I don't believe this. All that free publicity and they freak-out and get fascist about it? If I was Netpliance, I'd make a second line just for the iopener scene. My munny ain't green enough for 'em, eh???
I would think that the tide of cancelled orders, mine included, might be interesting to them... maybe not. It's still kind of an interesting box, if underpowered.
I really don't see any point for normal people to buy one of these. When they find out they can't store their porn and they can't play Diablo II on it, what's the selling point? Whatever happened to marketing to the home electronics hobbyist???
>A college degree is no different. It doesn't >mean anything unless you can back it up with >some good sample code or a good answer to an >algorithm question in the interview.
Parsimony is all well and good, but do you mean that you throw out resumes that have any sort of ``education'' section? How about someone who just memorizes a bunch of code snippets based on what other interviewees have shared? Of course, social engineering of interviews NEVER happens and it's a good thing, too. Personally, I'd take the poor interviewee with the degree (if it's a real degree like EE/CS/Math/Physics/ and so forth) over the swell interviewee with no degree, but YMMV, I reckon. Maybe you don't get that choice, what with the parsimony and such.
Uh, get familiar with how IQ is defined; this is left as an exercise. There's a Subgenius saying,``You know how dumb the average guy is? Well half of everybody else is even dumber!'' Do you mean IQ as measure by the Stanford-Binet test or something else? Because there are different scales, for example, an IQ of 130 might only be 5% of the population on one scale, but 15% on another, I don't remember exactly. Verify at www.mensa.org The point I want to make is that a person can be insanely great at one activity and a complete basket case in all other areas of his/her life. Read ``The Man Who Loved Only Numbers'' for the ultimate example. As for being a better world for smart people, I doubt it. The present environment is perfect for someone who has a little brains and a lot of aggression, carefully channeled. It also helps if the main motivator in your life is buying lots of crap. Really smart people might be more motivated by investigating ants or something else of no value for HI-Tech. Maybe you can take their picture and use it in ads or something. Nah, the whole ``smart'' thing is a marketing ploy. It'll go away after it's lost its use.
This bit: ``It's a better world for smart people, yes. And there isn't going to be a revolution started by the losers, because they really are losers, not merely oppressed. But it has real problems.'' was the funniest thing I saw today. I know quite a few people with better grades and better test scores than me who have opted for lo-tech or suicide. Try again?
>Blue collar work has been on a steady downward >decline since the 1960's. A significant portion >of work today IS some form of knowledge work.
Yes, but, it's such a huge slice of the employment picture that it can be in decline and still employ a heckuva lot of people. If you add in unskilled workers, you'd see that ``knowledge workers'' are a very thin slice of the total employment pie. It just happens to be a noisy slice, since no one wants to listen to migrant workers and not many cab drivers put up web sites; I can think of one or two that do a good job of that, fwiw.
Just realize that if you don't own your own business, you're just a prole. Reality checks don't bounce.
>Knowledge work is not just "working with >computers" - it is an occupation where your >education, experience and knowledge are what >allow you to do your job.
``Knowledge worker'' is a bit of jargon used to categorize new job titles. It was popularized by Robert Reich, former Treasury secretary, in his _The Work of Nations_ (iIrc). ``Knowledge'' should be understood as a combination of ``college degree typically required'' and ``not previously classified'', not as what the dictionary says.
Doctors, lawyers, architects, etc. are *not* knowledge workers, they are traditional jobs that are accounted for under the rubric ``professional''.
Try the Bureau of Labor Statistics site and Reich's book for a better explanation and more stuff to get mad about. Hope that helps. C-SPAN to the rescue? This is Reich on C-SPAN's ``Booknotes'': http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10189.htm
"Rescued By: Core Teach Yourself Zen and the Art of Advanced C Programming for C and C++ Programmers by Example for Dummies in a Nutshell Unleashed in 24 Hours for the Complete Idiot in 7 Days
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe this. All that free publicity and they freak-out and get fascist about it? If I was Netpliance, I'd make a second line just for the iopener scene. My munny ain't green enough for 'em, eh???
I would think that the tide of cancelled orders, mine included, might be interesting to them... maybe not. It's still kind of an interesting box, if underpowered.
I really don't see any point for normal people to buy one of these. When they find out they can't store their porn and they can't play Diablo II on it, what's the selling point? Whatever happened to marketing to the home electronics hobbyist???
>A college degree is no different. It doesn't >mean anything unless you can back it up with >some good sample code or a good answer to an >algorithm question in the interview.
Parsimony is all well and good, but do you mean that you throw out resumes that have any sort of ``education'' section? How about someone who just memorizes a bunch of code snippets based on what other interviewees have shared? Of course, social engineering of interviews NEVER happens and it's a good thing, too.
Personally, I'd take the poor interviewee with the degree (if it's a real degree like EE/CS/Math/Physics/ and so forth) over the swell interviewee with no degree, but YMMV, I reckon. Maybe you don't get that choice, what with the parsimony and such.
Uh, get familiar with how IQ is defined; this is left as an exercise. There's a Subgenius saying,``You know how dumb the average guy is? Well half of everybody else is even dumber!''
Do you mean IQ as measure by the Stanford-Binet test or something else? Because there are different scales, for example, an IQ of 130 might only be 5% of the population on one scale, but 15% on another, I don't remember exactly. Verify at www.mensa.org
The point I want to make is that a person can be insanely great at one activity and a complete basket case in all other areas of his/her life. Read ``The Man Who Loved Only Numbers'' for the ultimate example.
As for being a better world for smart people, I doubt it. The present environment is perfect for someone who has a little brains and a lot of aggression, carefully channeled. It also helps if the main motivator in your life is buying lots of crap. Really smart people might be more motivated by investigating ants or something else of no value for HI-Tech. Maybe you can take their picture and use it in ads or something.
Nah, the whole ``smart'' thing is a marketing ploy. It'll go away after it's lost its use.
This bit:
``It's a better world for smart people, yes. And there isn't going to be a revolution started by the losers, because they really are losers, not merely oppressed. But it has real problems.''
was the funniest thing I saw today. I know quite a few people with better grades and better test scores than me who have opted for lo-tech or suicide. Try again?
Found a page that explains this concept a lot better: http://online.bcc.ctc.edu/econ/kst/BriefReign/BRwe bversion.htm
>Blue collar work has been on a steady downward >decline since the 1960's. A significant portion >of work today IS some form of knowledge work.
Yes, but, it's such a huge slice of the employment picture that it can be in decline and still employ a heckuva lot of people. If you add in unskilled workers, you'd see that ``knowledge workers'' are a very thin slice of the total employment pie. It just happens to be a noisy slice, since no one wants to listen to migrant workers and not many cab drivers put up web sites; I can think of one or two that do a good job of that, fwiw.
Just realize that if you don't own your own business, you're just a prole. Reality checks don't bounce.
>Knowledge work is not just "working with >computers" - it is an occupation where your >education, experience and knowledge are what >allow you to do your job.
``Knowledge worker'' is a bit of jargon used to categorize new job titles. It was popularized by Robert Reich, former Treasury secretary, in his _The Work of Nations_ (iIrc). ``Knowledge'' should be understood as a combination of ``college degree typically required'' and ``not previously classified'', not as what the dictionary says.
Doctors, lawyers, architects, etc. are *not* knowledge workers, they are traditional jobs that are accounted for under the rubric ``professional''.
Try the Bureau of Labor Statistics site and Reich's book for a better explanation and more stuff to get mad about. Hope that helps.
C-SPAN to the rescue? This is Reich on C-SPAN's ``Booknotes'':
http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10189.htm
"Rescued By: Core Teach Yourself Zen and the Art of Advanced C Programming for C and C++ Programmers by Example for Dummies in a Nutshell Unleashed in 24 Hours for the Complete Idiot in 7 Days