The article on page 41, for the ComputerWorld magazine (the May 14, 2001) issue discusses this. It pretty much says (with quotes from HR managers and CIO's) that a techie with a dual-degree (B.S. in CS and MBA) would easily garner much more respect and hiring preference for two reasons 1) dedication to gaining personal knowledge and skills and 2) being able to think outside the box (the box being applicable to standard techie thought and the MBA thought)
i wonder what you'd get if you took all the linux kernel source code and (painstakingly, i admit - it would be a long process) pieced it all together after running it through c2eng.
One could just as easily change the following quote,
"You have the More Efficient Calculator, and you Know How To Use It. Freaking great. It's a damn calculator. Get over yourselves. " into -
"You have the More Efficient Operating System, and you Know How To Use It. Freaking great. It's a damn calculator. Get over yourselves. "
by looking at/. posts, it's easily seen that the 2nd quote is quite applicable for most linux users. who feel no worries about slandering the rest of the OS world because of their supposed superiority about using linux. now i admit, there is a difference btween an OS and a mathematical notation, but still....the concept is there.
it's just one of those things that someone possibly doesn't understand until they've been there (i.e., used Linux, done math with RPN). and even then, the ego thing might not make sense.
just a comment.
Perhaps the reason that there has been no relevant use of newer technology is a prior decision to ignore those potential voters who partake in such technology. The two-party system in America has morphed into one corporative institute that cares not for drawing new, younger voters. Rather, they believe that innovation would invite change to their stronghold on the voting American public.
Due to the lack of young voter participation in recent elections, there probably is a feeling among life-time Washington politicians to plain ignore the young vote. It has happened before, in the 1972 Presidential elections. McGovern (the Democratic candidate) was running against incumbent Richard Nixon. The Nixon faction ignored the youth vote, while McGovern realized the sheer numbers of younger voters, and attempted to utilize their numbers. Unfortunately (in my opinion), there was a lack of coordination and communication which led to a victory for Nixon.
Now, the Republicans and Democrats have both decided to ignore the large number of younger voters, for pretty much the same reason as Nixon did. The young voters had not voted before, so why should money be spent attracting them to the polls, especially when they might not vote for the "correct party"? Thus, both Republicans and Democratic campaigns have decided to ignore the youth vote to save money that could be spent pushing food and fundraisers on the corporations who fund lobbyists in Washington, and to keep potential "wrong voters" out of the polls. Ignorance of the election is an advantage for the main parties, as that will keep people out of the polls who would think for themselves.
Now, I am NOT saying that everyone who votes in an election for Republican/Democratic parties is not thinking for themselves, but there are a large number of voters who have always voted along party lines and would never think of changing. But, there are other candidates. Ralph Nader, for instance, of the Green Party (you saw it coming, didn't you?) is a candidate who believes in a change of the political system, much in the same way as the article above describes. Their site (http://www.votenader.com) opens the door to online participation in issues, supporting a campaign, and sending in those questions which a voter feels important.
The two-party system has decided to play a safe campaign, as the end result will be the same between the two parties. Neither one is especially conservate or liberal, both are pretty much controlled by the same corporations, and will lost not a whole lot if a particular side loses. That is why voter awareness is so important. There are a number of options (the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc) which are viable groups of citizens who care about changing this sordid, stagnant political system.
It is possible to raise the bar for political awareness of the large numbers of voters who have never been noticed before and won't become noticed until we/they educate ourselves. There is the opportunity for a change of the two party system in this country. Educate yourself, raise awareness of other parties in your area, and then the government will change appropriately, utilizing technology and paying attention to this growing generation.
There is indeed a seemingly endless mass of computer-savvy people who fight the idea of certification. But to what end?
There is a valid fear of losing a job to someone who is certified through a particular company.
However, this is a result of the IT industry becoming a main-stream business. There is NO feasible way to get a job in as a lawyer without passing a bar exam. Nor to become a doctor without enduring medical school.
However, it was once not like this. Doctor's needed no certification to operate when there were no standard medical boards and such.
But times change. Now, computers and the industry surrounding them have become such a large part of international business that there has to be some way to separate those applying for the jobs out there.
Granted, it may seem unfair to those computer user who have been here "since the beginning" - whatever the beginning is for this industry. But, as I've said before, times change. There are, every 3-4 months, a new crop of CS, IT, Comp. Eng, etc degree-holding workers, who want money. Who want jobs. And there aren't necessarily enough to go around.
What is a business to do? Certification allows businesses (not just "upstart die-in-three-months.com's either), there are many large corporations who value a certificate, to choose more selectively who they will expense jobs and money upon.
There is a worry about certification allowing people with little-to-no experience to work in areas where they are not necessarily trained to work. Certification is not a guarantee of mastery of a system, and no one knows everything about a particular OS, hardware, software package, etc anyway. There are people who get hired everyday, who have worked for years in a field, who find out on the first day on a new job they don't know as much as they thought they did.
Certification is not out to push aside the knowledgable users and administrators of computer networks. It is not a ploy to allow new-workers into a workplace, while throwing the old ones out. It is merely a way to provide businesses more criteria in hiring. Almost all businesses that I know of will gladly pay for a certification course for their employees. If there is such a worry about certification-holding newbies coming in and destroying a precious way-of-life, get certifified yourself!
Thanks for reading this to the end. Advance apologies for my lack of conciseness and lucidity, at times.
although i agree that the US government has had it's fair share of tampering with other nation's powers-that-be, i find it hard to believe that the FBI would be the section of the government that has performed such actions.
the FBI would be involved with internal security/safety of America. it seems that you are referring to the illustrious CIA, who has done such "democratic safety" actions like Che Guevara's execution, African 'liberation', keeping the herion fields of Southeast Asia in "good hands", and other illustrious duties to democracy.
As for ANY government having the right to do "whatever the fuck they want" - that is a) not true (under any form of government except totalitarianism) and b) a giving up of your right to think freely.
it seems that universities are exercising their duties and rights to protect their research, students, and faculty.
why would anyone want to protest this?
perhaps there was a hint of sarcasm in your note that i missed. if so, forgive me.
Slashdot Mirror
From August 28 2006: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=08282006
Anyone else read this comic?
Jeffrey Rowland already described this in WIGU!
Of course, he didn't actually have to kill the cats first. But we're getting there...technology will catch up someday.
The article on page 41, for the ComputerWorld magazine (the May 14, 2001) issue discusses this. It pretty much says (with quotes from HR managers and CIO's) that a techie with a dual-degree (B.S. in CS and MBA) would easily garner much more respect and hiring preference for two reasons 1) dedication to gaining personal knowledge and skills and 2) being able to think outside the box (the box being applicable to standard techie thought and the MBA thought)
i wonder what you'd get if you took all the linux kernel source code and (painstakingly, i admit - it would be a long process) pieced it all together after running it through c2eng.
don't flame for the random posting of ideas....
One could just as easily change the following quote, "You have the More Efficient Calculator, and you Know How To Use It. Freaking great. It's a damn calculator. Get over yourselves. " into - "You have the More Efficient Operating System, and you Know How To Use It. Freaking great. It's a damn calculator. Get over yourselves. " by looking at /. posts, it's easily seen that the 2nd quote is quite applicable for most linux users. who feel no worries about slandering the rest of the OS world because of their supposed superiority about using linux. now i admit, there is a difference btween an OS and a mathematical notation, but still....the concept is there.
it's just one of those things that someone possibly doesn't understand until they've been there (i.e., used Linux, done math with RPN). and even then, the ego thing might not make sense.
just a comment.
Perhaps the reason that there has been no relevant use of newer technology is a prior decision to ignore those potential voters who partake in such technology. The two-party system in America has morphed into one corporative institute that cares not for drawing new, younger voters. Rather, they believe that innovation would invite change to their stronghold on the voting American public.
Due to the lack of young voter participation in recent elections, there probably is a feeling among life-time Washington politicians to plain ignore the young vote. It has happened before, in the 1972 Presidential elections. McGovern (the Democratic candidate) was running against incumbent Richard Nixon. The Nixon faction ignored the youth vote, while McGovern realized the sheer numbers of younger voters, and attempted to utilize their numbers. Unfortunately (in my opinion), there was a lack of coordination and communication which led to a victory for Nixon.
Now, the Republicans and Democrats have both decided to ignore the large number of younger voters, for pretty much the same reason as Nixon did. The young voters had not voted before, so why should money be spent attracting them to the polls, especially when they might not vote for the "correct party"? Thus, both Republicans and Democratic campaigns have decided to ignore the youth vote to save money that could be spent pushing food and fundraisers on the corporations who fund lobbyists in Washington, and to keep potential "wrong voters" out of the polls. Ignorance of the election is an advantage for the main parties, as that will keep people out of the polls who would think for themselves.
Now, I am NOT saying that everyone who votes in an election for Republican/Democratic parties is not thinking for themselves, but there are a large number of voters who have always voted along party lines and would never think of changing. But, there are other candidates. Ralph Nader, for instance, of the Green Party (you saw it coming, didn't you?) is a candidate who believes in a change of the political system, much in the same way as the article above describes. Their site (http://www.votenader.com) opens the door to online participation in issues, supporting a campaign, and sending in those questions which a voter feels important.
The two-party system has decided to play a safe campaign, as the end result will be the same between the two parties. Neither one is especially conservate or liberal, both are pretty much controlled by the same corporations, and will lost not a whole lot if a particular side loses. That is why voter awareness is so important. There are a number of options (the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc) which are viable groups of citizens who care about changing this sordid, stagnant political system.
It is possible to raise the bar for political awareness of the large numbers of voters who have never been noticed before and won't become noticed until we/they educate ourselves. There is the opportunity for a change of the two party system in this country. Educate yourself, raise awareness of other parties in your area, and then the government will change appropriately, utilizing technology and paying attention to this growing generation.
There is indeed a seemingly endless mass of computer-savvy people who fight the idea of certification. But to what end? There is a valid fear of losing a job to someone who is certified through a particular company.
.com's either), there are many large corporations who value a certificate, to choose more selectively who they will expense jobs and money upon.
However, this is a result of the IT industry becoming a main-stream business. There is NO feasible way to get a job in as a lawyer without passing a bar exam. Nor to become a doctor without enduring medical school. However, it was once not like this. Doctor's needed no certification to operate when there were no standard medical boards and such.
But times change. Now, computers and the industry surrounding them have become such a large part of international business that there has to be some way to separate those applying for the jobs out there.
Granted, it may seem unfair to those computer user who have been here "since the beginning" - whatever the beginning is for this industry. But, as I've said before, times change. There are, every 3-4 months, a new crop of CS, IT, Comp. Eng, etc degree-holding workers, who want money. Who want jobs. And there aren't necessarily enough to go around.
What is a business to do? Certification allows businesses (not just "upstart die-in-three-months
There is a worry about certification allowing people with little-to-no experience to work in areas where they are not necessarily trained to work. Certification is not a guarantee of mastery of a system, and no one knows everything about a particular OS, hardware, software package, etc anyway. There are people who get hired everyday, who have worked for years in a field, who find out on the first day on a new job they don't know as much as they thought they did.
Certification is not out to push aside the knowledgable users and administrators of computer networks. It is not a ploy to allow new-workers into a workplace, while throwing the old ones out. It is merely a way to provide businesses more criteria in hiring. Almost all businesses that I know of will gladly pay for a certification course for their employees. If there is such a worry about certification-holding newbies coming in and destroying a precious way-of-life, get certifified yourself!
Thanks for reading this to the end. Advance apologies for my lack of conciseness and lucidity, at times.
wesley
although i agree that the US government has had it's fair share of tampering with other nation's powers-that-be, i find it hard to believe that the FBI would be the section of the government that has performed such actions. the FBI would be involved with internal security/safety of America. it seems that you are referring to the illustrious CIA, who has done such "democratic safety" actions like Che Guevara's execution, African 'liberation', keeping the herion fields of Southeast Asia in "good hands", and other illustrious duties to democracy. As for ANY government having the right to do "whatever the fuck they want" - that is a) not true (under any form of government except totalitarianism) and b) a giving up of your right to think freely. it seems that universities are exercising their duties and rights to protect their research, students, and faculty. why would anyone want to protest this? perhaps there was a hint of sarcasm in your note that i missed. if so, forgive me.