That is not necessarily a reflection on colleges, or degrees. you are over generalizing the situation, the fallacy I was speaking to earlier.
There is no fallacy in sharing my personal experiences. That and the standards of many colleges and universities have dropped, what with all the trash being let in and what not.
they are not asked to do these tests on the spot? So he gives them time to go out and figure out how to do them?
He gives them ample time to do the tests. Any truly educated person should be able to do it, especially since *what the job entails is known well ahead of time*. If they're so good at learning and so educated, they'd be able to understand at least this much before their little tests.
If they're so damn good at learning, then why are they so utterly incapable of doing even the simplest tasks when they know well ahead of time what sort of job it is? They can't even write fizzbuzz in any sort of language.
Look, if this is your idea of an "educated" person, then I don't want to be educated.
Is not knowledgeable in the field...Some people who are educated in the field dont do pseudocode.
They're given every opportunity to show that they know what they're doing. They don't. These people are clueless.
Being educated means you are taught how to learn
It's not like they're asked to do everything on the spot.
I would rather have someone who is not quite as knowledgeable, but is educated, than someone who is slightly more knowledgeable but not educated.
My employer apparently wanted people to both be educated and knowledgeable (where necessary). The people he interviews--even the ones with degrees--are often neither.
It's only you and a select few others who think it's "bullshit speculation".
I hope you don't think that mentioning popularity will do anything for you. It's really a terrible argument.
Just about everybody else looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion.
Because they are illogical, or so I would say.
Including Russia and China.
Russia and China can come to whatever conclusions that they want, and it has no effect on me. You're disregarding the multiple other factors that could be at work here, as people who present this type of garbage evidence usually do.
So your employer does not need an educated person, but a knowledgeable person
He needs both.
where at the educated person may be able to learn what you tested in a matter of hours/minutes and progress past that in weeks/days.
Educated people who understand the theory would be able to apply it. He even lets them write it in pseudocode (think something like fizzbuzz) and put the explanations into their own words. Anyone unable to do this sort of thing is *not* educated in that field.
People strait-up lie about experience and background. Doing a simple filter like looking for applicants have a degree from a well accredited school is a very simple way to weed out 90% of the trash.
And having a degree doesn't mean that you're *not* trash. People who have no idea what they're doing somehow get degrees all the time, thanks in part due to shallow employers who require them.
With that said, giving applicants simple tests and tasks is a very simple way to weed out 90% of the trash, and as an added bonus, you'll also weed out all the trash (which happen to be most people, in my experience) that have degrees. What remains are people who are more likely to know what they're doing.
Nice fallacy.. I never stated that someone with a piece of paper IS educated
I was talking about the person the AC you replied to replied to, who said something about an idiotic book.
And there is no fallacy in questioning whether there is such a correlation in general, which is what I did.
I showed that it tends to show they are, and is better than not having one.
You showed no such thing; you just stated it. All I did was state my (and my employer's) experience, which is just anecdotal evidence.
Your employer may attempt to evaluate if they are educated but he cannot fully do so.
Nor does he need to. If they come out of college/university totally unable to write even the simplest of programs or giving an explanation of the simplest theories, then they're not even worth considering
Actually having that piece of paper tends to show that you are educated.
I've noticed no such correlation, and especially so in the workforce. My employer doesn't, either; he turns away a grand majority of people with degrees.
But what that was really about is illogical elitism. "If you don't have a degree in X or Y, you're not educated." Regardless of your opinions on pieces of paper, such statements are ridiculous.
If I am looking for an educated person do I take the chance on someone who at least has a piece of paper from an accredited school that says hey this person is educated, or the guy who walks in and has nothing to show that he is educated?
Again, you act as if a piece of paper indicates that someone is educated. My employer actually takes the time to evaluate people's skills to see if they're educated, which seems like a better approach.
If you don't have time for that, I would suggest getting rid of people who obviously don't know what they're doing, and then discarding people from your list of possible educated people at random. It would probably bring better results, anyway.
So you have the freedom to make arguments with a lack of evidence while others do not?
No, what really gets me is when they claim that copyright is beneficial. That's usually when I start asking for proof (or when I explain my position). If they merely said something subjective like "I feel that it's just." or "Authors should have such a freedom." then the discussion would be different. If something like that is why you support copyright, then I disagree with you, but I won't ask you for evidence, because it would be irrelevant. But when people say that it is beneficial, I'm going to ask for evidence, because these restrictions affect others' fundamental rights, and presenting scientific evidence is the least these copyright losers could do.
If your argument is that laws you don't like require evidence from a parallel society that does not and cannot exist
Sheesh. It's like people are shocked when unfounded statements (that copyright is helps innovation) are questions. Why don't we all just believe a bunch of made up bullshit, and never require evidence for anything? Or we could make everything like the typical psychology study and use subjective criteria (like what often seems to happen with this) and terrible standards of evidence. That would also be great.
While you're at it, make the same sort of post about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, etc. just for good measure. It won't do any good, but it's just for completeness.
I don't argue for private property rights merely because they bring about good results, but because they enable people to have more freedom in certain areas and more privacy.
Repeating what I said and altering it a bit does nothing to change the fact that you have a complete lack of evidence.
No, but it is a matter of laws, so their evidence had better be damn good, otherwise they're restricting people based on bullshit speculation, which is simply unacceptable.
To lose money, they'd have to have the money to begin with. Since the money in question belongs to other people, companies can't lose it, because it was never theirs to lose.
There WAS absence of personal gain, in the examples I pointed to.
I presumed that you mentioned those because you were saying there would be an absence of personal gain without copyright, and those examples showed that an absence of personal gain does not lead to good results. You seem to blame the absence of innovation and art based on the lack of copyright law, but I do not see how you would come to that conclusion.
If that is so, the examples don't make much sense, because those societies were and are vastly different from our own in a number of other ways. What would happen if we simply got rid of copyright, but nothing else? That is the real question, and about the only way to test copyright's true worth.
You keep saying so, but you have offered exactly zero evidence.
For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered.
Now that you've explained what you meant, I can say that I have seen no such people, and I think hardly any exist. I see people criticizing current business models, but that isn't the same as saying you're entitled to something. I also see people infringing upon copyrights, but again, merely downloading something because it's there is not the same as saying you're entitled to something.
Or maybe he'd be absolutely miserable, like how other whistleblowers ended up.
We do owe him a debt of gratitude, but he ruined that by revealing classified information that did not concern violations of our constitutional rights and damaged our valid intelligence collection efforts.
I for one am thankful that he gave us a more in depth view of what our government is doing. Just because some of the activities he revealed aren't related to our constitutional rights doesn't mean that the activities are moral, or that we shouldn't know they're happening.
the US does not seem to have fallen into the dystopia that you have drawn up
But many other countries all throughout history did. It's likely not a matter of "if" it's going to happen, but "when." The road to real tyranny is long.
However, even if that *weren't* the case, violating people's freedom and privacy and the US constitution is wrong all by itself, and it needs to stop.
The stuff the government is doing behind your back is helping your ability to continue to do that.
Unsubstantiated claim, but also an irrelevant one. Even if true, fundamental freedoms, privacy, and the US constitution are simply more important than safety.
Sometimes you have to do questionable things to combat the bad guy.
If the "question things" involve violating the constitution or people's liberties, then the government *becomes* the bad guy.
They dont play by 'the rules'.
But governments are damn well supposed to. They're supposed to be better than the 'bad guys.' That's why we have constitutions, checks and balances, and rules to begin with.
But I *do* find it funny that you talk about "emotion-laden buzzwords" when you're the one who made a comment titled "Entitled Asshole Mentality" and then went on to mock people who supposedly think they're entitled to other people's work (whatever that means).
Slashdot Mirror
That is not necessarily a reflection on colleges, or degrees. you are over generalizing the situation, the fallacy I was speaking to earlier.
There is no fallacy in sharing my personal experiences. That and the standards of many colleges and universities have dropped, what with all the trash being let in and what not.
they are not asked to do these tests on the spot? So he gives them time to go out and figure out how to do them?
He gives them ample time to do the tests. Any truly educated person should be able to do it, especially since *what the job entails is known well ahead of time*. If they're so good at learning and so educated, they'd be able to understand at least this much before their little tests.
Even if we get the population sorted out, if we live forever, what drive do we have to accomplish anything?
Not everyone holds off on things simply because it'll be a while before they die. Lots of people just, you know, want to get things done.
Death is the drive behind making life meaningful.
People decide their own meaning.
And if you need to be taught how to learn, you were never intelligent to begin with.
If they're so damn good at learning, then why are they so utterly incapable of doing even the simplest tasks when they know well ahead of time what sort of job it is? They can't even write fizzbuzz in any sort of language.
Look, if this is your idea of an "educated" person, then I don't want to be educated.
Is not knowledgeable in the field...Some people who are educated in the field dont do pseudocode.
They're given every opportunity to show that they know what they're doing. They don't. These people are clueless.
Being educated means you are taught how to learn
It's not like they're asked to do everything on the spot.
I would rather have someone who is not quite as knowledgeable, but is educated, than someone who is slightly more knowledgeable but not educated.
My employer apparently wanted people to both be educated and knowledgeable (where necessary). The people he interviews--even the ones with degrees--are often neither.
It's only you and a select few others who think it's "bullshit speculation".
I hope you don't think that mentioning popularity will do anything for you. It's really a terrible argument.
Just about everybody else looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion.
Because they are illogical, or so I would say.
Including Russia and China.
Russia and China can come to whatever conclusions that they want, and it has no effect on me. You're disregarding the multiple other factors that could be at work here, as people who present this type of garbage evidence usually do.
So your employer does not need an educated person, but a knowledgeable person
He needs both.
where at the educated person may be able to learn what you tested in a matter of hours/minutes and progress past that in weeks/days.
Educated people who understand the theory would be able to apply it. He even lets them write it in pseudocode (think something like fizzbuzz) and put the explanations into their own words. Anyone unable to do this sort of thing is *not* educated in that field.
People strait-up lie about experience and background. Doing a simple filter like looking for applicants have a degree from a well accredited school is a very simple way to weed out 90% of the trash.
And having a degree doesn't mean that you're *not* trash. People who have no idea what they're doing somehow get degrees all the time, thanks in part due to shallow employers who require them.
With that said, giving applicants simple tests and tasks is a very simple way to weed out 90% of the trash, and as an added bonus, you'll also weed out all the trash (which happen to be most people, in my experience) that have degrees. What remains are people who are more likely to know what they're doing.
Nice fallacy.. I never stated that someone with a piece of paper IS educated
I was talking about the person the AC you replied to replied to, who said something about an idiotic book.
And there is no fallacy in questioning whether there is such a correlation in general, which is what I did.
I showed that it tends to show they are, and is better than not having one.
You showed no such thing; you just stated it. All I did was state my (and my employer's) experience, which is just anecdotal evidence.
Your employer may attempt to evaluate if they are educated but he cannot fully do so.
Nor does he need to. If they come out of college/university totally unable to write even the simplest of programs or giving an explanation of the simplest theories, then they're not even worth considering
As opposed to random ACs mocking these supposedly unemployed "teabaggers"?
Actually having that piece of paper tends to show that you are educated.
I've noticed no such correlation, and especially so in the workforce. My employer doesn't, either; he turns away a grand majority of people with degrees.
But what that was really about is illogical elitism. "If you don't have a degree in X or Y, you're not educated." Regardless of your opinions on pieces of paper, such statements are ridiculous.
If I am looking for an educated person do I take the chance on someone who at least has a piece of paper from an accredited school that says hey this person is educated, or the guy who walks in and has nothing to show that he is educated?
Again, you act as if a piece of paper indicates that someone is educated. My employer actually takes the time to evaluate people's skills to see if they're educated, which seems like a better approach.
If you don't have time for that, I would suggest getting rid of people who obviously don't know what they're doing, and then discarding people from your list of possible educated people at random. It would probably bring better results, anyway.
So you have the freedom to make arguments with a lack of evidence while others do not?
No, what really gets me is when they claim that copyright is beneficial. That's usually when I start asking for proof (or when I explain my position). If they merely said something subjective like "I feel that it's just." or "Authors should have such a freedom." then the discussion would be different. If something like that is why you support copyright, then I disagree with you, but I won't ask you for evidence, because it would be irrelevant. But when people say that it is beneficial, I'm going to ask for evidence, because these restrictions affect others' fundamental rights, and presenting scientific evidence is the least these copyright losers could do.
If your argument is that laws you don't like require evidence from a parallel society that does not and cannot exist
Sheesh. It's like people are shocked when unfounded statements (that copyright is helps innovation) are questions. Why don't we all just believe a bunch of made up bullshit, and never require evidence for anything? Or we could make everything like the typical psychology study and use subjective criteria (like what often seems to happen with this) and terrible standards of evidence. That would also be great.
While you're at it, make the same sort of post about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, etc. just for good measure. It won't do any good, but it's just for completeness.
I don't argue for private property rights merely because they bring about good results, but because they enable people to have more freedom in certain areas and more privacy.
Repeating what I said and altering it a bit does nothing to change the fact that you have a complete lack of evidence.
This isn't a controlled experiment
No, but it is a matter of laws, so their evidence had better be damn good, otherwise they're restricting people based on bullshit speculation, which is simply unacceptable.
To lose money, they'd have to have the money to begin with. Since the money in question belongs to other people, companies can't lose it, because it was never theirs to lose.
Unable to answer my actual points?
Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim
I make no extraordinary claims. The evidence people have brought forth simply do not disprove the null hypothesis.
But if you try to devise some convoluted theory
My theory isn't so convoluted; the government should follow the constitution and the law. The end.
There WAS absence of personal gain, in the examples I pointed to.
I presumed that you mentioned those because you were saying there would be an absence of personal gain without copyright, and those examples showed that an absence of personal gain does not lead to good results. You seem to blame the absence of innovation and art based on the lack of copyright law, but I do not see how you would come to that conclusion.
If that is so, the examples don't make much sense, because those societies were and are vastly different from our own in a number of other ways. What would happen if we simply got rid of copyright, but nothing else? That is the real question, and about the only way to test copyright's true worth.
You keep saying so, but you have offered exactly zero evidence.
I'm not the one in need of evidence.
For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered.
Now that you've explained what you meant, I can say that I have seen no such people, and I think hardly any exist. I see people criticizing current business models, but that isn't the same as saying you're entitled to something. I also see people infringing upon copyrights, but again, merely downloading something because it's there is not the same as saying you're entitled to something.
And that would have been the end of it.
Or maybe he'd be absolutely miserable, like how other whistleblowers ended up.
We do owe him a debt of gratitude, but he ruined that by revealing classified information that did not concern violations of our constitutional rights and damaged our valid intelligence collection efforts.
I for one am thankful that he gave us a more in depth view of what our government is doing. Just because some of the activities he revealed aren't related to our constitutional rights doesn't mean that the activities are moral, or that we shouldn't know they're happening.
living in black and white world there?
Nope. Just reality.
the US does not seem to have fallen into the dystopia that you have drawn up
But many other countries all throughout history did. It's likely not a matter of "if" it's going to happen, but "when." The road to real tyranny is long.
However, even if that *weren't* the case, violating people's freedom and privacy and the US constitution is wrong all by itself, and it needs to stop.
The stuff the government is doing behind your back is helping your ability to continue to do that.
Unsubstantiated claim, but also an irrelevant one. Even if true, fundamental freedoms, privacy, and the US constitution are simply more important than safety.
Sometimes you have to do questionable things to combat the bad guy.
If the "question things" involve violating the constitution or people's liberties, then the government *becomes* the bad guy.
They dont play by 'the rules'.
But governments are damn well supposed to. They're supposed to be better than the 'bad guys.' That's why we have constitutions, checks and balances, and rules to begin with.
But I *do* find it funny that you talk about "emotion-laden buzzwords" when you're the one who made a comment titled "Entitled Asshole Mentality" and then went on to mock people who supposedly think they're entitled to other people's work (whatever that means).