush. And recently, a landowner in Virginia is trying to mine the largest deposit of uranium in the U.S.. A supply that is worth an estimated $10 billion and is the estimated energy equivalent of 7.4 billion barrels of oil. In the 80's, Virginia banned uranium mining but, of course, uranium ore wasn't extremely lucrative then -- and money talks.
Personally, I favor nuclear power despite its dangers and by-products; both of which I believe are far less than all other ready-for-primetime energy sources. But as a history addict, I find it interesting to compare the previous uranium rushes to the current one. The first rush in the 50's was fueled by fears of national security from a military perspective.
The second rush of the 70's was generated by national security concerns over the U.S. over-reliance on foreign oil. Today's rush is plugged into America's growing concerns over rising petroleum prices, our voracious appetite for energy, our continued over-reliance on energy imports, and recognition of the need for clean yet economical energy sources -- in other words, economic national security tempered with a bit of environmentalism.
It's deja vu all over again. --Yogi Berra
Starstruck
I recently viewed an exhibit about the Hubble Space Telescope at the S.C. State Museum. I've always been fascinated with astronomy, physics, and science in general. To be honest, though, I found the exhibit shallow and disappointing; however, the exhibit did impress upon me, once again, the sheer enormity of space.
"Yeah, yeah, yeah", you're thinking, "we all know space is big. DUH!" And you're right. Everyone does know the distances are huge, but I don't think they really comprehend the size. For instance, Alpha Centauri is the nearest neighboring star to our Sun at only 4.3 light years away. Only 4.3 light years equates to 25,265,838,509,316.77 miles! That's 25 trillion miles! Then again, somehow the concept of a trillion doesn't convey the magnitude (pun intended) of the number. Imagine a stack of paper 25 trillion sheets high. Any idea how tall that stack would be? A sheet of standard copier paper is 0.0038" thick so a stack of 25 trillion sheets would be 1,499,368 miles high -- or a little over 6 times the distance to the moon!
As I said, it's 25 trillion miles (4.3 light years) to the nearest star other than the Sun,
but this is a mere speck compared to the size of our galaxy. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter, over 23,000 times the distance from the Sun to Alpha Centauri -- 587,577,639,751,552,790 miles. Now that corresponding stack of paper is 34,485,464,000 (34 billion) miles high, roughly 7.5 times the radius of our solar system!
The farthest astronomical object yet discovered is a galaxy estimated to be 13 billion light years distant. That distance is 130,000 times greater than the diameter of the Milky Way. Now the corresponding stack of paper is 4,483,110,320,000,000 miles high -- over 177 times the distance to Alpha Centauri!
It's not just distances that are mind-boggling. It's estimated that the Milky Way contains 200 billion stars. And the Milky Way is just one of an estimated 125 billion galaxies! In all, the estimated number of stars in the known universe is 1021 -- that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Interestingly, depending on whose estimate you use, that's roughly equivalent to the number of grains of sand on Earth.
...as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore... --Genesis 22:17


