Nope - just someone looking forward to the collapse of our current IP model. They can pry my 3D printed lego set from my cold, dead 3D printed exoskeleton.
So it's about as "real and legally binding" as any marriage in a church too then? Isn't any "marriage" only legally binding when you sign the contract?
First was obviously meant to be " dumber than average (<100 IQ)".
Secondly, I said that geeks are likely to have >100 IQ.
The logical opposite of the second statement is that those with <100 IQ aren't likely to end up as computer geeks. It isn't that anyone who is bad with computers is automatically dumb.
I also know a really clever engineer who is awful with computers (though he is actually interested in trying to fix his problems himself, he also has a nasty porn habit and is really gullible when it comes to fake AV - not a good combination).
Reread my responses to you, and the other responses (some other people made the salient points more clearly than me).
I've not said that "anyone who is bad with computers is likely to be dumber than average (100 IQ)".
The two are mutually exclusive statements, and you keep focusing on the first one, when it's not even the logical opposite of the second statement.
The logical opposite is that people with likely to be computer geeks. I doubt you'll have any anecdotal evidence of such people. Maybe if you looked around online you'd find a few wannabes - but I can't imagine you finding any with a gift for coding or good database design for example. IQ tests measure problem solving, pattern recognition etc. By definition you need to be good at these things to make a good computer geek.
Sure, because I can't tell the difference by now *rolleyes* There's one guy in our sales team who has a fucking Computer Science degree, but still had to call me down to switch his monitor on one day. He phoned me up saying his laptop had "frozen on a blue screen of death" just because his laptop screen was showing the default blue domain logon background and his monitor was showing nothing. Being interested doesn't always make you good at something.
I've had time for it to sink in for years thanks, an extra minute isn't going to change it. It's not that I measure IQ by tech savviness, but there is a strong correlation. By tech-savviness I don't even mean being especially good with computers in absolute terms, I just mean ability to learn and understand abstract concepts, rather than rely on a list of instructions. Some people learn very quickly. Others.. I prefer not to even think about it. One of our departments is thick as mud. My colleague thought I was being harsh at first saying things like that - but after supporting them for a couple of years, he now agrees.
Hey! I didn't torrent the Bleach I was watching yesterday, I got the DVD from Love Film legally!:p And today I spent 4 hours outside doing Parkour, I'm not online alllll my waking life.. it's only about 80%!;)
Being smarter doesn't make you a better person, or cooler or whatever. I have no illusions about that. I do know that I am considered smarter than average though. In school I was in the top 5-10% for all classes. I got prizes for being first in the year for physics and computing at one of my high schools. I don't think I'm smart because I'm a big headed asshole, it's just obvious from things like me getting good grades without really trying, and everyday people saying I'm smart when I suggest courses of action for stuff:p
I didn't say that geeks are better than everyone, just the obvious that most geeks are smarter than average (ie as a group we have >100 IQ). The other two explained it pretty well:)
I agree that a lot of being able to use technology comes down to how much effort you put into it, but higher IQ people tend to be able to deal with computers without even needing to put in so much effort. I have direct experience of that after 10 years of IT support, and I can generally tell the dumb and lazy, the bright and lazy, the motivated but dumb, the motivated and bright, etc. Being motivated is certainly a factor in defining the common geek, but it isn't everything.
I'd say proportionally to the general population, computer geeks have a higher IQ. I don't think that's much of a stretch at all. It may depend how you define "geek", of course.
We already know we're "superior". We're geeks: we're smarter than average (in terms of IQ at least) basically by definition. The more obscure and geeky the browser, the better the mean IQ of the userbase.
It wasn't a perfect analogy, but I don't think they should be congratulated for closing the gate after the horse already bolted. They're just doing what they should have been doing all along. Really, they shouldn't let anything even get stolen.
Well, I was talking about 1998, maybe I didn't make it all that obvious though:
There are a whole lot of benefits that have come our way - easily the best search since 1998
1998 was when Google came out, and since then they've done a lot more for the tech world than Apple and MS was my point. 1998 also happens to be the year when I switched to using PCs rather than Macs and Amigas.
Since the desktop space is so established, "innovation" is not enough to switch people over - unless they are not tied down in any way by established Windows only applications. But basically hardly anyone is like that. Home users are tied to their games, business users are tied to office and design applications, etc. Any change of OS needs to be gradual and compatible. WINE and virtualisation are helping a lot with that now, but the results still aren't perfect.
The way I see it is that things started opening up when Firefox came along and put a stop to the "this site requires IE6" garbage. Having websites built on actual standards has allowed us to develop all kinds of cool cross-platform stuff, and for those of us that are happy to game on consoles that means we can use any OS we want now. MS were quite clever to get into the console space really - they must have seen this coming.
Actually, I'll agree that Windows Mobile was the best for a while, I used to use it long before iOS came out, and I stuck with it until Android came along. They just let it stagnate though because that's what MS do when they're the only game in town.
Xbox may have done online gaming, but I hardly consider that "revolutionary" considering I'd already been gaming online for years before it. Evolutionary perhaps, but not revolutionary. Consoles such as the Dreamcast and PS2 had online gaming too.
We'd be a lot further ahead without Windows' effective monopoly on the OS market. It's taken a shift to mobile computing to break the stranglehold and start some innovation again.
It worked fine for me on Ubuntu, but on Mint I started getting annoying time synch issues where sometimes the songs would play as if they were on fast forward. I've had to start using a Window machine for playing music. The same thing happens when I use the WINE version strangely enough.
I have to say that I was both socially awkward and interested in computers long before I ever thought about a career, or social stereotypes. I think it is just true that slightly autistic/whatever people have an affinity for logic and programming.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope - just someone looking forward to the collapse of our current IP model. They can pry my 3D printed lego set from my cold, dead 3D printed exoskeleton.
And then it will get better :)
I love when people don't get jokes, and then start insulting the joker. Makes them look really special.
Posting to undo wrong mod (I picked a fine day to learn emacs - have lost all mousing ability already).
So it's about as "real and legally binding" as any marriage in a church too then? Isn't any "marriage" only legally binding when you sign the contract?
HTML formatting FTL.
First was obviously meant to be " dumber than average (<100 IQ)".
Secondly, I said that geeks are likely to have >100 IQ.
The logical opposite of the second statement is that those with <100 IQ aren't likely to end up as computer geeks. It isn't that anyone who is bad with computers is automatically dumb.
I also know a really clever engineer who is awful with computers (though he is actually interested in trying to fix his problems himself, he also has a nasty porn habit and is really gullible when it comes to fake AV - not a good combination).
Reread my responses to you, and the other responses (some other people made the salient points more clearly than me).
I've not said that "anyone who is bad with computers is likely to be dumber than average (100 IQ)".
The two are mutually exclusive statements, and you keep focusing on the first one, when it's not even the logical opposite of the second statement.
The logical opposite is that people with likely to be computer geeks. I doubt you'll have any anecdotal evidence of such people. Maybe if you looked around online you'd find a few wannabes - but I can't imagine you finding any with a gift for coding or good database design for example. IQ tests measure problem solving, pattern recognition etc. By definition you need to be good at these things to make a good computer geek.
Sure, because I can't tell the difference by now *rolleyes* There's one guy in our sales team who has a fucking Computer Science degree, but still had to call me down to switch his monitor on one day. He phoned me up saying his laptop had "frozen on a blue screen of death" just because his laptop screen was showing the default blue domain logon background and his monitor was showing nothing. Being interested doesn't always make you good at something.
In summary, I refer you back to my first response.
I've had time for it to sink in for years thanks, an extra minute isn't going to change it. It's not that I measure IQ by tech savviness, but there is a strong correlation. By tech-savviness I don't even mean being especially good with computers in absolute terms, I just mean ability to learn and understand abstract concepts, rather than rely on a list of instructions. Some people learn very quickly. Others.. I prefer not to even think about it. One of our departments is thick as mud. My colleague thought I was being harsh at first saying things like that - but after supporting them for a couple of years, he now agrees.
Hey! I didn't torrent the Bleach I was watching yesterday, I got the DVD from Love Film legally! :p And today I spent 4 hours outside doing Parkour, I'm not online alllll my waking life.. it's only about 80%! ;)
Being smarter doesn't make you a better person, or cooler or whatever. I have no illusions about that. I do know that I am considered smarter than average though. In school I was in the top 5-10% for all classes. I got prizes for being first in the year for physics and computing at one of my high schools. I don't think I'm smart because I'm a big headed asshole, it's just obvious from things like me getting good grades without really trying, and everyday people saying I'm smart when I suggest courses of action for stuff :p
I didn't say that geeks are better than everyone, just the obvious that most geeks are smarter than average (ie as a group we have >100 IQ). The other two explained it pretty well :)
I agree that a lot of being able to use technology comes down to how much effort you put into it, but higher IQ people tend to be able to deal with computers without even needing to put in so much effort. I have direct experience of that after 10 years of IT support, and I can generally tell the dumb and lazy, the bright and lazy, the motivated but dumb, the motivated and bright, etc. Being motivated is certainly a factor in defining the common geek, but it isn't everything.
I'd say proportionally to the general population, computer geeks have a higher IQ. I don't think that's much of a stretch at all. It may depend how you define "geek", of course.
I thought that sense of smug superiority was the whole point in using it?
We already know we're "superior". We're geeks: we're smarter than average (in terms of IQ at least) basically by definition. The more obscure and geeky the browser, the better the mean IQ of the userbase.
Aren't the real victims their customers? If you have millions of customers' data, you should have enough resources to give it physical protection.
Or against anyone who builds devices with "memory and microprocessing chips". Not a lot of those things around though.
It wasn't a perfect analogy, but I don't think they should be congratulated for closing the gate after the horse already bolted. They're just doing what they should have been doing all along. Really, they shouldn't let anything even get stolen.
"I know I already shit on the floor, but I'm wearing a diaper now so it's all good!"
Well, I was talking about 1998, maybe I didn't make it all that obvious though:
There are a whole lot of benefits that have come our way - easily the best search since 1998
1998 was when Google came out, and since then they've done a lot more for the tech world than Apple and MS was my point. 1998 also happens to be the year when I switched to using PCs rather than Macs and Amigas.
Since the desktop space is so established, "innovation" is not enough to switch people over - unless they are not tied down in any way by established Windows only applications. But basically hardly anyone is like that. Home users are tied to their games, business users are tied to office and design applications, etc. Any change of OS needs to be gradual and compatible. WINE and virtualisation are helping a lot with that now, but the results still aren't perfect.
The way I see it is that things started opening up when Firefox came along and put a stop to the "this site requires IE6" garbage. Having websites built on actual standards has allowed us to develop all kinds of cool cross-platform stuff, and for those of us that are happy to game on consoles that means we can use any OS we want now. MS were quite clever to get into the console space really - they must have seen this coming.
Windows and Office were around before 1998.
Actually, I'll agree that Windows Mobile was the best for a while, I used to use it long before iOS came out, and I stuck with it until Android came along. They just let it stagnate though because that's what MS do when they're the only game in town.
Xbox may have done online gaming, but I hardly consider that "revolutionary" considering I'd already been gaming online for years before it. Evolutionary perhaps, but not revolutionary. Consoles such as the Dreamcast and PS2 had online gaming too.
We'd be a lot further ahead without Windows' effective monopoly on the OS market. It's taken a shift to mobile computing to break the stranglehold and start some innovation again.
It worked fine for me on Ubuntu, but on Mint I started getting annoying time synch issues where sometimes the songs would play as if they were on fast forward. I've had to start using a Window machine for playing music. The same thing happens when I use the WINE version strangely enough.
Not all of them support the warrantless wiretaps
[secret citation needed]
Does that make Iran and North Korea member states?
Oh goody, an AC troll who doesn't understand the function of commas!
I have to say that I was both socially awkward and interested in computers long before I ever thought about a career, or social stereotypes. I think it is just true that slightly autistic/whatever people have an affinity for logic and programming.