OK, but don't DNA strands decay when hit by any number of high-energy rays? Aren't they organic molecules that various organisms eat? Would we trading the benefits of using this molecule for a whole new set of failure types and the cost and weight of shielding?
"All of the new unified storage systems include comprehensive data services at no extra cost, Fowler said. These include snapshots/cloning, restores, mirroring, RAID-5, RAID-6, replication, active-active clustering, compression, thin provisioning, CIFS (Common Internet File System), NFS (Network File System), iSCSI, HTTP/FTP and WebDAV (Web-based Distributed Authoring and Versioning)."
But that's not an argument against my counter-argument. He said "unusable in the Real World" -- implication being that they won't be able to use Java in a job. I said they could -- for example in the financial world.
You are extending my argument, by pointing out that if they learn java, and they cause billions or even trillions of dollars to vaporize in a massive swirl of greed and incompetence, the American taxpayer will step in and make sure they stay gainfully employed, writing the same evil code that screwed things up in the first place.
So I stand correct!
Then again, who could imagine such a reward for insanity in the real world? So the financial world must be a non-real world, in which case my example is a badly chosen one.
So I'll say that Java is used in web-based and client-server applications all over the place. Even in the real world.
Wow. I'm not sure how you could be much more wrong. Java is usable all over the place. Java is heavily used in the financial work, especially in trading apps, for instance. It's a great way to get them a marketable skill.
Java can very easily do most of the algorithm work for classes that C can do. Correct, you don't get real pointers. But the flip side of this is that you don't have weird memory problems that you and I are used to but which are inexplicable for students.
Don't get me wrong, I think that C and those pointer-based algorithms which you're thinking of are essential to a good computer education, but C isn't the place to start. Java (or pascal) is the place to start.
That said, many of us think Java programmers are useless morons. And the reason for this is that people teach Java as programming by patchwork add-in, like a Microsoft programming environment encourages. This doesn't mean Java is a bad language or a bad teaching language. It means, rather, that the programming classes the students took didn't teach them to program at all. I blame graphical systems as a starting point for this.
And once again, I'll say that graphical programming has its place. It can build enthusiasm at the start. But it's not a good environment for teaching actual coding.
I think the right method for all this is to teach programming with ideas first (briefly) and then with algorithms, then projects. None of that should have graphics.
When you're ready for graphics, go full-bore into real graphics, covering the popup modal click ok crap in the first week.
They're letting valuable light past. They're getting a little of it back on the rebound. The round design means some of the cell is always straight on to the sun, but it's a VERY small part.
Wouldn't a flat roof of the same material be much more efficient?
Duh. The reason they want to control the standard is so they can force it to change, again and again.
The reason MS doesn't like open standards is not because they're crazy or evil (which actually they might be, but that's not the reason, here) but because file formats are the key to upgrades.
When you can change a file format so that older versions are incompatible, you can create a situation where 100 million people with word 2009 start getting new files from 1 million people with word 2010. The 100 million people cannot read them. They complain, they gripe, then THEY UPGRADE.
A file format which stays the same breaks this model, and that would reduce MS revenue by a colossal amount. They can't allow that. So they need to control ODF so that they can keep changing it.
At 7 cents per kilowatt hour, that's $140 a year per person. That's really not bad.
But if we do a good job of this, at some point we'll have a secondary problem. How do we get all that Oxygen back?
The normal way would be photosynthesis. That's going to build sugars, which would have some oxygen, a lot of hydrogen and a lot of carbon. We would then bury THAT.
But it would be much better to find a way to strip most of the oxygen away from the carbon, and leave us with something like coal. How do we do it? Let's say this is 20 years from now and we have fantastic solar energy. We have a lot of electricity, and it's cheap.
So you want to see a smart app which mixes OCR and barcodes, so that you can walk around associated prices with products and the gps location of the front door.
Let's hope they don't. But really, that's the nice thing about an open platform. unless they absolutely decide to kill it, it'll fly because the consumers want it to. And that's different from any other platform -- American cell phone systems have tried desperately (and largely succeeded) in absolutely killing anything the customer might want, because they see everything as a revenue stream ala ring-tones.
It's bizarre. If the customer wants it, the telcos gleefully KILL IT and give them a crippled, pay-as-you-go version. This when the cell phone manufacturers are begging them to take phone with features, so the manufacturers can get some market cred/traction. But no, the cell phone carriers demand that features in phones be killed.
Sigh. It's been embarrassing. You go to just about any other country and they've got better phones than use. Why? Because the telcos have the American consumer by the balls, thanks to a hefty lobbyist (read as "bribery") budget.
But unless I'm missing something, here, if a telco supports an Android based phone, the consumer gets control and whistles and bells. Period.
Hence, either telcos accept android based phones, or...
They SAY they will and phone manufacturers make 18 models of android phone, and then the telcos say, "GREAT! We love it! Just disable this and this and this." The phone manufacturers say "Sure!" and the phones go out, and we fix them. This happens for one year, and the telcos start telling the manufacturers to drop Android, or they won't buy their cheaper, crappier phones in bulk. And the manufacturers will get very, very afraid, and mysteriously stop supporting Android.
We'll see. I hope this represents a real change.
---
It's not the acting. When just one actor stinks, that's acting. When they all stink, that's writing and directing. Mostly directing. And it's not that you get inured to it, Straczynski and his helpers got better at it.
Am the only person who thinks that it's amazing that many workers spend 75% of their on-line time doing work for their company? How much work can you do for your company on the web? I know there are specific jobs which require it, but most workers?
We provide web access for all workers because there's that 10% or 5% of the time they use it where it's actually necessary for the company. We also provide it, sometimes, to improve their quality of life, and reduce the amount of time they spend away from the job on personal stuff.
Chinese sites are accessed by relatively few non-Chinese. Therefore, the penalty for running an IPv6-only site inside China would not be very great.
Strong disagree.
There are many countries with large Chinese-speaking populations for whom sites in China are important: Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, to name a few.
Here in Malaysia the national ISP is still struggling to implement IPv2 (scheduled by 2020) so I'm not optimistic about them getting v6 working anytime soon.
You're clearly right, but the point still has merit. The numbers are greatly smaller than the English speaking world, or better, the modified Roman alphabet using world.
China could clearly move to IP6 and afford to help Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam over as well. The backwardness of a network (Malaysia) is not an impediment, it's makes it easier -- China (or anyone willing to do it, including the Malaysian government, if they want an internet at all) comes in with a budget and sweeps the whole system. It's the big, established, working system which will be harder to change.
And it gives China the opportunity to do outreach with Taiwan, if it wants, or to just screw them.
As for sites the west needs, they can keep some IP4 infrastructure for that, and in a couple of years, they'll be the leading site location for IP6 sites. Why host your server in Cleveland for $400 a month when you can host it in China for $40? And they'll be the ones with that new fangled IP6 thing working when you decide to switch, unlike half their competitors.
China gets to be the modern state, the leader of Internet tech, where the western states feared to tread. It gets to be big brother to a number of close trading and cultural partners (and sell them equipment), and gets to bully Taiwan.
This is a pure win/win situation for China. They should move to IP6 right away.
It seems like the only recourse to lawyers honestly trying to do their best by dishonestly doing something that they know will benefit the company more than hurt it is to add weight to the honesty side of the calculus.
A class action lawsuit, with every single one of their customers as a participant, aimed at a punitive charge for violating known laws (their legal team knew that this was an unenforceable contract, and also knowingly tried to bury the contract so that customer would not see it) would add up to real money.
We wouldn't see it, of course (we'd get $10? each, total 100 million dollars?), but it would be large enough to make corporate lawyers put more weight on the "what if we get caught" side of the equation. This would benefit every consumer in a large number of industries.
The same companies don't ask other professionals (lawyer, accountant, sales, HR, etc.) to submit to any kind of in-house tests when they are hired.
There are a couple of points in this original post all bunched as one.
1. Tests are demeaning.
-- No, they're not. You're pissed because you had you time wasted recently (and probably multiple times in your life) by some non-technical person asking you a bunch of questions from a website or book. And yes, that sucks. Your job as an interviewee is to interview the interviewer and decide whether you want to work there. This certainly counts (in most cases) as a black mark. 2. Others don't get tests.
-- Of course others get tests. Look at the list you provide: "lawyer, accountant, sales, HR" Of those, two (and depending on the level, three) take big tests which they study for years for. There's nothing so rigorous for computer folk. 3. Why are IT professionals treated differently...
-- You interview a lawyer looking for different attributes than you look for in a salesperson. You look for something different in an accountant than a computer person. They're different. 4....and in such a paternalistic way?
-- Computer people are often young and inexperienced. Paternalism makes sense in that context. 5. More importantly, why do IT professionals accept being treated less favorably than members of other professions? Should IT professionals start to refuse to be treated as not real professionals?
-- Because lots of them are lying knuckleheads, or people who just don't understand their job very well. Resumes which show a lot of technology don't show proficiency with any of it, and interviewers wind up with lots of people who absolutely cannot do the work they're trying to get a job for.
Computer programming requires critical thinking. You often get applicants who have worked for years with lots of tech who, when you explore their experience in a well done interview (and no, I don't mean a test, though a well done test would show the same things -- if you can find a well done test) that they followed very specific orders for small, non-thinking tasks.
Sysadmins are harder to judge the merits of, which is unfortunate, because when you get a stinker there, the wrong company suffers, even after he/she's gone.
You my be very good at what you do. In which case, the interviews you go through are unnecessary, but the places you interview don't know that.
You may have only worked with competent people. If so, you have a good hiring process to thank for that, not the professionalism of the industry as a whole.
Tests administered by people who don't understand the answers suck -- We all know that. But testing in general is necessary. You as an interviewee get information from how it's done. You can always walk out. You might ask what an interview will consist of before you come, and if you're told you'll be tested, you might ask a few more questions, then decide to fire the company before your first interview.
Didn't we agree not to put reactors bigger than some particular size in space early on in the space race? I remember this being the reason why the Daedalus project couldn't possibly be implemented.
So someone who remembers: Is it reactors or uncontrolled reactions (ie bombs)? Is it just in orbit, or anywhere in space? Would the moon count?
Yes, we need extra safety items. Yes, those add weight. But all the advances made in improving efficiency have been burned away on power and sportiness and cup holders.
Agreed. The talk about certifications made me cringe, too. Low-level certs are for losers. Help them get one, send them out in to the work force, and they'll wind up losers in the work force. Teach them how things actually work, send them to college, and they'll wind up smart people who succeed in the work force.
- There are plenty of books which teach how networking works -- you'll have your smallest problem, there. A lot of those are aimed at CCNA type certs. If you have to go for a cert-based book, go for the CCNA one, rather than the Network+ one.
- There are some dry ones on security.
- There might be good ones on OS, but most will be college level and way more detailed than you have time for.
- Hardware books all seem to be horrible over-simplifications with lots of drawings and cost a fortune.
On one hand, I see where you're coming from. This sort of overview class should be a solid text book. You shouldn't have to go it alone. You have several other classes to teach, papers to grade, parents to meet.
But I think you're forced to go it alone.
You've been handed a very hard class. If you do find a book, I very much want to know what it is. If you don't find a book, I think you'd be doing the teach community a HUGE service by videotaping the entire thing and putting up a website, so we can watch what succeeds and what fails.
As far as texts which will help goes, I'd strongly recommend a few chapters of some James Burke books, or (and this is probably better) a few choice episodes of "Connections" and "the day the Universe Changed". Be sure to include the sections which talk about the computers of Bletchley Park -- when "computer" was a job title.
You need to start the class with some old computers and screwdriver a hammer. You need to let them smash their way to ICs. You need to wake them up, right away, and then talk about THEORY. You talking will keep them awake, if there are props and they're involved.
Be sure to do an in-class exercise where you wire together some LEDs and some transistors.
A day spent on where jobs go, what they earn, and why they do NOT want to go work at Best Buy could change the lives of some of these kids.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm worried about the size of Amazon's cut. They may be getting as much as 40% (their regular rate).
OK, but don't DNA strands decay when hit by any number of high-energy rays? Aren't they organic molecules that various organisms eat? Would we trading the benefits of using this molecule for a whole new set of failure types and the cost and weight of shielding?
"All of the new unified storage systems include comprehensive data services at no extra cost, Fowler said. These include snapshots/cloning, restores, mirroring, RAID-5, RAID-6, replication, active-active clustering, compression, thin provisioning, CIFS (Common Internet File System), NFS (Network File System), iSCSI, HTTP/FTP and WebDAV (Web-based Distributed Authoring and Versioning)."
Note that this system includes "RAID".
Does this or does this not still leave the recipient as an HIV carrier?
You could listen to NPR and they'll update their website as data comes in.
I'll be by your feedlot to take what's mine on Tuesday.
Six.
This is neat and keen, but what I really need for my sales force is a CHEAP touchscreen laptop.
If they did this to their current laptop model, I'd be screaming for a passle of these.
It is remarkable how much he sounds like Tom DeMarco. If you like what Jason's saying, run out and buy a couple of books by Tom DeMarco.
Peopleware, Managing Programming People, etc.
TOUCHE'! EXTREMELY TRUE!!!
But that's not an argument against my counter-argument. He said "unusable in the Real World" -- implication being that they won't be able to use Java in a job. I said they could -- for example in the financial world.
You are extending my argument, by pointing out that if they learn java, and they cause billions or even trillions of dollars to vaporize in a massive swirl of greed and incompetence, the American taxpayer will step in and make sure they stay gainfully employed, writing the same evil code that screwed things up in the first place.
So I stand correct!
Then again, who could imagine such a reward for insanity in the real world? So the financial world must be a non-real world, in which case my example is a badly chosen one.
So I'll say that Java is used in web-based and client-server applications all over the place. Even in the real world.
Wow. I'm not sure how you could be much more wrong. Java is usable all over the place. Java is heavily used in the financial work, especially in trading apps, for instance. It's a great way to get them a marketable skill.
Java can very easily do most of the algorithm work for classes that C can do. Correct, you don't get real pointers. But the flip side of this is that you don't have weird memory problems that you and I are used to but which are inexplicable for students.
Don't get me wrong, I think that C and those pointer-based algorithms which you're thinking of are essential to a good computer education, but C isn't the place to start. Java (or pascal) is the place to start.
That said, many of us think Java programmers are useless morons. And the reason for this is that people teach Java as programming by patchwork add-in, like a Microsoft programming environment encourages. This doesn't mean Java is a bad language or a bad teaching language. It means, rather, that the programming classes the students took didn't teach them to program at all. I blame graphical systems as a starting point for this.
And once again, I'll say that graphical programming has its place. It can build enthusiasm at the start. But it's not a good environment for teaching actual coding.
I think the right method for all this is to teach programming with ideas first (briefly) and then with algorithms, then projects. None of that should have graphics.
When you're ready for graphics, go full-bore into real graphics, covering the popup modal click ok crap in the first week.
They're letting valuable light past. They're getting a little of it back on the rebound. The round design means some of the cell is always straight on to the sun, but it's a VERY small part.
Wouldn't a flat roof of the same material be much more efficient?
Ok, this is great, but how fast can you spin them before they explode?
Duh. The reason they want to control the standard is so they can force it to change, again and again.
The reason MS doesn't like open standards is not because they're crazy or evil (which actually they might be, but that's not the reason, here) but because file formats are the key to upgrades.
When you can change a file format so that older versions are incompatible, you can create a situation where 100 million people with word 2009 start getting new files from 1 million people with word 2010. The 100 million people cannot read them. They complain, they gripe, then THEY UPGRADE.
A file format which stays the same breaks this model, and that would reduce MS revenue by a colossal amount. They can't allow that. So they need to control ODF so that they can keep changing it.
At 7 cents per kilowatt hour, that's $140 a year per person. That's really not bad.
But if we do a good job of this, at some point we'll have a secondary problem. How do we get all that Oxygen back?
The normal way would be photosynthesis. That's going to build sugars, which would have some oxygen, a lot of hydrogen and a lot of carbon. We would then bury THAT.
But it would be much better to find a way to strip most of the oxygen away from the carbon, and leave us with something like coal. How do we do it? Let's say this is 20 years from now and we have fantastic solar energy. We have a lot of electricity, and it's cheap.
Can it be done? How?
Does a bosanova put out more energy then you need to put in to cause the reaction? I'm assuming not.
If it does then this a possible energy source, huh? Shouldn't we be looking at harnessing this ala fusion?
If it doesn't, then I gather that no reaction the LHC could pour enough energy into to make happen would do much to the planet.
Capturing data in this way is a killer app
So you want to see a smart app which mixes OCR and barcodes, so that you can walk around associated prices with products and the gps location of the front door.
ok, I like that idea, too.
Let's hope they don't. But really, that's the nice thing about an open platform. unless they absolutely decide to kill it, it'll fly because the consumers want it to. And that's different from any other platform -- American cell phone systems have tried desperately (and largely succeeded) in absolutely killing anything the customer might want, because they see everything as a revenue stream ala ring-tones.
It's bizarre. If the customer wants it, the telcos gleefully KILL IT and give them a crippled, pay-as-you-go version. This when the cell phone manufacturers are begging them to take phone with features, so the manufacturers can get some market cred/traction. But no, the cell phone carriers demand that features in phones be killed.
Sigh. It's been embarrassing. You go to just about any other country and they've got better phones than use. Why? Because the telcos have the American consumer by the balls, thanks to a hefty lobbyist (read as "bribery") budget.
But unless I'm missing something, here, if a telco supports an Android based phone, the consumer gets control and whistles and bells. Period.
Hence, either telcos accept android based phones, or ...
They SAY they will and phone manufacturers make 18 models of android phone, and then the telcos say, "GREAT! We love it! Just disable this and this and this." The phone manufacturers say "Sure!" and the phones go out, and we fix them. This happens for one year, and the telcos start telling the manufacturers to drop Android, or they won't buy their cheaper, crappier phones in bulk. And the manufacturers will get very, very afraid, and mysteriously stop supporting Android.
We'll see. I hope this represents a real change.
---
It's not the acting. When just one actor stinks, that's acting. When they all stink, that's writing and directing. Mostly directing. And it's not that you get inured to it, Straczynski and his helpers got better at it.
Am the only person who thinks that it's amazing that many workers spend 75% of their on-line time doing work for their company? How much work can you do for your company on the web? I know there are specific jobs which require it, but most workers?
We provide web access for all workers because there's that 10% or 5% of the time they use it where it's actually necessary for the company. We also provide it, sometimes, to improve their quality of life, and reduce the amount of time they spend away from the job on personal stuff.
Doesn't the 25% number seem absurdly low?
Strong disagree.
There are many countries with large Chinese-speaking populations for whom sites in China are important: Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, to name a few.
Here in Malaysia the national ISP is still struggling to implement IPv2 (scheduled by 2020) so I'm not optimistic about them getting v6 working anytime soon.
You're clearly right, but the point still has merit. The numbers are greatly smaller than the English speaking world, or better, the modified Roman alphabet using world.
China could clearly move to IP6 and afford to help Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam over as well. The backwardness of a network (Malaysia) is not an impediment, it's makes it easier -- China (or anyone willing to do it, including the Malaysian government, if they want an internet at all) comes in with a budget and sweeps the whole system. It's the big, established, working system which will be harder to change.
And it gives China the opportunity to do outreach with Taiwan, if it wants, or to just screw them.
As for sites the west needs, they can keep some IP4 infrastructure for that, and in a couple of years, they'll be the leading site location for IP6 sites. Why host your server in Cleveland for $400 a month when you can host it in China for $40? And they'll be the ones with that new fangled IP6 thing working when you decide to switch, unlike half their competitors.
China gets to be the modern state, the leader of Internet tech, where the western states feared to tread. It gets to be big brother to a number of close trading and cultural partners (and sell them equipment), and gets to bully Taiwan.
This is a pure win/win situation for China. They should move to IP6 right away.
It seems like the only recourse to lawyers honestly trying to do their best by dishonestly doing something that they know will benefit the company more than hurt it is to add weight to the honesty side of the calculus.
A class action lawsuit, with every single one of their customers as a participant, aimed at a punitive charge for violating known laws (their legal team knew that this was an unenforceable contract, and also knowingly tried to bury the contract so that customer would not see it) would add up to real money.
We wouldn't see it, of course (we'd get $10? each, total 100 million dollars?), but it would be large enough to make corporate lawyers put more weight on the "what if we get caught" side of the equation. This would benefit every consumer in a large number of industries.
The same companies don't ask other professionals (lawyer, accountant, sales, HR, etc.) to submit to any kind of in-house tests when they are hired.
There are a couple of points in this original post all bunched as one.
1. Tests are demeaning. ... ...and in such a paternalistic way?
-- No, they're not. You're pissed because you had you time wasted recently (and probably multiple times in your life) by some non-technical person asking you a bunch of questions from a website or book. And yes, that sucks. Your job as an interviewee is to interview the interviewer and decide whether you want to work there. This certainly counts (in most cases) as a black mark.
2. Others don't get tests.
-- Of course others get tests. Look at the list you provide: "lawyer, accountant, sales, HR" Of those, two (and depending on the level, three) take big tests which they study for years for. There's nothing so rigorous for computer folk.
3. Why are IT professionals treated differently
-- You interview a lawyer looking for different attributes than you look for in a salesperson. You look for something different in an accountant than a computer person. They're different.
4.
-- Computer people are often young and inexperienced. Paternalism makes sense in that context.
5. More importantly, why do IT professionals accept being treated less favorably than members of other professions? Should IT professionals start to refuse to be treated as not real professionals?
-- Because lots of them are lying knuckleheads, or people who just don't understand their job very well. Resumes which show a lot of technology don't show proficiency with any of it, and interviewers wind up with lots of people who absolutely cannot do the work they're trying to get a job for.
Computer programming requires critical thinking. You often get applicants who have worked for years with lots of tech who, when you explore their experience in a well done interview (and no, I don't mean a test, though a well done test would show the same things -- if you can find a well done test) that they followed very specific orders for small, non-thinking tasks.
Sysadmins are harder to judge the merits of, which is unfortunate, because when you get a stinker there, the wrong company suffers, even after he/she's gone.
You my be very good at what you do. In which case, the interviews you go through are unnecessary, but the places you interview don't know that.
You may have only worked with competent people. If so, you have a good hiring process to thank for that, not the professionalism of the industry as a whole.
Tests administered by people who don't understand the answers suck -- We all know that. But testing in general is necessary. You as an interviewee get information from how it's done. You can always walk out. You might ask what an interview will consist of before you come, and if you're told you'll be tested, you might ask a few more questions, then decide to fire the company before your first interview.
Didn't we agree not to put reactors bigger than some particular size in space early on in the space race? I remember this being the reason why the Daedalus project couldn't possibly be implemented.
So someone who remembers: Is it reactors or uncontrolled reactions (ie bombs)? Is it just in orbit, or anywhere in space? Would the moon count?
The 1989 civic got 50mpg highway, better than the Prius.
Yes, we need extra safety items. Yes, those add weight. But all the advances made in improving efficiency have been burned away on power and sportiness and cup holders.
50 Mpg TWENTY years ago.
And no mention of a plug-in aspect.
Very discouraging.
Agreed. The talk about certifications made me cringe, too. Low-level certs are for losers. Help them get one, send them out in to the work force, and they'll wind up losers in the work force. Teach them how things actually work, send them to college, and they'll wind up smart people who succeed in the work force.
- There are plenty of books which teach how networking works -- you'll have your smallest problem, there. A lot of those are aimed at CCNA type certs. If you have to go for a cert-based book, go for the CCNA one, rather than the Network+ one.
- There are some dry ones on security.
- There might be good ones on OS, but most will be college level and way more detailed than you have time for.
- Hardware books all seem to be horrible over-simplifications with lots of drawings and cost a fortune.
On one hand, I see where you're coming from. This sort of overview class should be a solid text book. You shouldn't have to go it alone. You have several other classes to teach, papers to grade, parents to meet.
But I think you're forced to go it alone.
You've been handed a very hard class. If you do find a book, I very much want to know what it is. If you don't find a book, I think you'd be doing the teach community a HUGE service by videotaping the entire thing and putting up a website, so we can watch what succeeds and what fails.
As far as texts which will help goes, I'd strongly recommend a few chapters of some James Burke books, or (and this is probably better) a few choice episodes of "Connections" and "the day the Universe Changed". Be sure to include the sections which talk about the computers of Bletchley Park -- when "computer" was a job title.
You need to start the class with some old computers and screwdriver a hammer. You need to let them smash their way to ICs. You need to wake them up, right away, and then talk about THEORY. You talking will keep them awake, if there are props and they're involved.
Be sure to do an in-class exercise where you wire together some LEDs and some transistors.
A day spent on where jobs go, what they earn, and why they do NOT want to go work at Best Buy could change the lives of some of these kids.