GAY Prepare your bert hole...

CletusJones said:
The average "good with computers" person in your area at work is still a fucktard. They just know more than you so they seem SMRT. If I had 10 dollars for every computer I've fixed that had someone who "knows computers" fix it first I'd be a rich man.
Click to expand...

I've had to fix more things that so called (or better yet, self called) 'techies' have tried to fix but made worse it's maddening. But what is even worse is people so bad with technology they need your assistance in putting a shortcut on the desktop that they feel empowered to tell you to, with included links to MSN articles, how something is broken. For example, yesterday, I was told that she needed her software updated because an attachment she got wasn't able to be read by just clicking on it.

In reality, what happened is that the attachment normally comes as a .pdf, but this time someone sent her a scan in .tif format. Obviously, something is broken if double clicking on it doesn't work.

:case:
 
Mr. Asa said:
Please see post above.

I will freely stipulate that the bell-curves I talk about could be way way off. However, until someone actually pulls numbers and compares them...
Click to expand...

Asks for numbers, doesn't provide any. Thinks dropping phrases like 'bell-curves' validates his point.

Seriously, dude. Don't even try.
 
Mr. Asa said:
Oh look, Duke starts off with a thinly veiled insult instead of taking something I say at face value.

It's got nothing to do with my knowledge of the material, and everything to do with relatively simple math.
15-20 years ago, computers and jobs involving computers were much less numerous than they are today. So, simply comparing how many people know anything about computers easily shows you that today there are more people that are tech-savvy than there were 15-20 years ago. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell you how tech-savvy they are. Depending on what parameters you choose, depends on what data you get back.
Say you choose people with certifications in various computer fields. On one end you have 1 certification, on the other end you have n certifications, where n is the total number of certifications in existence at that time period. 15-20 years ago, you'll have a much smaller sample size, but you'll have a fairly standard looking bell-curve. Apply the same limitations to today's world and you'll get a bell-curve that (very likely) looks almost exactly the same once you factor in how many more certifications there are in today's world and how many more tech-savvy people there are.

You'll likely get a) the same bell-curves, or b) very similar bell-curves for all factors you choose when you examine that time period vs today's time period.

It isn't that overall there are more people that are tech-savvy or less, it's that the sample size of today vs yester-year has grown so much that you're constantly running into people on the low end of the bell-curve, so it's skewing your viewpoint.




In short, "get off my lawn, you damned kids!"
Click to expand...


You just did a great job of proving my and cletus point. You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about here. Many of us here have actual real world experience in this. At least a decade or more. You are applying some BS you caught in one of your recent classes that has nothing to even do with the topic and treat it like it's relevant.

You know nothing Jon Snow.
 
Mr. Asa said:
Oh look, Duke starts off with a thinly veiled insult instead of taking something I say at face value.

It's got nothing to do with my knowledge of the material, and everything to do with relatively simple math.
15-20 years ago, computers and jobs involving computers were much less numerous than they are today. So, simply comparing how many people know anything about computers easily shows you that today there are more people that are tech-savvy than there were 15-20 years ago. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell you how tech-savvy they are. Depending on what parameters you choose, depends on what data you get back.
Say you choose people with certifications in various computer fields. On one end you have 1 certification, on the other end you have n certifications, where n is the total number of certifications in existence at that time period. 15-20 years ago, you'll have a much smaller sample size, but you'll have a fairly standard looking bell-curve. Apply the same limitations to today's world and you'll get a bell-curve that (very likely) looks almost exactly the same once you factor in how many more certifications there are in today's world and how many more tech-savvy people there are.

You'll likely get a) the same bell-curves, or b) very similar bell-curves for all factors you choose when you examine that time period vs today's time period.

It isn't that overall there are more people that are tech-savvy or less, it's that the sample size of today vs yester-year has grown so much that you're constantly running into people on the low end of the bell-curve, so it's skewing your viewpoint.




In short, "get off my lawn, you damned kids!"
Click to expand...

15 years ago was 1998, just for the record.

I know it seems like 1990 or 1992 when you say that, but its not. That was 20 years ago
 
Mr. Asa said:
Who asked for numbers? No one.

Nice attempt at deflection though.
Have fun, I am off for a bike ride.
Click to expand...


lol, you have pulled this lie before. Except i think it was 'I have class to attend'.

We all know this is your way of backing out of something you never should have gotten into in the first place, but you are, as usual, incapable of admitting it.
 
Mr. Asa said:
Oh look, Duke starts off with a thinly veiled insult instead of taking something I say at face value.

It's got nothing to do with my knowledge of the material, and everything to do with relatively simple math.
15-20 years ago, computers and jobs involving computers were much less numerous than they are today. So, simply comparing how many people know anything about computers easily shows you that today there are more people that are tech-savvy than there were 15-20 years ago. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell you how tech-savvy they are. Depending on what parameters you choose, depends on what data you get back.
Say you choose people with certifications in various computer fields. On one end you have 1 certification, on the other end you have n certifications, where n is the total number of certifications in existence at that time period. 15-20 years ago, you'll have a much smaller sample size, but you'll have a fairly standard looking bell-curve. Apply the same limitations to today's world and you'll get a bell-curve that (very likely) looks almost exactly the same once you factor in how many more certifications there are in today's world and how many more tech-savvy people there are.

You'll likely get a) the same bell-curves, or b) very similar bell-curves for all factors you choose when you examine that time period vs today's time period.

It isn't that overall there are more people that are tech-savvy or less, it's that the sample size of today vs yester-year has grown so much that you're constantly running into people on the low end of the bell-curve, so it's skewing your viewpoint.




In short, "get off my lawn, you damned kids!"
Click to expand...
Back the shortbus up sparky. It has nothing to do with math AMD everything to do with the human factor.

Making the assertion that technology is more commonplace today results in more savvy users is ridiculous. Most people who consider themselves savvy are clueless morons who cannot accomplish the simplest of tasks. They assess themselves as savvy based on their knowledge compared to their peers. If their peers can't turn on a TV they assume they are awesome because they can. In general, the average savvy home user knows only enough to cause extensive damage to whatever they touch.

You're not even touching on 90% of the population. Most people aren't tech savvy and don't have certs. If you have a cert that's great but it doesn't automatically render one intelligent; I've met plenty of certified retards over the years.
 
CletusJones said:
If you have a cert that's great but it doesn't automatically render one intelligent; I've met plenty of certified retards over the years.
Click to expand...

Paper Techs are the worst. Hell, most of the classes I've looked into don't even have real world labs. It's all book knowledge. Worthless.
 
I've been at my current IT job for 16ish years, I think we have fewer actual computers than before, and from what I can tell, the users have become further distanced from the actual workings of the technology.

Two more years in IT before that, and the users back then were well versed with running DOS programs and navigating directories.

So that's 18 years. The two years before that, computers were still ubiquitous in the work environment, pc at every desk, retail POS systems, etc.

I think when he says "15-20 years" he must mean the early 80's.
 
I got started in 1990. After college, working for Motorola. We were just starting to put IBM 286's out on desktops. A Token Ring IBM network was just put in place, however, almost every computer that did exist still used modems for anything outside locally stored files. Windows 286 was maybe found on 1 in every 20 pcs, the rest using some weird ANSI based interface file management system if they had anything beyond command line at all.

kinda miss those dark ages. Looking back now, I wonder if people today could even function in that world of yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Syrup Beaver said:
I've been at my current IT job for 16ish years, I think we have fewer actual computers than before, and from what I can tell, the users have become further distanced from the actual workings of the technology.

Two more years in IT before that, and the users back then were well versed with running DOS programs and navigating directories.

So that's 18 years. The two years before that, computers were still ubiquitous in the work environment, pc at every desk, retail POS systems, etc.

I think when he says "15-20 years" he must mean the early 80's.
Click to expand...
I meant 1995-2000 era, when computers were affordable for the masses. Having a PC in the early 80's was a luxury. We had one because my dad was a programmer (FORTRAN, oh yeah!) at that time. Shit, my best friend's mom was a punch card typist. They had the machine in their kitchen.

When computers transitioned from the business world into the hands of every moron is when it all started to decline. Nobody knows what a directory is now, it's called a folder instead. As you said, the interface has evolved and now hides the underpinnings quite well.
 
CletusJones said:
I meant 1995-2000 era, when computers were affordable for the masses. Having a PC in the early 80's was a luxury. We had one because my dad was a programmer (FORTRAN, oh yeah!) at that time. Shit, my best friend's mom was a punch card typist. They had the machine in their kitchen.

When computers transitioned from the business world into the hands of every moron is when it all started to decline. Nobody knows what a directory is now, it's called a folder instead. As you said, the interface has evolved and now hides the underpinnings quite well.
Click to expand...

Only reason we had one in the 80s was because the university tossed out some trash 80s. Learned BASIC on those, and hardware as well, shoehorning in shit that wasnt supposed to connect like off-brand tape recorders, etc etc
 
Duke said:
kinda miss those dark ages. Looking back now, I wonder if people today could even function in that world of yesterday.
Click to expand...
IMHO the only ones who would be able to were the ones who did it before. It'd be from memory at this point, all that documentation is long gone.
 
Domon said:
Only reason we had one in the 80s was because the university tossed out some trash 80s. Learned BASIC on those, and hardware as well, shoehorning in shit that wasnt supposed to connect like off-brand tape recorders, etc etc
Click to expand...
We were poor, we didn't have peripherals like that, only a printer.

My parents did get me a big book of BASIC code that I worked through. I actually found some of my old code on a CD from years ago. There's a bunch of stuff on zip and LS120 discs I wish I could read. I found a big box of my old computer stuff. Even found the original 5.25" floppies for word perfect 5.1.
 
We didnt have any peripherals at all either, what the machine came with is what we got. So I made do. Any tape deck could be used to store data I figured out, it didnt have to be the Tandy branded one. Making it work was a matter of getting the timing right on pressing record, and getting the hookup right. Some brands just didnt work, some did.
 
CletusJones said:
We were poor, we didn't have peripherals like that, only a printer.

My parents did get me a big book of BASIC code that I worked through. I actually found some of my old code on a CD from years ago. There's a bunch of stuff on zip and LS120 discs I wish I could read. I found a big box of my old computer stuff. Even found the original 5.25" floppies for word perfect 5.1.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back