On 17 Aug 2000, at 2:36, Robert Freeman quoted *someone* who had written: > > You tangentially hit the nail here. The people who are going to > > get cut are the One Trick Pony types. Those who have knowledge and > > experience in various fields of discipline will prove more valuable than > > someone who can only do one task set well. In my experience, it pays (in > > more ways than one) to wear several different hats. As someone who has worn a lot of different hats over the last 20 years, and was recently cut from a job where I was juggling 5 hats, I'm finding that a number of prospective employers are saying either "Sorry, you're over-qualified for the position we have available" (hey, I'm over-qualified for UI, too!) or "Hah! You don't have experience with version x.y.0001(!) of that product, so we'll look for someone who does." I think the comment was responding to one about "arcane and little- understood" responsibilities, and *that* I wholeheartedly agree with. If upper-management has a clear understanding of network/data security and its importance, it's likely to be because they've had recent (bad) experience in this area. A company whose security has been doing a good job is IMHO less likely to be cognizant of the need. David Gillett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 20:32:56 PDT