... create a job where the essential functions of the job really do require at least 30 clock-hours of recent (in the last 5 years) training OR equivalent on-the-job/volunteer/self-study experience in a broad list of non-technical courses typically taught in undergraduate programs AND which candidates who have not been in school the last 5 years likely won't have.

For example, most recent graduates who went to school full-time the last 4-5 years studied at least one semester of
* American history
* Writing or composition ("English 101")
* Differential Calculus

If you have a job that really does make use of these jobs - even if you've deliberately gone out of your way to engineer the job requirements so that someone without this knowledge would have difficulty doing the job - you should be alright.

Round out the list with "relevant" technical courses. For example, for a programmer position, structure the job so that it really does require that a candidate recently had 30 classroom hours of ALL of the following courses or had the equivalent experience or self-study in these areas:
* algorithm design
* computer hardware
* [list two programming languages that weren't in vogue 10 years ago here]
* [list another skill that is widely taught in school but which only a small fraction of "industry hires" will have more than a passing knowledge of here]

Then for good measure throw in things like "must have given at least 3 technical presentations of at least 15 minutes each in the last 5 years, at least one of which is to a non-lay audience."

Again, this will only work if the job really does require the knowledge and skills that the job description asked for. If a motivated candidate that lacks one or more of the requirements could reasonably be expected to "fill in the gaps" through self-study before he needed to use those skills between the time he started the application/resume process and the time he needed them on the job, then making them a job requirement could be seen as a sham and it could get you into trouble.

Here's a hypothetical "engineered" job designed specifically to require such skills:

Job posting: Web programmer Level I
Salary range: [keep it on the low end but not OMGTHISMUSTBEANHB1POSITION low]
Primary duties: Work under supervision to design, implement, and maintain web sites using [list 2-3 fairly new web-development environments]
Secondary duties: Give short talks about your projects to other teams in the company; attend short talks given by other teams and provide feedback; present papers at technical conferences
Non-technical duties: Represent company in college- and high-school outreach including participating in "adult vs. youth" contests like "Are you smarter than an 11th-Grade American History Student," giving talks to middle school students on topics such as "how to make a ripple-carry adder circuit from the things you find at home," and giving talks to high school Calculus students on topics like "not all computers are digital."

--
Now, Mr. Employer, I have to ask you:

Is it really worth re-jiggering your employees' job duties specifically so your typical industry hire would not be qualified but your typical recent B.S.-holding technical-degree-graduate would? Add to that the fact that more seasoned professionals bring certain hard-to-define qualities to the job that you typically just can't get from less-seasoned professionals and recent grads? Also, don't forget loyalty: People who have kids-in-tow or who have lived in the area for awhile are very unlikely to want to move to a new area once they hire on with you. While you can't ask about kids or length-of-current-residence in a job interview, you can generally assume that your average person over 30 is more stable/reliable and less likely to "jump ship" for more money or a minor on-the-job annoyance than someone under 25.

Oh, and as for salary:
It's not like the 1990s, we, the "older tech workers," get it: We know that despite the benefits we bring to the table from our years or decades of technical experience, you are paying us to fill a specific role that does not require the benefits of our long experience. We get that we shouldn't expect any more pay now than the 22-year-old college grad who is also interviewing for the position and we get that unless we earn a promotion or change jobs internally, we won't be given any more in the way of pay raises than the 22-year-old will get if he gets the job. We accept this as an economic reality. If we wanted or needed more money, we wouldn't be applying for jobs that a 22-year-old with almost no "real-world" experience could do.

Battery life of an existing device won't go up over time.

If a brand new one has only 30% at the end of the day, a year from now (or an OS update, whichever happens first) you'd better get used to charging your watch at lunch.

It's ironic that Slashdot is objecting to these hearings yet at the same time seemingly against legislation that would mandate that public policy be based on publicly available Science.

Well, I got my introduction to electronics in the service. The RCA CDP1802 was the CPU in the equipment I learned to service. Yeah, it was actually used in something that sold for money. I felt kinda disappointed in what was available to civilians for a bit after separation.

I was fortunate to have gotten a lot of digital electronics back then. Playing with 74xx logic kept me off the streets for a few years.

Ah, so "right" and "wrong" can be determined by popular vote now?

Not so much "popular" as "fiscally responsible".

Society has a compelling interest in keeping people employed as long as possible - Ideally until they drop dead on the job, but as long as possible in any case. The longer someone can't work, the longer society will bear the financial burden to keep them alive. A decade of SSI, we can readily bear when offset by a 40 year career of paying in to that system. 30+ years of welfare because companies "don't want" to hire competent experienced professionals, however? The numbers just don't work out when we allow that to happen on any large scale.

So yes, we as a society have determined, for our own good, that companies (you remember "companies", right? Legal fictions allowed to exist as a boon society grants them in exchange for the small possibility they will benefit us overall?) cannot turn away otherwise-qualified people because of a few protected categories.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with blacks - Too fucking bad.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with women - Too fucking bad.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with fogeys - Too fucking bad.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with Jews - Too fucking bad.

If someone can do the job and you don't "want" to work with them, rejecting them for only that reason breaks the law. They have a "right" to consideration for employment regardless of the age, gender, race, or religion; you don't have a "right" to run a company however you want, simple as that.

I appreciate how terrified Fox is of Hillary given how strong a candidate she is ( especially when viewed against potential runners like Fiorina/Bush/Christy/Huckabee )

I am not sure if that's true. Politicians are realists; all the republican and tea bagger nut jobs is throwing their hat into the race because they perceive democrat has no viable candidate.

This pretty much says it all right here.

They might as well advertise for "Naive, spinless young suckers who'll do anything for a buck."

Who remembers figuring out Procomm Plus for the first time? Usenet? Trumpet Winsock?

Ruin? No. She'll "improve share holder value." Probably something along the line of arranging for "merger" with China to reduce national debt, and become the "sole remaining super power (again.)"

I'm a disabled person.

Everyone can calm down. All you have to do is these three things:

- Make sure your keys can be reconfigurable,
- Your GUI interfaces can be resizable.
- When someone mentions their specific condition in regard to your specific project, give them a minute of your time and see if you can help. (No pressure if you can't.)

That's about all you can ask of a developer, and the situation is pretty good for all of the major operating systems. You don't have to worry, we're not all bitter people threatening to boycott. We just want to be able to use the software that other people do. We also realize it's impractical if not impossible for every person's disability to be accounted for.

I can't speak for all disabled people--by it's nature, each disability is very uniquely crippling--so if you're actively curious, stop by a disability subreddit and ask them what they wish games had. They'll appreciate you're goodwill.

I'm 61, my first useful PC was an XT clone. I transitioned from office machines to PC service, then networking, helped run a dialup ISP, spent a decade connecting my clients to that Internet thing.

My clients were using email, intranet and extended web sites to share work, and working remotely before there was Google or Facebook.

I've been digital since there was digital. I was even playing MMOG before there was Internet.

I should go to college just to annoy the kids. I already work with teams where the 25- year-olds are in charge, and we do fine. After our team proves them somewhat misled, they listen to us.

I got paid to see ST4... Yea, really. I was a projectionist at the time. I had pretty high expiations at the time, we actually pre-screened it the Thursday before it opened. I figured it wouldn't do well...

He's an old guy. John Carmack is no spring chicken. Steve Capps, Andy Hertzfield, etc.

The only thing I can think of is that you are some kind of mentally challenged retard living in your mom's basement.

Seriously, Fuck You.

McDonald's in town has a help wanted sign out front saying "hiring 15 year olds". Discriminatory?

Possibly by the letter of the law, but probably not under any reasonable interpretation - 15 year olds fit into a special "pain in the ass" category as far as labor laws go, so McD's intends that sign to mean they will hire 15YOs, not that they'll only hire 15YOs.

- ha, if by one step from 'anarchy' you mean the Federal Reserve bank, the IRS, FDA, EPA, FCC, FBI, FDIC, DHS, FHA, departments of agriculture, business, interior, education, health care, labour, etc. Sure, 1 step being 99% of what governments (federal and state and municipal) do.