Well, I wasn't really defending this law to begin with. Just saying that bosses can be extremely petty.
As for your proposed law, I'm not quite sure how you would write it without it being vague. Bosses need to have at least some leeway to fire people, and if the law is vague, that might give people the ability to sue for practically any reason if they're fired.
The real point of ACT or SAT is one's ability to fit in fact-driven world
Looks more like the point is to have someone spew facts onto a (mostly) multiple choice test and generally do exactly as you're told. Understanding and creativity are not required, nor desirable.
Wrong, those programs are classified for a reason.
It's nice that you have so much faith in governments thugs, even though the hundreds of millions of people abused and/or murdered throughout history by various governments (including the US government) give you no reason to do so. Oh, wait, it's not nice.
Go back to lickin' those boots.
and are thus moral.
Legal != moral. Illegal != immoral. You're an idiot.
Just because you want to know does not mean you need or have any need or right to know.
I don't "need" freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or various other rights. The fact that you do not "need" something means nothing. As for a "right," well, the government says many things that I think should be rights are not rights. I do not care what the government says; they infringe upon our rights all the time.
And in turn damages our freedoms.
You're really, really trying hard to make this seem like a bad thing, aren't you?
Posts like yours contribute to the mentality that we're the only important ones in the world, which in turn leads to heavy-handed foreign policies that damages our worldwide reputation. That, in turn, damages our freedoms, because it further provokes certain people to attack us, and then governments use that as an excuse to violate our freedoms in the name of safety.
Damn, that was easy. I could do this about anything, even copyright infringement (pretty much already been done, in a way).
Frankly, even if what you said *were* true, knowing this does not damage my freedoms. The only ones effectively capable of that are government thugs; they're who I truly fear. And for what it's worth, I believe innocent people in other countries also deserve privacy.
Everybody spies on everybody
"Everybody's doing it!" is not an excuse.
a very effective program
Unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. Irrelevant because freedom and privacy are more important than security to begin with.
That's some nice religious thinking you've got there. We (most people) may want to reproduce, but we are also intelligent enough to decide what we want to do. There is no magical fairy that decides any of this for us.
It's absolute arrogance to say that someone won't find a way to work within our current understanding of the laws of physics and invent some new amazing technology. We don't even fully understand the universe yet.
I think it's less arrogant, at least, to say that something that violates our current understanding of the universe won't happen.
When someone says something is impossible now, they mean impossible because of the established and settled laws of physics.
Sure, this time it's *really* settled. There's no way someone could discover a flaw in our theories (which is unlikely) or work within our current understand of the laws of physics to do something that no one thought possible (but doesn't violate them). Such arrogance.
You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.
Not only is it not a logical argument or proof, but it's completely ridiculous that you keep bringing this up. Feeling a bit desperate, are we?
Most people don't even *comprehend* this subject, you fool. They don't give two shits about copyright, have been fed propaganda about it since birth (that copyright infringement is theft or stealing, that copyright is a net benefit on society, or that it's just like property), and basically think nothing of it. You can see this when so many people either don't even understand what copyright is, when people use words like "theft" to describe copyright infringement, or when they use propaganda terms like "intellectual property." So why would I care about your precious majority? And even if that *weren't* true, talking about popularity is utterly and completely meaningless, as I have my own ideas and do not feel they need to be popular.
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
My point is that I've determined that you're an idiot who needs a bit of babying. Looks like you need a diaper change.
No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing.
Right back at you.
You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way.
I did, but you ignored it, it seems. I'm not going to go through it again, because it seems that you're either not reading my comments or are utterly incapable of even comprehending my words. Such is the case with worthless minds. If you're going to accuse me of not even attempting to refute the shitty evidence you brought forth, then you're just going to look ignorant.
These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.
Not if the matter is entirely subjective, as is the case with intelligence. I decide for myself what I believe is intelligence, and therefore black-and-white thinking like that is no fallacy, because it's entirely subjective to begin with. It *does* matter.
Okay. I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But you've been trying to distort it into some kind of weird pseudo-logical argument of some kind, without presenting any actual facts or evidence. In one breath you're trying to make it into a logical argument, in the next you try to "refute" my evidence by simply saying it's wrong, and in the next you're playing the mind-reading game
No idea what you're talking about. I simply respond to bits of your comments in ways that I feel appropriate.
and behind it all you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up what is indeed a rather outrageous claim
??? You're the one defending laws that restrict people and making outrageous claims. You provided "evidence," but not good evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof.
given the historical evidence.
There you go again. This is just something you want to believe. It's almost as if you've heard it so many times that you've been brainwashed by the propaganda.
I can count on 1 hand the number of classes I could just memorize the material in my classes, and even then I would have a remainder...
And I've seen other people who have the exact opposite experiences, even from some big name colleges. Your anecdotal evidence against mine.
The number of people who can do what you are talking about is relativly few.
Yes, you're right, but it seems to be working out damn good in my workplace, which has about 300 employees. We have many people with degrees (who *did* know what they were doing, and seem ashamed at this sad state of affairs) and many without.
Many people can't self-educate, but that is not the issue. My employer just cares about finding intelligent and educated people who are capable of doing the job, not whether they have degrees.
There is a good reason for using degrees to weed students out.
I think it's because it's easy, and that's what many shortsighted employers and HR drones like. Funnily enough, though, this sort of mindset actually works to *devalue* the education that colleges and universities have to offer, as people will start looking at them as ways to find jobs, and that's not what they're really about.
I would like to know how that's even possible, but this sort of person is one who relies entirely on emotion, and not someone who's capable of rational thought.
However since I mentioned the strawman part it would probably be the part where you misrepresented my statement so you could attack it, the "Look, if this is your idea of an "educated" person, then I don't want to be educated."
Just stop it already. You don't need to take a philosophy course to know that you're just spewing forth terms without understanding them or understanding how they apply to the situation at hand. Hint: It's a subjective matter.
It's no use playing with one such as yourself any longer.
And how are these tests given in a closed room, are they allowed to use the internet or books?
Yep.
Not all languages use the same syntax, shoot some are vastly dissimilar
You can basically use any language you want, even pseudocode. My employer was a former programmer who had decades of experience, so he gives people that option.
And colleges filter out the people who don't know how to learn.
Wouldn't that be nice? Learning is different from just memorization, you know, and that's what so many colleges fail to filter out: People who can't apply their skills in practice and do not have a truly deep understanding of the material.
People who can't figure out how to study effectively drop out and end up as "self-taught" PC technicians working at Staples.
Many college students end up the same way, or have you not been keeping up with the times? There are also the ambitious self-taught people who do just fine, but of course, you wouldn't be unfairly comparing people who didn't actually self-educate to motivated individuals who did, would you?
it's really sad to see comments from those who can't accept reality
What's really sad is that many of the people who say this sort of thing don't seem to realize that the same types of things have been said about many technological achievements throughout history.
If you're going to point out fallacies, at least do it correct. I did not use a straw man; I said that they know well in advance what the job entails, and so they should be able to learn what they need in advance, *especially for the simple types of things that are being tested for*. Look, it's not like he's asking for random obscure knowledge or years of experience, here.
It sounds like you want someone knowledgeable
They don't need to be knowledge; they just need to understand simple programming concepts. Yet, somehow, most of these people are eliminated immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wasn't really defending this law to begin with. Just saying that bosses can be extremely petty.
As for your proposed law, I'm not quite sure how you would write it without it being vague. Bosses need to have at least some leeway to fire people, and if the law is vague, that might give people the ability to sue for practically any reason if they're fired.
The real point of ACT or SAT is one's ability to fit in fact-driven world
Looks more like the point is to have someone spew facts onto a (mostly) multiple choice test and generally do exactly as you're told. Understanding and creativity are not required, nor desirable.
Wrong, those programs are classified for a reason.
It's nice that you have so much faith in governments thugs, even though the hundreds of millions of people abused and/or murdered throughout history by various governments (including the US government) give you no reason to do so. Oh, wait, it's not nice.
Go back to lickin' those boots.
and are thus moral.
Legal != moral. Illegal != immoral. You're an idiot.
Just because you want to know does not mean you need or have any need or right to know.
I don't "need" freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or various other rights. The fact that you do not "need" something means nothing. As for a "right," well, the government says many things that I think should be rights are not rights. I do not care what the government says; they infringe upon our rights all the time.
And in turn damages our freedoms.
You're really, really trying hard to make this seem like a bad thing, aren't you?
Posts like yours contribute to the mentality that we're the only important ones in the world, which in turn leads to heavy-handed foreign policies that damages our worldwide reputation. That, in turn, damages our freedoms, because it further provokes certain people to attack us, and then governments use that as an excuse to violate our freedoms in the name of safety.
Damn, that was easy. I could do this about anything, even copyright infringement (pretty much already been done, in a way).
Frankly, even if what you said *were* true, knowing this does not damage my freedoms. The only ones effectively capable of that are government thugs; they're who I truly fear. And for what it's worth, I believe innocent people in other countries also deserve privacy.
Everybody spies on everybody
"Everybody's doing it!" is not an excuse.
a very effective program
Unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. Irrelevant because freedom and privacy are more important than security to begin with.
Fuck off, you insolent bootlicker.
The meaning of our lives is to reproduce.
That's some nice religious thinking you've got there. We (most people) may want to reproduce, but we are also intelligent enough to decide what we want to do. There is no magical fairy that decides any of this for us.
It's absolute arrogance to say that someone won't find a way to work within our current understanding of the laws of physics and invent some new amazing technology. We don't even fully understand the universe yet.
I think it's less arrogant, at least, to say that something that violates our current understanding of the universe won't happen.
When someone says something is impossible now, they mean impossible because of the established and settled laws of physics.
Sure, this time it's *really* settled. There's no way someone could discover a flaw in our theories (which is unlikely) or work within our current understand of the laws of physics to do something that no one thought possible (but doesn't violate them). Such arrogance.
Apropos of nothing, how's your atomic powered flying car and your forthcoming vacation to a lunar colony?
That's exactly the point. It is absolute arrogance to say that you know what technology the future will hold.
It isn't possible to "prove" a negative.
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.
Not only is it not a logical argument or proof, but it's completely ridiculous that you keep bringing this up. Feeling a bit desperate, are we?
Most people don't even *comprehend* this subject, you fool. They don't give two shits about copyright, have been fed propaganda about it since birth (that copyright infringement is theft or stealing, that copyright is a net benefit on society, or that it's just like property), and basically think nothing of it. You can see this when so many people either don't even understand what copyright is, when people use words like "theft" to describe copyright infringement, or when they use propaganda terms like "intellectual property." So why would I care about your precious majority? And even if that *weren't* true, talking about popularity is utterly and completely meaningless, as I have my own ideas and do not feel they need to be popular.
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
My point is that I've determined that you're an idiot who needs a bit of babying. Looks like you need a diaper change.
No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing.
Right back at you.
You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way.
I did, but you ignored it, it seems. I'm not going to go through it again, because it seems that you're either not reading my comments or are utterly incapable of even comprehending my words. Such is the case with worthless minds. If you're going to accuse me of not even attempting to refute the shitty evidence you brought forth, then you're just going to look ignorant.
These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.
Right back at you.
You gave hearsay....
Anecdotal evidence is hardly worth anything to begin with, so the difference is a moot point.
Oh great a personal attack
Yeah.
and that is relavant how?
It seems you've forgotten what the overall topic is about.
There are avenues for anyone without a degree to prove their knowledge
I'm talking about applying for specific jobs and getting rejected because you don't have a degree. You know this.
you just want to be given an advanced job it seems.
I already have one. Not a very good guess.
You're an eyesore, you know that?
Not if the matter is entirely subjective, as is the case with intelligence. I decide for myself what I believe is intelligence, and therefore black-and-white thinking like that is no fallacy, because it's entirely subjective to begin with. It *does* matter.
Sex is beneficial but only in the context of a healthy relationship.
People decide for themselves beneficial and whether it's a "healthy" relationship. Because it's about feelings, which are subjective.
Okay. I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But you've been trying to distort it into some kind of weird pseudo-logical argument of some kind, without presenting any actual facts or evidence. In one breath you're trying to make it into a logical argument, in the next you try to "refute" my evidence by simply saying it's wrong, and in the next you're playing the mind-reading game
No idea what you're talking about. I simply respond to bits of your comments in ways that I feel appropriate.
and behind it all you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up what is indeed a rather outrageous claim
??? You're the one defending laws that restrict people and making outrageous claims. You provided "evidence," but not good evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof.
given the historical evidence.
There you go again. This is just something you want to believe. It's almost as if you've heard it so many times that you've been brainwashed by the propaganda.
you dont have any anecdotal evidence, you have hearsay..
I gave you anecdotal evidence. Or do you think I don't see these things for myself?
Speaking of anecdotal.....
Yes, that's essentially what we've both been doing. Not quick on the uptake, are you?
You do realize there are few if any jobs that actually require a degree to get interviewed right?
But many people who do not have degrees or previous job experience will not get hired, whether or not they know what they're doing. That is the point.
This fact pretty much destroys your entire argument..
That doesn't even make sense.
Using the if in a rhetorical device does not make it a conditional statement
"If X, then Y." Deal with it.
That is clearly a false dilemma...
Stop before you're a hundred thousand miles behind, please. That was my opinion.
It wasn't an argument intended to prove my point. It was an observation based on experience.
Please, bestow upon me some more of your observations.
So why are you bothering?
Well, if you can make random observations that I find useless, I sure can make random statements that you may find useless. Like this.
Now you're trying to read my mind. I have not "disregarded" those things.
You just sucked them up as if your snap was a mere spaghetti noodle, yes?
I can count on 1 hand the number of classes I could just memorize the material in my classes, and even then I would have a remainder...
And I've seen other people who have the exact opposite experiences, even from some big name colleges. Your anecdotal evidence against mine.
The number of people who can do what you are talking about is relativly few.
Yes, you're right, but it seems to be working out damn good in my workplace, which has about 300 employees. We have many people with degrees (who *did* know what they were doing, and seem ashamed at this sad state of affairs) and many without.
Many people can't self-educate, but that is not the issue. My employer just cares about finding intelligent and educated people who are capable of doing the job, not whether they have degrees.
There is a good reason for using degrees to weed students out.
I think it's because it's easy, and that's what many shortsighted employers and HR drones like. Funnily enough, though, this sort of mindset actually works to *devalue* the education that colleges and universities have to offer, as people will start looking at them as ways to find jobs, and that's not what they're really about.
I would like to know how that's even possible, but this sort of person is one who relies entirely on emotion, and not someone who's capable of rational thought.
However since I mentioned the strawman part it would probably be the part where you misrepresented my statement so you could attack it, the "Look, if this is your idea of an "educated" person, then I don't want to be educated."
Learn to read. We're done here.
Another fallacy from you, this time false dilemma
Just stop it already. You don't need to take a philosophy course to know that you're just spewing forth terms without understanding them or understanding how they apply to the situation at hand. Hint: It's a subjective matter.
It's no use playing with one such as yourself any longer.
Which is what you have been doing.
And you said I was making straw men.
And how are these tests given in a closed room, are they allowed to use the internet or books?
Yep.
Not all languages use the same syntax, shoot some are vastly dissimilar
You can basically use any language you want, even pseudocode. My employer was a former programmer who had decades of experience, so he gives people that option.
And colleges filter out the people who don't know how to learn.
Wouldn't that be nice? Learning is different from just memorization, you know, and that's what so many colleges fail to filter out: People who can't apply their skills in practice and do not have a truly deep understanding of the material.
People who can't figure out how to study effectively drop out and end up as "self-taught" PC technicians working at Staples.
Many college students end up the same way, or have you not been keeping up with the times? There are also the ambitious self-taught people who do just fine, but of course, you wouldn't be unfairly comparing people who didn't actually self-educate to motivated individuals who did, would you?
it's really sad to see comments from those who can't accept reality
What's really sad is that many of the people who say this sort of thing don't seem to realize that the same types of things have been said about many technological achievements throughout history.
Again with a fallacy, this time a strawman
If you're going to point out fallacies, at least do it correct. I did not use a straw man; I said that they know well in advance what the job entails, and so they should be able to learn what they need in advance, *especially for the simple types of things that are being tested for*. Look, it's not like he's asking for random obscure knowledge or years of experience, here.
It sounds like you want someone knowledgeable
They don't need to be knowledge; they just need to understand simple programming concepts. Yet, somehow, most of these people are eliminated immediately.
Looks like you're a closeted teabagger. I don't know about you, but I want nothing to do with them. Have fun.