sure, but the average hacker is smart enough to do most jobs, including ones they aren't technically qualified for. It has been my experience that most of the skills vital to any particular job will be learned on-site anyway. Experience is just shorthand for "are you basically competent?".
True to a point and possibly for the majority of jobs, provided that you aren't trying to bill yourself as a consultant (expert in whatever technology). I'm also assuming that the "average hacker" implies that you are eliminating everyone who claims to be one, but is not even close from the list of hackers, in order to greatly improve the average. (The average "successful" hacker.)
Now, even with the higher standard, the learning curve depends greatly on the complexity of the system and how much of a learning curve is permitted by the employer. If you are trying to work with a full J2EE system, and you haven't done it before, expect a steep 2-3 month learning curve, even if you are proficient in java. If they need someone to be productive within that first week, the average hacker won't be able to make it.
There is just too much complexity and too many libraries to memorize in less time then that. I spent a good month or two learning the EJB 2.2 frameworks, Servlets, JSPs, javascript, etc at my last job. This job had a very steep 1 month learning curve with a modern Seam, Richfaces, JSF environment. I'd add on another month or two for anyone that doesn't already understand the core of the j2EE/web application stack. This small team has had people that haven't been able to pull it off.
Now for the extreme example, my father has worked developing the base station for a satellite telephone system. He's commented on how half of the people brought in to help him got lost in the complexity and provided next to no additional productivity.
I've also dabbled in pharmaceutical automation and in the telecommunication networks. Very steep learning curves in regulations and the complexities associated in both fields.
In summary, competence often requires a lot more then just raw coding ability. Very few people can slide into a job under the radar and properly complete very hard problems where they don't have the expected domain knowledge.
*Reviewing this, it's not really a direct response to what was said in the above thread. I was reading into the response too much.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, and can see frustrations rising out of a situation like that (guy is obviously winging it poorly).
but what I said was in the context of working at a job you're overqualified for. what i'm implying is that hackers can perform most non-hacking tasks fairly easily. a minor bookkeeping position because you can't find a decent coding job? I'd assume anyone proficient with basic database manipulation could do it.
I agree with the basic idea, but the reality is more complicated.
Hiring someone has a lot of tangential factors that will come into play. Most hackers have a personality that tends to be strongly focused at the task at hand, often at the expense of paying attention to others things around them. This means that while they might be technically capable of functioning as an office assistant, it will be a very poor use of their skill set and others are likely to be able to do a better job with it, as they enjoy using the skill set required for the job. If the sole responsibility of the role is a tour guide, or PR individual, then there is a good chance that they are the hacker is the wrong individual for the job. On the same note, if there is a lot of repetitive work that requires an intense focus and can't be automated, quite often the hacker personalities may lose interest.
Just because one is qualified to do the job does not mean that you'll be meeting the companies unspecified needs. If you aren't agreeing to work for X amount of time, the company may lose out solely because the costs of hiring and replacing you are greater then the benefits you'll provide.
In summary, there are occasions where HR is required and does it well. Just because most companies err too far in one direction does not mean that there aren't legitimate reasons hiding in the original guidelines that will need to be addressed. For a specific instance, I have friend who is looking to go into coding from QA. We had a QA opening at my current employer, but the desire to leave QA means after X amount of time means that my friend was not the right candidate for that job.
