To play devil's advocate: ubiquitous surveillance as in the examples you bring up would not come with unlimited resources to follow up. The very existence of this capability will force the authorities to focus their efforts on people who actually might be a threat. You know, like people who are actually on terrorism watch lists.
Selection bias renders your question unanswerable in the general case, but in the specific case of someone with 5 years+degree versus 10 years+no degree, I don't believe you will be able to back up your assertion.
Given the statistics, are you saying that most high tech companies have incorrect hiring practices?
You haven't given any statistics, so this question is unanswerable in context. Companies hire based on the candidates available. In certain fields, virtually all of those candidates will have degrees. That's all that can be stated with any certainty.
Do all the bean counters who measure productivity not have any influence in who gets hired? OR do employees with both education and experience outperform those with experience only?
These questions are also too general to be answerable. I would, however, note that some of the larger employers including Dell, Apple, and Microsoft have no moral authority to reject undegreed candidates blindly. Perhaps that's why they don't.
Once you start making longer term bets on people and caring about long term results, you might find that with 1 or 2 years of experience, those graduates outperform the un-educated.
Not really. Setting aside the fact that "unschooled" and "uneducated" are not synonyms, the thing about your experience is that its value will grow over time, or at least it should if you're doing things right. Meanwhile, the value of your college education will diminish as it recedes into the past.
Put another way: with each year that passes in your career, employers will care less about your college days and more about what you've been doing since then.
There will always be work for those who can write well. Trouble is, someone with a Ph.D. in literature has spent his or her time learning to read well. Employment prospects in that field are a bit less certain.
No, the terrorists didn't win. We both lost. We lost as you noted above. The terrorists wanted the US out of the Middle East and instead got us even more involved.
Not quite. Among other things, what bin Laden primarily demanded was that the US leave Saudi Arabia.
His demands were met, as the US hastily closed its Saudi bases after 9/11 and moved into Iraq.
Since Iraq was a secular state with no Muslim holy sites of any significance, Al Qaeda never gave a hoot about it. It was only in the aftermath of the US invasion, when it became apparent that the secular nature of the country was up for grabs, that Al Qaeda became involved.
No. What will happen is that making an ass out of yourself will be the new "normal." It will be impossible to hold anyone's previous actions against them.
This is probably enough to explain the Fermi paradox, just by itself.
Remember Psy's Anti-American songs? That is just the tip of the iceberg for most South Koreans.
I don't know about that. There was no shortage of anti-American music coming out of Germany in the 1980s, yet there was never any danger that the East and West Germans were going to gang up on us after the wall came down.
News flash: Young people like angsty, subversive music. Ric Romero has more at 11.
Those troops could be withdrawn after the NK question is resolved, regardless of who ends up owning the real estate.
I could see a deal being struck between the US and China in which the US agrees to a withdrawal from the peninsula in exchange for providing any military support needed at the DMZ during a Chinese takeover.
Mexican standoffs are bad for business, and both China and the US are all about business, political rhetoric notwithstanding.
I didn't get nervous until I re-read the summary and noticed that the Russians seem to have categorized their genetics research program under Nuclear Physics.
I think the vast majority of sane people realize that it's normal for world/societal views to change after major events. It's a strange view to take that things should just be a shrug of the shoulders and a 'business as usual' attitude... but that may explain some things in itself.
Go back to the 9/11 example. How much better off would the US -- to say nothing of the rest of the world -- be, if we'd just shrugged off the 9/11 attacks as unique criminal acts by deranged cultists, rather than a military event that called for multi-trillion-dollar wars?
Slashdot Mirror
Adding programmers to a late development project makes it later.
Adding writers to a late screenwriting project makes it worse.
Those are the closest things to genuine axioms in either field of endeavor.
To play devil's advocate: ubiquitous surveillance as in the examples you bring up would not come with unlimited resources to follow up. The very existence of this capability will force the authorities to focus their efforts on people who actually might be a threat. You know, like people who are actually on terrorism watch lists.
That assembler I did in the 80s is no use to me at all now.
If you're not a different, stronger programmer for having written it, then you must have been wasting your time.
Selection bias renders your question unanswerable in the general case, but in the specific case of someone with 5 years+degree versus 10 years+no degree, I don't believe you will be able to back up your assertion.
Given the statistics, are you saying that most high tech companies have incorrect hiring practices?
You haven't given any statistics, so this question is unanswerable in context. Companies hire based on the candidates available. In certain fields, virtually all of those candidates will have degrees. That's all that can be stated with any certainty.
Do all the bean counters who measure productivity not have any influence in who gets hired? OR do employees with both education and experience outperform those with experience only?
These questions are also too general to be answerable. I would, however, note that some of the larger employers including Dell, Apple, and Microsoft have no moral authority to reject undegreed candidates blindly. Perhaps that's why they don't.
Once you start making longer term bets on people and caring about long term results, you might find that with 1 or 2 years of experience, those graduates outperform the un-educated.
Not really. Setting aside the fact that "unschooled" and "uneducated" are not synonyms, the thing about your experience is that its value will grow over time, or at least it should if you're doing things right. Meanwhile, the value of your college education will diminish as it recedes into the past.
Put another way: with each year that passes in your career, employers will care less about your college days and more about what you've been doing since then.
But we were told there would be no... aw, fuckit. Did you say you wanted 2% or whole milk in that triple latte?
And it's the least of that paragraph's problems.
There will always be work for those who can write well. Trouble is, someone with a Ph.D. in literature has spent his or her time learning to read well. Employment prospects in that field are a bit less certain.
They are not going to spend 5 grand to catch a $50 drug deal.
(Shrug) It's not their 5 grand. So why shouldn't they?
That's the whole idea behind the War on Some Drugs.
No, the terrorists didn't win. We both lost. We lost as you noted above. The terrorists wanted the US out of the Middle East and instead got us even more involved.
Not quite. Among other things, what bin Laden primarily demanded was that the US leave Saudi Arabia.
His demands were met, as the US hastily closed its Saudi bases after 9/11 and moved into Iraq.
Since Iraq was a secular state with no Muslim holy sites of any significance, Al Qaeda never gave a hoot about it. It was only in the aftermath of the US invasion, when it became apparent that the secular nature of the country was up for grabs, that Al Qaeda became involved.
An even shorter answer is to stop awarding people exclusive government-enforced monopolies on abstract ideas.
No. What will happen is that making an ass out of yourself will be the new "normal." It will be impossible to hold anyone's previous actions against them.
This is probably enough to explain the Fermi paradox, just by itself.
Exactly. It's not about being able to arrest everybody. They can't arrest everybody, and they don't want to arrest everybody.
It's about being able to arrest anybody.
I'm sure glad I don't get all the 'benefits' I pay for.
Why should I risk personal harm in defending my rights, when the government exists to defend them?
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because you'd like to be able to face yourself in the mirror when you get up in the morning?
That's a good one.
At the time, I believe Communist party membership was illegal, at least in some sense of the word. I'm not sure when or if that ever changed.
I guess we have more "freedom" in this country than we can handle.
It's acceptable because it's not Bush who's doing it.
What he just stated is the entire moral basis for copyright law.
Copyright law was never supposed to govern end use. That's something some people who were powerful but not very smart made up very recently.
Remember Psy's Anti-American songs? That is just the tip of the iceberg for most South Koreans.
I don't know about that. There was no shortage of anti-American music coming out of Germany in the 1980s, yet there was never any danger that the East and West Germans were going to gang up on us after the wall came down.
News flash: Young people like angsty, subversive music. Ric Romero has more at 11.
Well, it certainly sounds like their plan to add LSD to your municipal water supply worked well.
Those troops could be withdrawn after the NK question is resolved, regardless of who ends up owning the real estate.
I could see a deal being struck between the US and China in which the US agrees to a withdrawal from the peninsula in exchange for providing any military support needed at the DMZ during a Chinese takeover.
Mexican standoffs are bad for business, and both China and the US are all about business, political rhetoric notwithstanding.
I didn't get nervous until I re-read the summary and noticed that the Russians seem to have categorized their genetics research program under Nuclear Physics.
How is it a bunch of crap?
Gee, if only there were a way shareholders could take executive compensation into account when they buy and sell shares.
I think the vast majority of sane people realize that it's normal for world/societal views to change after major events. It's a strange view to take that things should just be a shrug of the shoulders and a 'business as usual' attitude... but that may explain some things in itself.
Go back to the 9/11 example. How much better off would the US -- to say nothing of the rest of the world -- be, if we'd just shrugged off the 9/11 attacks as unique criminal acts by deranged cultists, rather than a military event that called for multi-trillion-dollar wars?