I got a double-degree in Computer Science and Linguistics.

The great thing about doubling in Linguistics is that it is so interdisciplinary that you can use Linguistics courses for most of your general education requirements:

Behavioral Science = Psycholinguistics.
Social Science = Sociolinguistics.
History = Historical Linguistics.
Composition II = Syntax
Philosophy = Semantics
Elective Supporting Coursework for CS = Computational Linguistics, Cognitive Science Seminar, etc.
etc...

Then by the time you've finished your Gen Ed for CS, you've practically got your Linguistics degree.

And everything you learn in Linguistics is essentially about data structures and algorithms and rules and parsing and formal systems and symbol manipulation. The more advanced stuff gets into AI and natural language processing. It'll help your CS brain a lot if you learn Linguistics.

"Very little feedback"?

That depends on the school I suppose. I think that might be part of what makes a good school good is the amount of feedback you're able to get from your instructors. I got excellent feedback from my liberal arts/gen ed instructors.

I've upgraded my 3G to 4.2 from 4.1.1 and things are a bit better than they were before the upgrade but still not as good as before 4.x.

I originally opted for dealing with iPhones quirk (like no multitasking and the walled garden for apps) because I believed the party line that these restrictions helped keep the phone snappy, stable, usable. And the proof was right there: the phone was snappy, stable, and usable. It was a tactile joy to use iPhone 3.x.

Now my phone is so slow that when I push a button on screen it might be 5 seconds before the button changes color to indicate that I've pushed it, and another 5 seconds before the effect actually occurs. Apps crash all the time now. Hard resetting doesn't help. Turning off the search features doesn't help.

Apple's "upgrade" turned my perfectly useful phone, a phone that was a joy to use, into a nightmare of instability and UI freezes.

Upgrading to 4.2 has shown some improvement but not enough to stop me from jumping ship to the Droid X. I'm sure as hell not rewarding Apple by buying an iPhone 4.

Why not take a different approach. Assume that they'll find a way to bring in networked devices. Design a test for which that doesn't help them.

1) Include subtle variations on everyone's test so they can't just share answers directly. Everyone gets a unique test, but the problems are sufficiently similar that you can generate the answer keys for each algorithmically.
2) Make the test sufficiently complex that the only way to finish it on time is by working the problems directly, trying to communicate the problems out to an outside party, letting the outside party solve the problem, and waiting for the answer to come back takes a lot longer than just directly tackling the problem.
3) Have yourself (and a few grad students if available) walk around and pay attention to what students are doing. It should be fairly obvious if someone is using their iPad to chat with a friend rather than to access wikipedia or do some calculations. Just the manner in which the student is typing should indicate whether they're communicating with someone (lots of typing, short pauses to read) or looking something up (very little typing (queries), lots of reading).
4) Include graphical aspects to the problems that are harder communicate via text to an outside party.
5) Make problems where the student has to show their work, not just give an answer. The more words they have to write, the more obvious it'll be to detect patterns of cheating (lots of people with the same words).

Devices with cameras in them could pose a problem (all the "it takes time to type and typing is obvious" stuff goes out the window). But again, monitors walking around should have a pretty easy time noticing students positioning their devices to take pictures of the problems. Nothing beats monitors.

A good effective manager is going to select for talent which is not something that can be faked. The personality traits that are important to a team (and there are several types of person who are going to help the team, not just one) are going to the kinds of things that are innate to you, they're the way your brain works. Maybe for a certain job it's detail orientation, maybe for another it's extroversion...you can't fake or learn those things really...they're just part of who you are. They're the brightest pathways in your brain, well worn with repeated use, formed by your early experiences, that make you very efficient at a certain kind and style of thinking.

Don't try to figure out who you need to be to do this job. Instead figure out who you are and figure out the best job to exploit your tacit innate talents/personality traits. Luckily, on a software team there are roles for many different personality types (tester, coder, analyst, designer, project manager, tech writer, coach, etc).

Heh, I'm pretty interested in linguistics/language change, so if I witnessed the birth of a phrase that would later fall out of style I'd be pretty psyched. I'd probably tell my grandchildren about it.

Heh, yah, I picked up on the analogy to that great bit of jargon.

What boggles my mind is that the phrase is used so casually here as if everyone has heard it but it seems from what I can tell to have NEVER been used on an indexed web page with this particular meaning. So what I'm curious about is: is this a term that is used commonly among sysadmins these days? Or did the original poster just now coin it and through the power of /. it'll become a new standard term? Or is there some variation of this term that is more common, for which citations could more easily be found?

Are we witnessing the birth of new vocabulary?

Google doesn't have any relevant hits for this phrase (except this article).