Every time I've done this comparison, the Mac was about %10 cheaper, and usually still had extra stuff.
You still claim this even after I easily proved you wrong? Please explain to me how Apple can charge twice as much as the Dell with the Dell having 2.25x the clockspeed, and yet your Macs are "10% cheaper".
And by the way, a Mac is only 20% faster clock-for-clock, on the average, according to deep tests that I've seen (sometimes the Mac is faster, and sometimes the PC is faster).
I don't know why I waste my time trying to clue Mac people in when I know it won't do any good, but...
The cloners refuesed to negotiate a replacement licensing scheme.
You mean they refused to accept Apple's draconian licensing demands. Do you think they all WANTED to go bankrupt? They just went bankrupt just to spite Apple? And isn't it funny how there isn't anyone else "more reasonable" stepping up to make more clone Macs.
By the way, I've never seen a comparison of a Mac and a PC where the PC is faster and costs significantly less money.
Now you have. 800 Mhz G4 = $1600 (no monitor, 256 MB memory). 1.8 Ghz P4 Dell 4500S (128 MB memory WITH MONITOR) = $749.
And that's with 2 minutes worth of research. Even if the Mac might have some extras, it doesn't have $850 worth of extras.
I do see a lot of PC weenies running around claiming "Why pay $2,000 for a Mac when you can get an XBox for $200???" Or the equivilent.
You Mac people are laughable. You do realize that the XBox doesn't run general purpose applications, right? Show me the quote where someone says that an XBox can replace a Mac.
And by the way, how do reconcile your love of Apple with their bald faced lying: I quote, "The result? The dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 is an astonishing 68 percent faster than the fastest PC on the market with a 2.2GHz Pentium 4 processor."
Apple is absolutely shameless! You'll note that they only use Photoshop benchmarks. Some call that misleading advertising. I call it baldfaced lying to the public, because they are implying that everything is that fast.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons I despise Apple as a company.
You just clearly explained what is fundamentally wrong with capitalism today : it is all about the stakeholders, the employees who produce the actual goods have no control over a company and mostly never see the benefits of their work.
Uh, no. You have clearly identified what is RIGHT with Capitalism -- that people are paid based on their intrinsic worth and replaceability.
The most valuable people are NOT the people who produce the actual goods, because those are the most replaceable people. The most valuable people in society are the organizers. Or to put it another way, a bunch of disorganized "producers" running around are not going to get much accomplished. But when someone organizes the labor, then great things can be accomplished.
If I had my way, economics education would be a required subject every year from Kindergarten.
My issue is that ZD is not operating at a loss, but they still plan on putting 700 people out of work, and discontinuing publications that have readership.
To be honest, I'm somewhat astounded at your post. You start off with a set of facts, and then go off the deep end with your conclusion contradicting your facts!
Their not cutting profitable parts of their company, they're cutting the unprofitable parts. Do you really think that they should continue paying 700 employees that are losing money for them?
Now, if you want to make the argument that somehow they should give these losing parts of the company more time to become profitable, that's a different argument, and I (or probably you) don't have enough facts to render a judgment on that.
Once again I have to say: Employees are not 'owed' employment.
they didn't try to become independant, they just tried to get as much money and market share from apple as they could.
This is just nonsense. If this was true, Apple could have just cut them off from whatever subsidies may have existed. It was NOT required to cancel their licensing.
The hardware is slower, less reliable and more expensive.
Sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world. Faster? Yes, a PPC is faster clock-for-clock--by about 20% on the average. The fastest PC KILLS a Macintosh nowadays for FAR less money.
Reliability is about the same, considering everyone uses pretty much the same components. The difference is that Apple charges way more.
But the thing you leave out is hardware choices. I will NEVER EVER buy hardware from a single supplier. Never. And that means I will never buy from Apple, because I don't want to be locked into Steve's little monopoly.
And yes, a software monopoly is a different thing. It's much less expensive switching your software than having to heave all your Apple hardware into the trash can to switch.
Conversely, competing against Microsoft on their home turf didn't work out too well for BeOS or OS/2.
Microsoft had nothing to do with BeOS and OS/2 dying. BeOS and OS/2 died because of a lack of software. An operating system is useless without applications. Apple is in the position of having a reasonable software base, although not as large as Microsoft of course./p
Apple makes money selling hardware, not operating systems. Enabling people to run OS X on hardware not made by Apple will bankrupt Apple.
Not this old lie again. That's FUD straight from Steve Jobs, who used this as an excuse to kill the clone Macintoshes, and all the Mac fans lapped it up.
Being a pure software company hasn't hurt Microsoft, has it?
The fact is, a software company is HUGELY more profitable than a hardware company. Apple would make money hand over fist if they offered OS/X on the PC.
Why don't they do it, then?
Arrogance, ego and ego, pure and simple. They don't want the "pureness" of OS/X running on icky PC hardware. Steve isn't interested in software all that much; he is interested in making cute little boutique computers that he has an iron-fisted control over. He likes having a monopoly on his customers. To Steve, it doesn't matter if you would have MORE customers, he wants the ones he has locked in and worshipping Apple.
Happens all the time in the world. ESR doesn't have the authority, but users of the language do.
Exactly the point. A dictionary should reflect the language usage, not attempt to mold it. That's why I find ESR's attempt to change the meaning so offensive. He's corrupting the very purpose of a dictionary.
Fine, give me a reference that shows that the usage of hacker was NEVER breaking into computer systems back in the 70s. I gave you a reference that shows that it was (which is why it's in the Jargon File).
And by the way, I've used it in that meaning since the early 1980s. Hey, maybe it was invented right then! Maybe I invented it!
But if you have something other than a unilateral declaration, go for it.
How many times have people here wailed at the non-tech press for using the word "hack" to describe what most would technically term a "crack"?
Sorry, but the press is right and all of you are wrong. From the Jargon File, sense 8:
[deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.
The problem with this is that the user of "hacker" as someone who breaks into computer systems WAS one of the original uses of the word. I don't recognize ESR's authority to "deprecate" the meaning of the word for his or anyone else's little ego reasons.
That's one of the word's original computer uses. Get over it.
Reportedly the website, on initial log-in, would show applicants either a congratulatory fireworks display or a rejection notice.
Fireworks? What's their rejection notice, then? Top rejection notice graphics:
-- Picture of Nelson saying "HA! HA!" -- Picture of MacDonald's and link to "Hamburger University" -- Picture of funeral with the casket labelled "your future" slowly being lowered into ground -- The Dell guy saying, "Dude, you're goin' to Community College!"
there are 3000 something jobs for java on monster.com. I've tried applying to roughly 300 of these jobs,
This makes me wonder if anyone actually gets a job through monster.com. Look at you... 300 applications? It's been made so easy to apply to jobs that they must get flooded with crap. I mean, what is going to differentiate you from the other people applying to 300 jobs?
I'm not saying we don't PAY the $1000. It's worth it considering that Versign is compatible with every browser version. But that doesn't make it less of a rip-off.
and done the exact same thing to EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON I KNOW OR HAVE EVER WORKED WITH.
Sorry, but you just don't sound credible. You sound like a prima donna who walks around with a chip on her shoulder.
I have seen people with five years of seniority FIRED because they disagreed passionately about a "flippant" management decision.
And I've seen people fired because they can't get over themselves and the fact that a decision has been made contrary to what they want. And then they cry like little babies, and are finally fired because of a constant pattern of not being able to handle not always getting their own way.
Just because you're arrogant doesn't make you always right.
I know one person in particular who was labeled a "troublemaker" because they offered a dissenting opinion in front of senior managment during a "standards process" presentation.
And once again, you just don't seem credible on this. I have a feeling that there is a LOT more to the story and this person's historical pattern of behavior.
I'm not "judging" anyone.
Oh please, spare me the politically correct "I never judge anyone" nonsense. Unless you always hire whoever is in front of you, you are making a judgement.
I'm making a *decision* as to whether they can do the work and if they are motivated.
Right, a 10 minute decision. Let me turn this around -- if you went for an interview, and some guy talks to you for 10 minutes, and then says "Sorry, your resume is fine, but based on this interview I just don't get the feeling you can handle this job" (assuming he was a rude SOB), are you going to feel that you got a fair interview?
I think you're being a little over critical of the wording. We can debate the exact meaning of "upgrade" or what word might be better, but the overall point is whether this e-mail can be misinterpreted as a renewal notice from your current certificate provider. And I don't think there is any chance of that.
In fact, that's not even the overall question. The pertinent question is whether there is any deliberate attempt at deception, and I think that's even harder to make the claim. If they are trying to deceive people, then it's pretty damn piss-poor job of it.
So every candidate is lying and really isn't qualified, right? They're all slick con-artists who don't know anything. The degree and the years of experience? All skate-through half-baked lies, right?
If you actually had any experience with a testing process, and hiring a lot of people, you would know that YES YES YES the majority of people skate through half-baked lies. I couldn't have put it better myself.
I'm sure they would think I have an attitude problem, mainly because I probably wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time. No, I know I wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time.
I just have to laugh at this. Don't think that JUST MAYBE if you are disagreeing with someone 100% of the time, then you have severe problems with authority? That you don't really have any opinions of your own; you only have opinions contrary to whomever you interpret as an authority figure?
Modern business has no tolerance for any contrary views, no tolerance for discussion and debate, and no tolerance for real, responsible decision making from management.
Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That whole rant is so divorced from reality, I doubt that you have very much experience in the real world. This is so caricatured it's kind of nutty.
Yes, it's got to be flippant. That must be it.
If you are judging someone in 10 minutes, then by definition it's a flippant decision.
Don't you think that calling their offering a RENEWAL is deceptive?
Let's review the wording:
"Did you know that your current SSL Certificate protecting [customer domain] will
expire in only 60 days?
"Before you renew please read the following important information from Comodo.
"We offer SSL certificates that provide;"
Note the "BEFORE you renew". Note the "We offer". Note that a list of services follows this, along with pricing. Please explain how this can be interpreted as a renewal notice coming from your certificate authority.
As for the "upgrade", I certainly would consider it an upgrade of service to pay only $49 rather than the rip-off $1000 that Verisign charges.
That's probably for the best, because you would just be more wrong. Verisign was sending out deceptive notices. There is NOTHING deceptive about this. It's just a simple advertisement.
While I don't condone the spam advertising methods here, this is NOT comparable to Versign's shady practices. Verisign was sending out notices that tried to make people believe they were renewing their domains, but were actually switching providers.
There is no deception here. It's a simple advertisement asking you to switch.
It took me all of 10 minutes to determine whether someone was qualified [...] Just hiring good *people* solves all the other problems, and saves a ton of time in the process.
Well, I congratulate you on your psychic abilities to figure out someone's intelligence in 10 minutes.
This is just absurd. If you actually hired someone very valuable off the street this way, then you either 1) got lucky, 2) trusted the resume (and got lucky), or 3) have pretty low standards.
Why do you think I administer a test of someone's thinking ability, rather than just quiz them on their "qualifications" for 10 minutes and then roll the dice? The whole point of the testing process is to see if someone is capable of solving problems, not just quoting qualifications at me. If someone can think, then chances are they can learn to do the job.
and they most certainly aren't going to listen to anyone's advice, because they are *so* much smarter than everyone else.
Sorry, but if you're flippantly judging people in 10 minutes, you're not impressing me with your intelligent hiring process. Maybe your managers really are smarter than you, and you just have an attitude problem.
Actually, that question I always put on the end of the test as a "bonus question that doesn't count" just to see how they're doing under pressure.:)
My first question would be "why don't we just hire the bright people and get back to work?"
Have you ever actually hired anyone before? When you put a job ad in the paper (depending on the job market, of course) you get about 100 resumes. Of that, you have to pair it down to 5-10 applicants to call in. Generally speaking, the people who are the best bullshitters are the worst employees, so you need to have SOME sort of system to filter those out. Just having a conversation is the worst way to do it -- you introduce your own biases into the interview process, and hire based on whether you like them or not.
If only it was as easy as "hire the bright people". That's what the test is supposed to figure out. Who is bright and who isn't. The trick of course is giving good questions that don't require you know the "gotcha" to get right.
Slashdot Mirror
and Kramnik(the current world chess champion).
Unless you know something I don't, the match between Kramnik and Fritz isn't until this October.
Every time I've done this comparison, the Mac was about %10 cheaper, and usually still had extra stuff.
You still claim this even after I easily proved you wrong? Please explain to me how Apple can charge twice as much as the Dell with the Dell having 2.25x the clockspeed, and yet your Macs are "10% cheaper".
And by the way, a Mac is only 20% faster clock-for-clock, on the average, according to deep tests that I've seen (sometimes the Mac is faster, and sometimes the PC is faster).
I don't know why I waste my time trying to clue Mac people in when I know it won't do any good, but ...
The cloners refuesed to negotiate a replacement licensing scheme.
You mean they refused to accept Apple's draconian licensing demands. Do you think they all WANTED to go bankrupt? They just went bankrupt just to spite Apple? And isn't it funny how there isn't anyone else "more reasonable" stepping up to make more clone Macs.
By the way, I've never seen a comparison of a Mac and a PC where the PC is faster and costs significantly less money.
Now you have. 800 Mhz G4 = $1600 (no monitor, 256 MB memory). 1.8 Ghz P4 Dell 4500S (128 MB memory WITH MONITOR) = $749.
And that's with 2 minutes worth of research. Even if the Mac might have some extras, it doesn't have $850 worth of extras.
I do see a lot of PC weenies running around claiming "Why pay $2,000 for a Mac when you can get an XBox for $200???" Or the equivilent.
You Mac people are laughable. You do realize that the XBox doesn't run general purpose applications, right? Show me the quote where someone says that an XBox can replace a Mac.
And by the way, how do reconcile your love of Apple with their bald faced lying: I quote, "The result? The dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 is an astonishing 68 percent faster than the fastest PC on the market with a 2.2GHz Pentium 4 processor."
Apple is absolutely shameless! You'll note that they only use Photoshop benchmarks. Some call that misleading advertising. I call it baldfaced lying to the public, because they are implying that everything is that fast.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons I despise Apple as a company.
You just clearly explained what is fundamentally wrong with capitalism today : it is all about the stakeholders, the employees who produce the actual goods have no control over a company and mostly never see the benefits of their work.
Uh, no. You have clearly identified what is RIGHT with Capitalism -- that people are paid based on their intrinsic worth and replaceability.
The most valuable people are NOT the people who produce the actual goods, because those are the most replaceable people. The most valuable people in society are the organizers. Or to put it another way, a bunch of disorganized "producers" running around are not going to get much accomplished. But when someone organizes the labor, then great things can be accomplished.
If I had my way, economics education would be a required subject every year from Kindergarten.
My issue is that ZD is not operating at a loss, but they still plan on putting 700 people out of work, and discontinuing publications that have readership.
To be honest, I'm somewhat astounded at your post. You start off with a set of facts, and then go off the deep end with your conclusion contradicting your facts!
Their not cutting profitable parts of their company, they're cutting the unprofitable parts. Do you really think that they should continue paying 700 employees that are losing money for them?
Now, if you want to make the argument that somehow they should give these losing parts of the company more time to become profitable, that's a different argument, and I (or probably you) don't have enough facts to render a judgment on that.
Once again I have to say: Employees are not 'owed' employment.
they didn't try to become independant, they just tried to get as much money and market share from apple as they could.
This is just nonsense. If this was true, Apple could have just cut them off from whatever subsidies may have existed. It was NOT required to cancel their licensing.
The hardware is slower, less reliable and more expensive.
Sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world. Faster? Yes, a PPC is faster clock-for-clock--by about 20% on the average. The fastest PC KILLS a Macintosh nowadays for FAR less money.
Reliability is about the same, considering everyone uses pretty much the same components. The difference is that Apple charges way more.
But the thing you leave out is hardware choices. I will NEVER EVER buy hardware from a single supplier. Never. And that means I will never buy from Apple, because I don't want to be locked into Steve's little monopoly.
And yes, a software monopoly is a different thing. It's much less expensive switching your software than having to heave all your Apple hardware into the trash can to switch.
Conversely, competing against Microsoft on their home turf didn't work out too well for BeOS or OS/2.
Microsoft had nothing to do with BeOS and OS/2 dying. BeOS and OS/2 died because of a lack of software. An operating system is useless without applications. Apple is in the position of having a reasonable software base, although not as large as Microsoft of course./p
Apple makes money selling hardware, not operating systems. Enabling people to run OS X on hardware not made by Apple will bankrupt Apple.
Not this old lie again. That's FUD straight from Steve Jobs, who used this as an excuse to kill the clone Macintoshes, and all the Mac fans lapped it up.
Being a pure software company hasn't hurt Microsoft, has it?
The fact is, a software company is HUGELY more profitable than a hardware company. Apple would make money hand over fist if they offered OS/X on the PC.
Why don't they do it, then?
Arrogance, ego and ego, pure and simple. They don't want the "pureness" of OS/X running on icky PC hardware. Steve isn't interested in software all that much; he is interested in making cute little boutique computers that he has an iron-fisted control over. He likes having a monopoly on his customers. To Steve, it doesn't matter if you would have MORE customers, he wants the ones he has locked in and worshipping Apple.
Happens all the time in the world. ESR doesn't have the authority, but users of the language do.
Exactly the point. A dictionary should reflect the language usage, not attempt to mold it. That's why I find ESR's attempt to change the meaning so offensive. He's corrupting the very purpose of a dictionary.
Fine, give me a reference that shows that the usage of hacker was NEVER breaking into computer systems back in the 70s. I gave you a reference that shows that it was (which is why it's in the Jargon File).
And by the way, I've used it in that meaning since the early 1980s. Hey, maybe it was invented right then! Maybe I invented it!
But if you have something other than a unilateral declaration, go for it.
How many times have people here wailed at the non-tech press for using the word "hack" to describe what most would technically term a "crack"?
Sorry, but the press is right and all of you are wrong. From the Jargon File, sense 8:
The problem with this is that the user of "hacker" as someone who breaks into computer systems WAS one of the original uses of the word. I don't recognize ESR's authority to "deprecate" the meaning of the word for his or anyone else's little ego reasons.
That's one of the word's original computer uses. Get over it.
By the way, just in case anyone thought I was kidding, there really is a Hamburger University. :)
Reportedly the website, on initial log-in, would show applicants either a congratulatory fireworks display or a rejection notice.
Fireworks? What's their rejection notice, then? Top rejection notice graphics:
-- Picture of Nelson saying "HA! HA!"
-- Picture of MacDonald's and link to "Hamburger University"
-- Picture of funeral with the casket labelled "your future" slowly being lowered into ground
-- The Dell guy saying, "Dude, you're goin' to Community College!"
there are 3000 something jobs for java on monster.com. I've tried applying to roughly 300 of these jobs,
This makes me wonder if anyone actually gets a job through monster.com. Look at you... 300 applications? It's been made so easy to apply to jobs that they must get flooded with crap. I mean, what is going to differentiate you from the other people applying to 300 jobs?
I'm not saying we don't PAY the $1000. It's worth it considering that Versign is compatible with every browser version. But that doesn't make it less of a rip-off.
So what? There are only two questions:
Is there any possibility of misinterpreting this e-mail? The answer is no.
Is there any evidence for deception here? The answer is no.
and done the exact same thing to EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON I KNOW OR HAVE EVER WORKED WITH.
Sorry, but you just don't sound credible. You sound like a prima donna who walks around with a chip on her shoulder.
I have seen people with five years of seniority FIRED because they disagreed passionately about a "flippant" management decision.
And I've seen people fired because they can't get over themselves and the fact that a decision has been made contrary to what they want. And then they cry like little babies, and are finally fired because of a constant pattern of not being able to handle not always getting their own way.
Just because you're arrogant doesn't make you always right.
I know one person in particular who was labeled a "troublemaker" because they offered a dissenting opinion in front of senior managment during a "standards process" presentation.
And once again, you just don't seem credible on this. I have a feeling that there is a LOT more to the story and this person's historical pattern of behavior.
I'm not "judging" anyone.
Oh please, spare me the politically correct "I never judge anyone" nonsense. Unless you always hire whoever is in front of you, you are making a judgement.
I'm making a *decision* as to whether they can do the work and if they are motivated.
Right, a 10 minute decision. Let me turn this around -- if you went for an interview, and some guy talks to you for 10 minutes, and then says "Sorry, your resume is fine, but based on this interview I just don't get the feeling you can handle this job" (assuming he was a rude SOB), are you going to feel that you got a fair interview?
I think you're being a little over critical of the wording. We can debate the exact meaning of "upgrade" or what word might be better, but the overall point is whether this e-mail can be misinterpreted as a renewal notice from your current certificate provider. And I don't think there is any chance of that.
In fact, that's not even the overall question. The pertinent question is whether there is any deliberate attempt at deception, and I think that's even harder to make the claim. If they are trying to deceive people, then it's pretty damn piss-poor job of it.
So every candidate is lying and really isn't qualified, right? They're all slick con-artists who don't know anything. The degree and the years of experience? All skate-through half-baked lies, right?
If you actually had any experience with a testing process, and hiring a lot of people, you would know that YES YES YES the majority of people skate through half-baked lies. I couldn't have put it better myself.
I'm sure they would think I have an attitude problem, mainly because I probably wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time. No, I know I wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time.
I just have to laugh at this. Don't think that JUST MAYBE if you are disagreeing with someone 100% of the time, then you have severe problems with authority? That you don't really have any opinions of your own; you only have opinions contrary to whomever you interpret as an authority figure?
Modern business has no tolerance for any contrary views, no tolerance for discussion and debate, and no tolerance for real, responsible decision making from management.
Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That whole rant is so divorced from reality, I doubt that you have very much experience in the real world. This is so caricatured it's kind of nutty.
Yes, it's got to be flippant. That must be it.
If you are judging someone in 10 minutes, then by definition it's a flippant decision.
Sure it's Cert slamming. There's no doubt about that.
Did you actually read the letter? Please quote me the passages that could be misinterpreted as anything other than an advertisement.
Don't you think that calling their offering a RENEWAL is deceptive?
Let's review the wording:
"Did you know that your current SSL Certificate protecting [customer domain] will expire in only 60 days? "Before you renew please read the following important information from Comodo. "We offer SSL certificates that provide;"
Note the "BEFORE you renew". Note the "We offer". Note that a list of services follows this, along with pricing. Please explain how this can be interpreted as a renewal notice coming from your certificate authority.
As for the "upgrade", I certainly would consider it an upgrade of service to pay only $49 rather than the rip-off $1000 that Verisign charges.
I'll refrain from snide comments.
That's probably for the best, because you would just be more wrong. Verisign was sending out deceptive notices. There is NOTHING deceptive about this. It's just a simple advertisement.
While I don't condone the spam advertising methods here, this is NOT comparable to Versign's shady practices. Verisign was sending out notices that tried to make people believe they were renewing their domains, but were actually switching providers.
There is no deception here. It's a simple advertisement asking you to switch.
Nothing to see here.
It took me all of 10 minutes to determine whether someone was qualified [...] Just hiring good *people* solves all the other problems, and saves a ton of time in the process.
Well, I congratulate you on your psychic abilities to figure out someone's intelligence in 10 minutes.
This is just absurd. If you actually hired someone very valuable off the street this way, then you either 1) got lucky, 2) trusted the resume (and got lucky), or 3) have pretty low standards.
Why do you think I administer a test of someone's thinking ability, rather than just quiz them on their "qualifications" for 10 minutes and then roll the dice? The whole point of the testing process is to see if someone is capable of solving problems, not just quoting qualifications at me. If someone can think, then chances are they can learn to do the job.
and they most certainly aren't going to listen to anyone's advice, because they are *so* much smarter than everyone else.
Sorry, but if you're flippantly judging people in 10 minutes, you're not impressing me with your intelligent hiring process. Maybe your managers really are smarter than you, and you just have an attitude problem.
Actually, that question I always put on the end of the test as a "bonus question that doesn't count" just to see how they're doing under pressure. :)
My first question would be "why don't we just hire the bright people and get back to work?"
Have you ever actually hired anyone before? When you put a job ad in the paper (depending on the job market, of course) you get about 100 resumes. Of that, you have to pair it down to 5-10 applicants to call in. Generally speaking, the people who are the best bullshitters are the worst employees, so you need to have SOME sort of system to filter those out. Just having a conversation is the worst way to do it -- you introduce your own biases into the interview process, and hire based on whether you like them or not.
If only it was as easy as "hire the bright people". That's what the test is supposed to figure out. Who is bright and who isn't. The trick of course is giving good questions that don't require you know the "gotcha" to get right.