'You're assuming cognitive ability translates into superior performance and therefore is a rational reason to discriminate.'
Yes, I am assuming cognitive ability translates into superior cognitive performance. I'm assuming nothing else and no point claimed that hiring 22-27yr olds over someone older was actually a good idea.
Hell, I'd find it difficult to write that much by hand. I get annoyed if I have to write more than two lines by hand.
Not because I can't or because I need the spelling and grammar check so much. But because it just so damn annoyingly and frustratingly slow. Besides, unless I use 'recruit handwriting' I picked up in the navy, nobody can read it anyway (including me).
'Although this approach was cumbersome, it did force us to be critical about our code. We all spent more time thinking about what it did rather than just chucking any old dreck in to see if it would compile.'
No doubt. You also likely learned to program in a manner that leads to a quality result, unlike most coders today who only care about how fast the solution gets churned out at marketable quality.
'Also, sketches and pseudocode saved a lot of time, so we were about as productive as any present-day programmer.'
I'm with you up till here. Call me skeptical wilbur but I just don't recall coders producing a shit ton of code back in the day and today they definitely do.
First top 1% really isn't that hot. I was raised in a small town of 12,000. There are two IT shops and 120 potential top 1% candidates to potentially staff it.
The average college graduate isn't any more intelligent than the average dropout in my experience. Actually, if anything I'd lean toward the dropouts. College students have basically followed the paid laid out before them by nurturing guides through their entire education and often land in the real world without knowing how to find information and learn for themselves without a class. College graduates have a demonstrated ability to play the game and get along with professors. I know a few who made up papers and fake references to go with them and faked their way through college.
From the quality of the IT work I've seen out there many IT people are probably average (or lower, I've seen MCSE's call for support when their ball mouse needed cleaned) but being good at IT requires an intelligence level far above average. It requires a sponge like memory, an amazing ability to learn and comprehend problems, and effective cognitive abilities.
Unless of course you are talking about fortune 500 IT. An environment where most IT are meatpuppets who replace parts and ghost systems for two or three REAL IT staff and nobody actually troubleshoots and fixes the problems at all. That isn't actually IT.
And of course programming. In my experience programmers are highly overrated and most are of fairly typical intelligence. It is however another field where COMPETENT people have to be very intelligent.
Yup, your mind begins to decline at 27 so its better for someone at their mental peak of 22-27 to do the work and someone who is past that peak and more responsible and wise to direct them.
That and the fact that IT requires someone to be well within the top 1% of mental and cognitive ability and those abilities peak at the age of 22 and begin to show measurable decline at 27.
Personally I believe there are other advantages that come with age and experience that offset those loses in certain roles but at some point that will catch up with you. It isn't whether or not you've forgotten more than that whipper snapper ever learned but whether or not you remember, readily recall, and utilize effectively more than that whipper snapper ever learned.
'Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.'
Recent research actually shows that mental faculties begin to decline as early in life as the 20's. Kids don't seem sharper, they ARE sharper. That isn't to say that there isn't more to being a good employee or that older individuals don't have their own advantages but there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age.
Staying up to date will never restore your cognitive abilities to the level they were at when you were 22 and they peaked or 27 when they begin to show a measurable decline.
'Those speeds imply that there should exist more mass than the stars we can see.'
Those implications and measurements all rely on foundation theories that may themselves be incorrect. It is quite possible our theories are close enough to seem correct on local phenomenon (with our limited capability to measure and observe them) but are flawed a manner that demonstrates a 20% error when scaled.
Additionally, our knowledge is based entirely on data gathered in an incredibly short period of time. A great deal of the things we consider scientific fact could be based partially or entirely based on local (in the sense of time) phenomenon.
'This "dark matter" problem that you mention does not show a weakness, but a *strong* point of science. The existence of dark matter does not invalidate one single fact of what was known before. Newtonian phisics is still valid, relativity is intact, quantum mechanics rules. But now we know of an additional fact that's extremely subtle, very very difficult to measure, and still adds some important facts to our scientific knowledge.'
That or its all invalid and the 20% is merely a symptom of the flaws in our models that becomes significant enough for us to see when applied at a large enough scale.
On the contrary, real world economics has nothing to do with psychology and too many economists pretend it does. Confidence/Fear affects liquidity and the stock market. The stock market is its own entity with little relation to the real world.
In the real world liquidity does not create value, it merely breaks the problem up into small pieces and spreads it around quickly enough that the symptoms are delayed. Liquidity will stretch resources further but it has very real and significant limits. Ultimately the economy is still limited to the real tangible, physical and countable assets that the people possess.
Which is exactly why all these morons need to get the idea that 'confidence' is what will bring us out of this depression.
Instead of concentrating on building wealth, we instead switched to a system where we pretend that liquidity is a way to build the economy instead of a way to mask its problems and delay the onset of symptoms.
'ISP: We've had to increase our charges due to an increase in service costs.'
Doubtful, I don't know of any service provider who isn't more than happy to tell their customers the increase rates are government mandated. It isn't as if the ISP's are getting this money and want it to continue, they just bear the burden and expense of collecting it.
'are you sure? wouldn't the people who offer to opt-in just be targets? sure, they may be ok with legalizing songs shared by the SAC, but now they are basically saying "hi, I'm a target, and I probably also illegally torrent movies and software."'
I was under the impression that Canadians already pay a tax for their file sharing when they buy blank cd's? If they are already paying the tax on blank media why should they pay another tax at all?
This does sound better but they need to drop the media tax first and change this to opt-in. They also shouldn't limit it to music or videos but all digital media.
To answer your question more directly. All programming is writing logic. Those electrical states are meaningless unless a programmer gives them meaning via logic. Computer logic is expressed in code. That's why you can express code in pseudo code, it's merely a language to express logic.
The compiler reads your logic in whatever language you've expressed it and turns it into actual commands for hardware thus, implementation. The compiler should be taking care of utilizing the hardware (in this case multiple cores) in order to execute the logic the programmer has expressed.
Nope. A computer scientist is just a trumped up programmer who thinks his chit doesn't stink because he has a degree and spends as much time working on theory as practical code. A programmer who calls himself a 'computer scientist' is probably nothing more than a dreamer while a programmer who calls it like is will be the doer.
Optimizing applications for multiple threads is like unrolling loops. Programmers are writing logic not implementation, compilers should be taking care of implementing logic in a way that is optimal for the hardware.
Now, get back to me when -fuse_threads is a compiler option and implicit when choosing o3
Actually science neither proves nor disproves anything at all. Science is merely a system of educated guessing based on observations. The only thing ever established is the observation itself and even only that it was observed in that isolated incident or series of incidents, not that we observed what we thought we observed or that the phenomenon will ever happen again.
Think of many 'perpetual motion' machines that would seem to go on forever if you didn't observe them long enough. There are probably hundreds of things we believe to be true or consistent in science that are local phenomenon on a perpetual motion type loop that may be skewing things.
However, creationism doesn't fall within the realm of science. Scientific hypothesis are a proposed conclusion based on observation to that point. Creation was concluded without evidence and attempts to go back and find observations after the fact. And as others said, when making the leap from observation to hypothesis theoretically testable predictions must be made, if they fail a new hypothesis is required. Creation changes the predictions and keeps the same conclusion because the conclusion is where they start.
If so it an Urban Legend that every fortune 500 company in the United States obeys on advice of council.
If you expose details of the employment relationship and it causes me damage then expect a suit just as if I start calling the clients of my former employer... say an insurance company, and start telling them the company policies on declining claims and that hurts the companies business.
'Second, the guy is a thief, he stole from the company. When a guy is a thief, you are allowed to call him a thief.'
Allegedly. We have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this guy even messed up on the reports they claim let alone fudged them deliberately to steal.
Why do you think he did? Because of the libel slung by the company in this case.
It isn't okay to call this guy a thief until he is convicted for theft in a court of law, especially in the highly pubblic manne that was used here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd at least wait till retirement age myself. Until then they are still productive... oh wait, you mean you weren't serious?
You hire kids? Most of the places where I have done IT work require adults at least 18yrs of age.
'You're assuming cognitive ability translates into superior performance and therefore is a rational reason to discriminate.'
Yes, I am assuming cognitive ability translates into superior cognitive performance. I'm assuming nothing else and no point claimed that hiring 22-27yr olds over someone older was actually a good idea.
Hell, I'd find it difficult to write that much by hand. I get annoyed if I have to write more than two lines by hand.
Not because I can't or because I need the spelling and grammar check so much. But because it just so damn annoyingly and frustratingly slow. Besides, unless I use 'recruit handwriting' I picked up in the navy, nobody can read it anyway (including me).
'Although this approach was cumbersome, it did force us to be critical about our code. We all spent more time thinking about what it did rather than just chucking any old dreck in to see if it would compile.'
No doubt. You also likely learned to program in a manner that leads to a quality result, unlike most coders today who only care about how fast the solution gets churned out at marketable quality.
'Also, sketches and pseudocode saved a lot of time, so we were about as productive as any present-day programmer.'
I'm with you up till here. Call me skeptical wilbur but I just don't recall coders producing a shit ton of code back in the day and today they definitely do.
First top 1% really isn't that hot. I was raised in a small town of 12,000. There are two IT shops and 120 potential top 1% candidates to potentially staff it.
The average college graduate isn't any more intelligent than the average dropout in my experience. Actually, if anything I'd lean toward the dropouts. College students have basically followed the paid laid out before them by nurturing guides through their entire education and often land in the real world without knowing how to find information and learn for themselves without a class. College graduates have a demonstrated ability to play the game and get along with professors. I know a few who made up papers and fake references to go with them and faked their way through college.
From the quality of the IT work I've seen out there many IT people are probably average (or lower, I've seen MCSE's call for support when their ball mouse needed cleaned) but being good at IT requires an intelligence level far above average. It requires a sponge like memory, an amazing ability to learn and comprehend problems, and effective cognitive abilities.
Unless of course you are talking about fortune 500 IT. An environment where most IT are meatpuppets who replace parts and ghost systems for two or three REAL IT staff and nobody actually troubleshoots and fixes the problems at all. That isn't actually IT.
And of course programming. In my experience programmers are highly overrated and most are of fairly typical intelligence. It is however another field where COMPETENT people have to be very intelligent.
Yup, your mind begins to decline at 27 so its better for someone at their mental peak of 22-27 to do the work and someone who is past that peak and more responsible and wise to direct them.
That and the fact that IT requires someone to be well within the top 1% of mental and cognitive ability and those abilities peak at the age of 22 and begin to show measurable decline at 27.
Personally I believe there are other advantages that come with age and experience that offset those loses in certain roles but at some point that will catch up with you. It isn't whether or not you've forgotten more than that whipper snapper ever learned but whether or not you remember, readily recall, and utilize effectively more than that whipper snapper ever learned.
'Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.'
Recent research actually shows that mental faculties begin to decline as early in life as the 20's. Kids don't seem sharper, they ARE sharper. That isn't to say that there isn't more to being a good employee or that older individuals don't have their own advantages but there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age.
Staying up to date will never restore your cognitive abilities to the level they were at when you were 22 and they peaked or 27 when they begin to show a measurable decline.
'Those speeds imply that there should exist more mass than the stars we can see.'
Those implications and measurements all rely on foundation theories that may themselves be incorrect. It is quite possible our theories are close enough to seem correct on local phenomenon (with our limited capability to measure and observe them) but are flawed a manner that demonstrates a 20% error when scaled.
Additionally, our knowledge is based entirely on data gathered in an incredibly short period of time. A great deal of the things we consider scientific fact could be based partially or entirely based on local (in the sense of time) phenomenon.
'This "dark matter" problem that you mention does not show a weakness, but a *strong* point of science. The existence of dark matter does not invalidate one single fact of what was known before. Newtonian phisics is still valid, relativity is intact, quantum mechanics rules. But now we know of an additional fact that's extremely subtle, very very difficult to measure, and still adds some important facts to our scientific knowledge.'
That or its all invalid and the 20% is merely a symptom of the flaws in our models that becomes significant enough for us to see when applied at a large enough scale.
On the contrary, real world economics has nothing to do with psychology and too many economists pretend it does. Confidence/Fear affects liquidity and the stock market. The stock market is its own entity with little relation to the real world.
In the real world liquidity does not create value, it merely breaks the problem up into small pieces and spreads it around quickly enough that the symptoms are delayed. Liquidity will stretch resources further but it has very real and significant limits. Ultimately the economy is still limited to the real tangible, physical and countable assets that the people possess.
Which is exactly why all these morons need to get the idea that 'confidence' is what will bring us out of this depression.
Instead of concentrating on building wealth, we instead switched to a system where we pretend that liquidity is a way to build the economy instead of a way to mask its problems and delay the onset of symptoms.
I'm pretty sure the difference is a job title since they both learned how to manage money in the same harvard mba courses.
Whats your point?
'ISP: We've had to increase our charges due to an increase in service costs.'
Doubtful, I don't know of any service provider who isn't more than happy to tell their customers the increase rates are government mandated. It isn't as if the ISP's are getting this money and want it to continue, they just bear the burden and expense of collecting it.
'are you sure? wouldn't the people who offer to opt-in just be targets? sure, they may be ok with legalizing songs shared by the SAC, but now they are basically saying "hi, I'm a target, and I probably also illegally torrent movies and software."'
No because you are opt'd in by default.
It's an opt out plan, anyone who isn't filesharing can just opt-out. The studios will certainly opt out so that just leaves the individual artists.
Your points fail.
I was under the impression that Canadians already pay a tax for their file sharing when they buy blank cd's? If they are already paying the tax on blank media why should they pay another tax at all?
This does sound better but they need to drop the media tax first and change this to opt-in. They also shouldn't limit it to music or videos but all digital media.
To answer your question more directly. All programming is writing logic. Those electrical states are meaningless unless a programmer gives them meaning via logic. Computer logic is expressed in code. That's why you can express code in pseudo code, it's merely a language to express logic.
The compiler reads your logic in whatever language you've expressed it and turns it into actual commands for hardware thus, implementation. The compiler should be taking care of utilizing the hardware (in this case multiple cores) in order to execute the logic the programmer has expressed.
Nope. A computer scientist is just a trumped up programmer who thinks his chit doesn't stink because he has a degree and spends as much time working on theory as practical code. A programmer who calls himself a 'computer scientist' is probably nothing more than a dreamer while a programmer who calls it like is will be the doer.
Optimizing applications for multiple threads is like unrolling loops. Programmers are writing logic not implementation, compilers should be taking care of implementing logic in a way that is optimal for the hardware.
Now, get back to me when -fuse_threads is a compiler option and implicit when choosing o3
Actually science neither proves nor disproves anything at all. Science is merely a system of educated guessing based on observations. The only thing ever established is the observation itself and even only that it was observed in that isolated incident or series of incidents, not that we observed what we thought we observed or that the phenomenon will ever happen again.
Think of many 'perpetual motion' machines that would seem to go on forever if you didn't observe them long enough. There are probably hundreds of things we believe to be true or consistent in science that are local phenomenon on a perpetual motion type loop that may be skewing things.
However, creationism doesn't fall within the realm of science. Scientific hypothesis are a proposed conclusion based on observation to that point. Creation was concluded without evidence and attempts to go back and find observations after the fact. And as others said, when making the leap from observation to hypothesis theoretically testable predictions must be made, if they fail a new hypothesis is required. Creation changes the predictions and keeps the same conclusion because the conclusion is where they start.
If so it an Urban Legend that every fortune 500 company in the United States obeys on advice of council.
If you expose details of the employment relationship and it causes me damage then expect a suit just as if I start calling the clients of my former employer... say an insurance company, and start telling them the company policies on declining claims and that hurts the companies business.
if you are experiencing those kind of buffering times you must be using the crappy old player. Try upgrading to the new player.
'Second, the guy is a thief, he stole from the company. When a guy is a thief, you are allowed to call him a thief.'
Allegedly. We have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this guy even messed up on the reports they claim let alone fudged them deliberately to steal.
Why do you think he did? Because of the libel slung by the company in this case.
It isn't okay to call this guy a thief until he is convicted for theft in a court of law, especially in the highly pubblic manne that was used here.