Maybe nothing as big as a written report but simply some insightful comments and/or questions. The idea is to stimulate the brain, not for them to do work.
It seems as though if they made TV more interactive that maybe brain activity wouldn't go down - especially when considering the history channel and others (i.e. discovery, learning). Maybe if they quizzed you or asked for alternative answers to questions brain activity might go up? Or if the rest of the show preceded only once a good answer was given?
"If I were a more qualified sociologist, I'd think it may have inspired by the way that our children play today versus how they played twenty years ago."
Would this be because of a supposed dubbing down of children (i.e. they generally are not given these toys so if one were to see such a toy in a store they would not be attracted to it) or is it something deeper (i.e. they are not taught to think for themselves) or is it just some sort of genetic thing (i.e. kids today think differently then they did previously, and so are attracted to less scientific-type toys and possibly toys that are more focused on something more right brained - such as literature)?
So Illusioned - your suggesting that the first option creates the second option (i.e. putting a child in front of the tv causes him or her to not think for him or herself)?
Yes. This is true. It seems as though a high profile person (programmer or CEO, etc.) could easily make or break a company, but a CEO is a high profile person by default, where Programmer X is not necessarily. So if a CEO does mediocre work it is by default going to hurt the company much more than the average (non-celebrity) programmer.
You are correct. I'm sorry if I implied that there were no Steve Jobs'es in India. No racism intended.
There are probably a few in India as there are probably a few in America that could run apple effectively. But finding them would be hard (in India or in America). And knowing that they would run the business effectively would be another thing, where Steve Jobs has proven to be effective. And this is why Steve Jobs is so valued, and not any old programmer in India *OR* in America (or any other country for that matter).
And in my own experience living in New York, I have found the same thing: Indians to be business owners and to be big on bargaining and getting you to buy more. So if I could say anything honestly it would be very effective businessmen.
And yes, Steve Jobs != Carley Fiorina. But then again, if she is wasting so much money or being ineffective, she will be out in a few years if not sooner as every CEO is who acts in such a manner.
Salary is directly proportional to value and expendibility. A common programer may be very valuable, but very expendible (and a new one easily hired).
So, yes, I can certainly see how a CEO is worth 2,000 workers. It is fairly simple. If a CEO has the vision (or maybe the celebrity status) to boost a company, he (or she) is just as valuable as any number of workers because that person is the life line of that company. Consider Apple and Steve Jobs: with the demise of Steve Jobs, how many Apple employees lost their jobs? And where was Apple the company going? How many stock holders lost money in Apple? Has any one Porgrammer had such an obvious effect on a company (in Apple or outside it)?
Of course if 2000 of Apple's employees were to quit today Apple may be in trouble, but employees with similar skills could easily be hired.
And then think of supply & demand: Just look to China or india where they are produced in the dozens. But then try to find a Steve Jobs in India.
And then ask your self how important Steve Jobs is in comparison to Programmer X.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe nothing as big as a written report but simply some insightful comments and/or questions. The idea is to stimulate the brain, not for them to do work.
It seems as though if they made TV more interactive that maybe brain activity wouldn't go down - especially when considering the history channel and others (i.e. discovery, learning). Maybe if they quizzed you or asked for alternative answers to questions brain activity might go up? Or if the rest of the show preceded only once a good answer was given?
"If I were a more qualified sociologist, I'd think it may have inspired by the way that our children play today versus how they played twenty years ago."
Would this be because of a supposed dubbing down of children (i.e. they generally are not given these toys so if one were to see such a toy in a store they would not be attracted to it) or is it something deeper (i.e. they are not taught to think for themselves) or is it just some sort of genetic thing (i.e. kids today think differently then they did previously, and so are attracted to less scientific-type toys and possibly toys that are more focused on something more right brained - such as literature)?
So Illusioned - your suggesting that the first option creates the second option (i.e. putting a child in front of the tv causes him or her to not think for him or herself)?
Yes. This is true. It seems as though a high profile person (programmer or CEO, etc.) could easily make or break a company, but a CEO is a high profile person by default, where Programmer X is not necessarily. So if a CEO does mediocre work it is by default going to hurt the company much more than the average (non-celebrity) programmer.
You are correct. I'm sorry if I implied that there were no Steve Jobs'es in India. No racism intended. There are probably a few in India as there are probably a few in America that could run apple effectively. But finding them would be hard (in India or in America). And knowing that they would run the business effectively would be another thing, where Steve Jobs has proven to be effective. And this is why Steve Jobs is so valued, and not any old programmer in India *OR* in America (or any other country for that matter). And in my own experience living in New York, I have found the same thing: Indians to be business owners and to be big on bargaining and getting you to buy more. So if I could say anything honestly it would be very effective businessmen. And yes, Steve Jobs != Carley Fiorina. But then again, if she is wasting so much money or being ineffective, she will be out in a few years if not sooner as every CEO is who acts in such a manner.
Salary is directly proportional to value and expendibility. A common programer may be very valuable, but very expendible (and a new one easily hired).
So, yes, I can certainly see how a CEO is worth 2,000 workers. It is fairly simple. If a CEO has the vision (or maybe the celebrity status) to boost a company, he (or she) is just as valuable as any number of workers because that person is the life line of that company. Consider Apple and Steve Jobs: with the demise of Steve Jobs, how many Apple employees lost their jobs? And where was Apple the company going? How many stock holders lost money in Apple? Has any one Porgrammer had such an obvious effect on a company (in Apple or outside it)?
Of course if 2000 of Apple's employees were to quit today Apple may be in trouble, but employees with similar skills could easily be hired.
And then think of supply & demand: Just look to China or india where they are produced in the dozens. But then try to find a Steve Jobs in India.
And then ask your self how important Steve Jobs is in comparison to Programmer X.