(Ego, Politics)
How concerned are you with others' perception of you and your actions?

(Self-Confidence, Protection)
How do you handle stress passed down from the higher rungs on the ladder? Do you pass it down the hierarchy or do you act to shield your employees from stress they don't genuinely need?

(Field Sgt. vs. Desk Jockey)
How important is it for a manager to be capable of replacing her/his employees in absence of the employee? Are you willing to fill-in for your employees to the best of your capability?

(Career "Management Track" vs. Genuine Leader)
What do you see as the "perks" of being a manager vs. being the managed? What are the burdens?
You have 3 employees in your division and you are told that the office is letting most people go early for the holidays. However, each division must "hold the fort" with at least one person. How do you decide who stays?

(Ethics)
Have you ever been required to compromise your integrity by a supervisor or manager? How did you feel?

(Authenticity)
What makes you uncomfortable in the work environment? (Clothing, language, discussion topics, etc.)

(Humor and Creativity)
Cake or pie? When and why?

(Confidence in Team)
On a scale of 1-10 (10 being frequent), how much do you micromanage? When would you prefer to be most involved in lower-level decision? When would you like to see your employees take charge?

Some tech actually erodes employment. There's no question about there. In fact, nearly any kind of system that decreases human input or actions has the specific INTENT of incurring savings through reduced human employment and increased process precision:

--Manufacturing automation
--Community Self-Assistance (Forums, FAQs, etc.)
--Self-driving taxi cabs
--Etc.

Some tech on the other hand creates employment need. This tech usually involved the addition of a product or service to a market.

--Cellular Telephones
--New websites that offer services in new niches
--Etc.

The problem comes when business, entrepreneurs, and economic theory suggests that the first grouping is more important than the second. With that scenario, tech has a net-negative effect on employment.

The question then arises, "What do we do when the machines are capable of doing our work?". The answer is simple, but not easy: move the general global philosophy from working for the ability to survive and progress financially to a socialistic and humanistic expectations on how one receives what s/he needs to live and how s/he spends her/his time. Yes, the "Start Trek" switch.

Unfortunately, tech advances by the day and hour while philosophy changes by the generation... and even then only slightly.

It's hard to convince yourself to stay home when you know your company is relying on something so inane as the Bradford Factor to decide if you're a lazy-ass. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor)

"Wow... someone around here must be very important. Or rich."

Yes, but I wish people would just send me emails. Often, I just don't have the time to talk. If I get an email, I can respond at will or forward it off to someone else who it should have gone to in the first place.

Come on... this is Criminology 101 - Crime and criminal actions are the symptoms of anger, hopelessness, unmet expectations, and the lack of accessibility to comfort reasonable to the actor.

I was hoping someone else would type this out so I didn't have to.

I enjoyed this comment. =D

I know... it's their award, they can do what they want, but I would assume that the "car of the year" would be the best mix of:
*Affordability
*Driver/Passenger Safety
*Safety for Other Road Users
*Fuel Economy/GHG Emissions per Mile
*Sustainability of Production and Retirement
*Attractiveness to the General Public
*Real-World Availability

Very well said, friend.

I know Slashdot loves to pull up these kinds of articles every time they're available. TED is susceptible similar lectures as well, so we who have actually worked in education have to keep our eyes open before the "computers will solve all our complex problems" crowd runs away with an invaluable source of social evolution.

Before the average Slashdotter writes off brick-and-mortar schools in favor of online learning with justifications like, "I was always bored in class", "I was smarter than my teacher", and "Just be open to change!" consider this: Is your average Slashdotter ANYTHING like your average American student?

The answer is that they simply are not. Slashdotters likely grew up in smaller than average social groups with access to technology. We adapt to new technology with little issue. We understand the underlying concepts of nested menus and function taxonomy. We are nerds and geeks who thrive on learning.

The rest of America's children do not thrive on learning and providing online education will not change that.

Having worked in middle schools, high schools, with community college transfer students, and then the resulting university undergrads, I have to say: If the general population doesn't HAVE to learn something or if there isn't something someone sufficiently passionate to help them learn something new regardless, they won't bother. Humanity is curious about the universe in that we consistently have some extremely smart people come to global acclaim for their works, but most people just want to live easy, have sex, and do so as long as possible.

It's the role of the educator to affect everyone, regardless of station or passion, and get them the minimum (plus) standard of knowledge and analytical capability so that they can learn more things and more complex concepts at the next level. This is something a computer with programed or limited responses cannot do.

Yes, OLPC can get kids excited about new things. Those children will NOT be starting hospitals in their villages with simple access to online education. They will not become cultural philosophers through online education. They will not begin building Motorola Zoom tablets with they learned via online learning. The concepts required to do any of those complex actions cannot be taught in a single plug-and-play manner. It requires a talented individual and as social an environment as possible to adjust the content to the user, to adjust the lesson plan to the person that day.

The only way teachers will ever go obsolete is if we are ignorant to assume that computers will ever substitute for the adaptive human mind.

Thank you, sir, for doing the research I did not. The Transformer Book looks to be the right step in the right direction with my only concerns being, weight, heat, battery life, and cost (due to the hardware included). Since it's not yet in consumer or reviewer hands, I'll keep those concerns until I hear otherwise.

But that 11.6" version is already calling my name...

No... Tablets do NOT need all-new applications. What tablets need is a non-phone/device OS environment based on existing, established OSes (Windows, Linux, etc.) that is low-resource-intensive (scratch Windows), but still has the expectation of *multiple* users and each user being a content producer.

I understand the corporate rush to get in on the smart-device bandwagon, but where the evolution of the USER is going is towards scalable portability.

Desktops led to laptops which led to ultra portables (high-cost) and netbooks (low-cost). The next step is the net-vertible (like the ASUS Transformer) that can be a highly portable tablet or a portable workstation like a laptop. What we need to continue the honing of this next step in the evolution of the PC is for a genuine personal computer OS to work on low-power tablets.

Yes, Windows 8 is hoping to be that option, but the weight and power requirements of that OS will be prohibitive for net-vertibles.

I agree that those are frequently the most important, but for those of us looking for netvertibles (Asus Transformer, etc.), other important specs/features include:

-USB Ports
-SD card slots
-Repairability/upgradability (understanding that the trend is to create self-contained devices for increased device purchasing)
-Camera(s)

Wish-List
-- PC OS (not a phone OS)

I live in a Southern Californian suburban paradise. Neighbors don't speak to each other and their children don't trick or treat. /sigh