This article 'rages against the machine'. Technology reduces the value of the skills and fact knowledge of everyone, not just old people. That is the point of technology. Information technology in particular.
The article asks:
"Want help orienting a rooftop television aerial? Changing the vacuum tubes in your TV? Dialing up AOL? Using MS-DOS? Changing the ribbon on an IBM Selectric (height of 1961 technology)? Tuning up a car that lacks electronic engine controls? Doing your taxes without considering the Alternative Minimum Tax and the tens of thousands of pages of rules that have been added since our senior citizen was starting his career? Didn’t think so."
But these are contrived examples. Created specifically to illustrate technology's devaluing effect on the skills of older people.
Consider these questions:
Want help with that Bresenham's algorithm code? No thanks, I use glDrawLine() like most other non idiots. Want me to help you set up a MySQL on that server on the internet? No thanks, I have a buck. I'll spend the first ten cents on an Amazon RDS instance. Then a quarter on buying you a clue. I would give you the remaining change, but there are pan handlers that are probably more deserving.
Also contrived, created specifically to illustrate technology's devaluing effects on the skills of young people.
My point is we don't have to fear monger.
Consider . . . what moron would hire a 25 year old hot shot instead of Werner Vogels. Yeah . . . I don't think that moron exists either. Let's say you have a marketing and design God who happens to be between 20 and 30. Would you match him up against Steve Jobs? No. You wouldn't expect him to be that good for another 20 years.
Talent is where you find it, and it is the only thing of value in a world of rapid technological advance. Talented people have an ability to think differently. People like this will always be valued, young or old. So let's stop 'raging against . . .' and start 'innovating with . . .'
Since there is so much emphasis here on technical things, go look at a Lisp Machine then we'll talk. Or what Engelbart did in 1968. It's common knowledge that industry practice is consistently a decade or more behind what is happening in computer science research. Anyone familiar with S-expressions for representing data was not at all surprised by JSON, as an arbitrary example, and might even know some of the pitfalls to avoid and how to best take advantage of this "new" technology.
Secondly, I'm surprised so many are taking at face value the value of Googling arbitrary facts. Without some context to put that information in, or to even know what to Google when you face a new problem, Google won't help you much. Ever take an "open book" exam? Did having the book with you do you much good if you didn't also study?
Lastly, an inherit premise of this whole discussion is that the primary value of a human being is his or her contribution to the gross domestic product. Is that really how we want to evaluate people?
hi, just for the record: I know a lot of PHBs that do not even know Werner Vogels and would not even start contemplating hiring him seeing expected salary figures. One must never forget, that the common misconception that our business does not value experience comes from the fact that most software systems just have to be "good enough"--therefore, the old "worse is better" approach applies here, too. Consequently, the types of PHBs I have in mind would gladly hire the 25 year old for their euphemism software (product|system|whatever).
But in technology this happens not only with PBHs. Many startups are more interested in young people, even if they don't have all the necessary skills, because they can stay on the job 16h/day. While an experienced guy wouldn't do this. Also, startups don't have money to pay for talent, so unless you are a co-founder you won't get paid what you deserve.
The article asks:
"Want help orienting a rooftop television aerial? Changing the vacuum tubes in your TV? Dialing up AOL? Using MS-DOS? Changing the ribbon on an IBM Selectric (height of 1961 technology)? Tuning up a car that lacks electronic engine controls? Doing your taxes without considering the Alternative Minimum Tax and the tens of thousands of pages of rules that have been added since our senior citizen was starting his career? Didn’t think so."
But these are contrived examples. Created specifically to illustrate technology's devaluing effect on the skills of older people.
Consider these questions:
Want help with that Bresenham's algorithm code? No thanks, I use glDrawLine() like most other non idiots. Want me to help you set up a MySQL on that server on the internet? No thanks, I have a buck. I'll spend the first ten cents on an Amazon RDS instance. Then a quarter on buying you a clue. I would give you the remaining change, but there are pan handlers that are probably more deserving.
Also contrived, created specifically to illustrate technology's devaluing effects on the skills of young people.
My point is we don't have to fear monger.
Consider . . . what moron would hire a 25 year old hot shot instead of Werner Vogels. Yeah . . . I don't think that moron exists either. Let's say you have a marketing and design God who happens to be between 20 and 30. Would you match him up against Steve Jobs? No. You wouldn't expect him to be that good for another 20 years.
Talent is where you find it, and it is the only thing of value in a world of rapid technological advance. Talented people have an ability to think differently. People like this will always be valued, young or old. So let's stop 'raging against . . .' and start 'innovating with . . .'