Yeah, it's not like these "words" have any meaning.
They do have meaning, just like any other words have meaning. There's nothing inherently bad about them, and you're under no obligation to be offended. It never ceases to amaze me how 'rational' people can hate certain words as if there's something inherently bad about them, almost like they're religious nutters.
it's just a statement of fact and not intended to illicit any kind of emotional response.
I don't understand. If someone intends for you to feel something, you're under an obligation to do so?
There are also plenty of ways to use so-called 'swear words' without intending to offend anyone at all. Of course, even if someone does intend to offend you, you don't have to be offended. I for one don't give a fuck what words someone uses as long as I can understand their message.
Agreed. When people say things that I don't like, it's disrespectful to others. Why can't people only say things that I like, and stop saying certain words which I'm irrationally offended by? These strings of letters are an eyesore!
Absolutely. But they (human drivers) are not programmed.
In a way, they kind of are, but not by some intelligent being. Humans have priorities, too.
When they run over the octogenarian as compared to the kid, it is not planned.
It could be unconscious.
The latter scares the hell out of me.
I don't think that's rational. If it brings about the same (or better) results in these extreme situations, then who cares? If our legal system turns against them for not doing something that's logically impossible (This automated system can't be programmed!), then our legal system is garbage and is holding back innovation.
Really? We have the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA's mass surveillance, and numerous other unconstitutional policies and government organizations, a history of the government ignoring the constitution and people's rights, and this story which suggests that the FBI wants more power over driverless cars, and you're idiotic enough to say that it's insane to suggest that they want to invade our privacy and have control over us?
I disagree, especially in the case of diverless cars that can move about without a driver. As much as we (legitimately) criticize the growing abusive and invasive nature of law enforcement, they do have a legitimate job to do in providing for the public safety.
Screw off. Unless the constitution explicitly grants the government the power to do so, then it doesn't have that power. Furthermore, we're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Such a country would not sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety. I'd rather risk death than allow the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, constitution-free zones, the war on drugs, etc. All of which is similarly enabled by cowards who think that safety is more important than freedom. And that's not even getting into the inherent vulnerabilities of allowing people to stop the car remotely. Are you insane?
We need to be able to know exactly how the car's software and hardware work, and we need to be able to modify it. Otherwise, it is inevitable that governments and companies will abuse it, all the while being applauded by people like you. An otherwise good idea... ruined.
How about stop trying to place restrictions on things just because they could be abused. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free,' for fuck's sake. This is just embarrassing.
People behaving in a civil manner towards those they don't like is the hallmark of civilization.
You assume (incorrectly) that there can't be "civil discourse" between people if they're anonymous. Other people have pointed out examples where real names improved nothing, and actually made things worse. If you want to speak to fake people who talk about nothing, by all means, require real names. Trolls are so scary, right?
Barbarity is never far away.
I assure you, civilization isn't going to collapse merely because people have anonymity and privacy, no matter how thin-skinned you may be, and no matter how many people say controversial-yet-insightful things who otherwise wouldn't have without said anonymity.
Let me guess: your politics are on the far left, correct?
What a terrible guess. I don't like your left-vs-right labels; they're utterly meaningless, because they let people make all sorts of assumptions about what you believe. People on the "left" don't have to be pro-choice, and people on the "right" don't have to be pro-life, etc. And yet all sorts of assumptions are made when you say you're part of the left or right. But it's all meaningless, the individual policies that a person supports and whether or not those policies are good is what matters, not whether or not they're considered to be "left" or "right."
Because something bores you to tears, that means everyone has to change to suit you.
What? You're the one trying to remove anonymity, which is already trivial to have to some extent when using the Internet. I'm not trying to control anyone. I just want people to have the _option_ to be anonymous, like they do right now.
With "say controversial things" you mean trolling?
Is that seriously the only thing you can think of? Take controversial topics like child porn, pedophilia, etc. Get on the 'wrong' side of an argument and you may find yourself the target of an angry mob - perhaps literally.
Don't you think life would be better for you if you could assume who you are and what you think instead of having to hide and having to be a hypocrite?
Don't you think life would be better if the world was perfect? Well, it isn't. You risk not being hired, being fired, losing many opportunities, and being harassed by the government. You also chase away people who don't want any of the things I just listed to happen to them. Maybe you expect people to just ignore all that, but the fact is, people don't. Some people change and convince themselves that they're being themselves, even when they're not. I don't want to hang out with fake people.
Besides, I like my privacy. I like knowing that it's difficult to tie many things to me.
Do you like it when people lie to you in order to obtain some kind of friendship from you?
No, that's why I like anonymity.
But my guess is you never posted anything which could justify it.
You base this on nothing. And since when is this just about me? I'm more afraid of others ceasing to produce insightful and thought provoking content, all in the name of stopping "trolling," something that only thin-skinned people have trouble dealing with anyway.
How horrible it is when people can say controversial things without people and employers holding it against them for all time. Privacy and anonymity are awful!
Whistleblowing, witness protection, for example. For most other cases anonymity degenerates into a cesspool of behavior that is not accepted in normal society.
People suppress their true nature in "normal society." "normal society" bores me to tears.
Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.
More like useless, non-controversial discourse. By tying everything to real names, you make it less likely that anyone will do anything controversial, even when it needs to be done. Who knows if a future employer will decide to not hire you because you said something they don't like, even if you thought it was completely innocuous?
I'd rather deal with trolls and spam than have "respectful discourse" between fake people.
I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights. It's against the spirit of the Constitution, as far as I can tell. However, I can construe the Fourth to allow this sort of data collection.
Well, you just said it yourself, even if you (for some reason) don't think that the Fourth explicitly forbids it: This is even in violation of the spirit of the constitution.
Are you seriously arguing that because "citizen" is not mentioned in the Constitution that it applies internationally?
I'm arguing that our government simply lacks certain powers. If the constitution does not explicitly grant the government a power, then it lacks it, and if it places a limitation about the government's power, then it also obviously lacks that power. The wording is very important.
And I really don't care about the rights of a foreigner and I am pretty sure they would reciprocate the same feelings in spades.
Whether or not the foreigner cares about your rights is 100% irrelevant to whether or not theirs should be respected. I just don't think we should conduct mass surveillance on innocent people. Is that so crazy?
And I believe the original poster acknowledged the fallibility while you have declared the entire judicial system as defunct.
Not defunct. It just has a number of flaws. When it comes to matters of challenging the constitutionality of a law or policy, there really needs to be a way to streamline the process, and people shouldn't be turned away just because they can't prove they were 'harmed'; I'd say the mere existence of an unconstitutional law harms every citizen.
Besides, the original poster acted as if judges were somehow more trustworthy and that they're the only ones who can declare that something is unconstitutional and be right about it; that's historically and logically inaccurate.
Just saying something is unconstitutional or illegal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something unconstitutional or illegal
Just saying something is constitutional or legal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something constitutional or legal.
There is a well defined process where the laws and actions in question can be evaluated by the courts.
Courts can be wrong. Courts have been wrong. The constitution can be read by anyone. You're not fooling anyone, bootlicker.
Here's a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs."
The idea that the courts are always right is not only historically ludicrous, but it's a logical fallacy (the courts have disagreed with their own past decisions!).
So far I have only been hearing people proclaiming their rights have been violated in some nebulous sort of way that is nothing but political activism gone amok than good judicial processes.
Our judicial processes are anything but good. You seem to only consider it a violation if some judges say it is, but, again, that's a mere fallacy. If you do not think it is a violation of people's rights to conduct mass surveillance on people's communications, then you're delusional.
A lot of people also seem to be under the impression that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights apply internationally and they certainly do not.
Rarely does the constitution use the word "citizen."
Furthermore, whether or not it is constitutional, that doesn't make violating people's rights a moral thing to do. I would rather risk death than violate innocent people's privacy haphazardly.
They had reason. We may think it's a totally bullshit reason, but it's an easily understandable reason.
Rapists have reasons. Murderers have reasons. Hitler had reasons. What does that matter? I mean, you even said that we may think it's a totally bullshit reason, which I clearly already thought, so what's the point of mentioning it?
Coding tests like FizzBuzz (that one is useless because people can merely memorize the answer)
They can... and yet it seems to eliminate numerous people anyway. An ideal test would utilize someone's logical thinking skills and would be created by someone with actual experience.
You can't watch or evaluate 100 people code FizzBuzz- it's impractical.
It's not as impractical as you think.
And I've already given my answer for eliminating people when there are too many candidates. Besides, again, colleges pump out too many losers for degrees to be useful in most cases.
Without economic incentive you do cut off higher education for anyone below upper class.
Not necessarily, no. But even if that were, it would be a necessary evil, because real education isn't about job training, though getting a nice job is a good bonus.
People who want such economic incentives and a focus on job training should go to trade schools.
It's not just "clueless HR drones" that use degrees as requirements.
True. It's also clueless and greedy employers.
The percentage of useless people with degrees is going to be less than the percentage of useless people without.
But not much less. Once you eliminate the obvious fools by looking at their resumes (whether they have degrees or not), the gap becomes even closer.
A lot of people use it as a baseline to avoid wasting countless amounts of time.
And yet a lot of places, like where I work, don't take into account degrees at all.
It's not a "this isn't what college is for" issue.
Sadly, it is. Too many people enter a college with a 'I want to get a nice job!' mentality, and they're obviously unsuited for college.
Oh, and the tasks you ask them to complete needn't be too simple, but it does save time to have them complete a few simple tasks before the person who knows what he's doing starts asking the real questions.
There is no such thing as "simply" testing for aptitude. Which again is the point of the degree.
Which, again, the degree fails at. That's why clueless HR drones tend to use degrees to eliminate candidates, while jobs with better atmospheres tend to avoid that nonsense altogether. Word of advice: If a company can't be bothered to hire people other than HR drones to handle the hiring, then look elsewhere.
That individual should have had to go through several levels of not simple testing to get the degree.
And yet it results in almost nothing for most people, due in part to the factors I've already pointed out. The testing in most colleges and universities actually *is* simple.
You can actually eliminate a surprising number of candidates (Yes, even large numbers of people with degrees!) just by telling them to code (even in pseudocode) trivial programs (FizzBuzz is a popular example, but that's not all). I've witnessed this first-hand, though that's just my experience and the experience of those I work with. Hiring based on degrees will not only cause you to miss highly intelligent and skilled people, but it will cause you to hire a lot of garbage.
It's a cute cliche but complete nonsense in practice.
It's the truth in practice.
In your world I suppose college and university are only for those rich enough to be able to afford taking 4 or so years off of working with no economic benefit to themselves?
Incorrect. I do not suggest getting rid of loans and grants. I do, however, think we should limit who gets them. As it is now, far too many people who shouldn't get loans or grants get them anyway, and it ruins the atmosphere in colleges and universities and causes them to strive to be more like trade schools, which is poisonous for education.
There is a large gap between requiring an applicant to prove their aptitude through earning a degree and expecting universities to do all job training.
There might be a gap, but it's leaning towards the latter. These shitty discriminatory policies are just some factors that are killing real education.
Technically, they also can just walk around and shoot organ donors to steal organs, but it doesn't really mean they are.
That's why I said that I'm not saying it's actually happening. But he said that it "never" happens, which I find ridiculous. Unlikely and impossible are different things.
Slashdot Mirror
To agents in the NSA: It doesn't matter if 999 of 1000 of you are honest.
If they were honest, they wouldn't be collecting everyone's data to begin with. That in itself is a violation of people's liberties.
Yeah, it's not like these "words" have any meaning.
They do have meaning, just like any other words have meaning. There's nothing inherently bad about them, and you're under no obligation to be offended. It never ceases to amaze me how 'rational' people can hate certain words as if there's something inherently bad about them, almost like they're religious nutters.
it's just a statement of fact and not intended to illicit any kind of emotional response.
I don't understand. If someone intends for you to feel something, you're under an obligation to do so?
There are also plenty of ways to use so-called 'swear words' without intending to offend anyone at all. Of course, even if someone does intend to offend you, you don't have to be offended. I for one don't give a fuck what words someone uses as long as I can understand their message.
Personally I found her attire unprofessional and demeaning to women in general
How can what a single individual wears be demeaning to women in general? That makes no sense.
Agreed. When people say things that I don't like, it's disrespectful to others. Why can't people only say things that I like, and stop saying certain words which I'm irrationally offended by? These strings of letters are an eyesore!
Absolutely. But they (human drivers) are not programmed.
In a way, they kind of are, but not by some intelligent being. Humans have priorities, too.
When they run over the octogenarian as compared to the kid, it is not planned.
It could be unconscious.
The latter scares the hell out of me.
I don't think that's rational. If it brings about the same (or better) results in these extreme situations, then who cares? If our legal system turns against them for not doing something that's logically impossible (This automated system can't be programmed!), then our legal system is garbage and is holding back innovation.
Really? We have the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA's mass surveillance, and numerous other unconstitutional policies and government organizations, a history of the government ignoring the constitution and people's rights, and this story which suggests that the FBI wants more power over driverless cars, and you're idiotic enough to say that it's insane to suggest that they want to invade our privacy and have control over us?
I disagree, especially in the case of diverless cars that can move about without a driver. As much as we (legitimately) criticize the growing abusive and invasive nature of law enforcement, they do have a legitimate job to do in providing for the public safety.
Screw off. Unless the constitution explicitly grants the government the power to do so, then it doesn't have that power. Furthermore, we're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Such a country would not sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety. I'd rather risk death than allow the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, constitution-free zones, the war on drugs, etc. All of which is similarly enabled by cowards who think that safety is more important than freedom. And that's not even getting into the inherent vulnerabilities of allowing people to stop the car remotely. Are you insane?
We need to be able to know exactly how the car's software and hardware work, and we need to be able to modify it. Otherwise, it is inevitable that governments and companies will abuse it, all the while being applauded by people like you. An otherwise good idea... ruined.
Those do sound like problems, but human drivers terrify me for rather similar (and some different) reasons.
How about stop trying to place restrictions on things just because they could be abused. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free,' for fuck's sake. This is just embarrassing.
yet we still have a segment of the population who bitch and whine like little toddlers with shit in the diapers that taxes are too high.
Taxes could be lower (or we could spend the money on helpful things) if we stopped spending money on killing people meaninglessly.
Is storing them where nobody will be able to listen to them a violation?
Yes.
People behaving in a civil manner towards those they don't like is the hallmark of civilization.
You assume (incorrectly) that there can't be "civil discourse" between people if they're anonymous. Other people have pointed out examples where real names improved nothing, and actually made things worse. If you want to speak to fake people who talk about nothing, by all means, require real names. Trolls are so scary, right?
Barbarity is never far away.
I assure you, civilization isn't going to collapse merely because people have anonymity and privacy, no matter how thin-skinned you may be, and no matter how many people say controversial-yet-insightful things who otherwise wouldn't have without said anonymity.
Let me guess: your politics are on the far left, correct?
What a terrible guess. I don't like your left-vs-right labels; they're utterly meaningless, because they let people make all sorts of assumptions about what you believe. People on the "left" don't have to be pro-choice, and people on the "right" don't have to be pro-life, etc. And yet all sorts of assumptions are made when you say you're part of the left or right. But it's all meaningless, the individual policies that a person supports and whether or not those policies are good is what matters, not whether or not they're considered to be "left" or "right."
Because something bores you to tears, that means everyone has to change to suit you.
What? You're the one trying to remove anonymity, which is already trivial to have to some extent when using the Internet. I'm not trying to control anyone. I just want people to have the _option_ to be anonymous, like they do right now.
With "say controversial things" you mean trolling?
Is that seriously the only thing you can think of? Take controversial topics like child porn, pedophilia, etc. Get on the 'wrong' side of an argument and you may find yourself the target of an angry mob - perhaps literally.
Don't you think life would be better for you if you could assume who you are and what you think instead of having to hide and having to be a hypocrite?
Don't you think life would be better if the world was perfect? Well, it isn't. You risk not being hired, being fired, losing many opportunities, and being harassed by the government. You also chase away people who don't want any of the things I just listed to happen to them. Maybe you expect people to just ignore all that, but the fact is, people don't. Some people change and convince themselves that they're being themselves, even when they're not. I don't want to hang out with fake people.
Besides, I like my privacy. I like knowing that it's difficult to tie many things to me.
Do you like it when people lie to you in order to obtain some kind of friendship from you?
No, that's why I like anonymity.
But my guess is you never posted anything which could justify it.
You base this on nothing. And since when is this just about me? I'm more afraid of others ceasing to produce insightful and thought provoking content, all in the name of stopping "trolling," something that only thin-skinned people have trouble dealing with anyway.
How horrible it is when people can say controversial things without people and employers holding it against them for all time. Privacy and anonymity are awful!
Whistleblowing, witness protection, for example. For most other cases anonymity degenerates into a cesspool of behavior that is not accepted in normal society.
People suppress their true nature in "normal society." "normal society" bores me to tears.
Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.
More like useless, non-controversial discourse. By tying everything to real names, you make it less likely that anyone will do anything controversial, even when it needs to be done. Who knows if a future employer will decide to not hire you because you said something they don't like, even if you thought it was completely innocuous?
I'd rather deal with trolls and spam than have "respectful discourse" between fake people.
I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights. It's against the spirit of the Constitution, as far as I can tell. However, I can construe the Fourth to allow this sort of data collection.
Well, you just said it yourself, even if you (for some reason) don't think that the Fourth explicitly forbids it: This is even in violation of the spirit of the constitution.
Are you seriously arguing that because "citizen" is not mentioned in the Constitution that it applies internationally?
I'm arguing that our government simply lacks certain powers. If the constitution does not explicitly grant the government a power, then it lacks it, and if it places a limitation about the government's power, then it also obviously lacks that power. The wording is very important.
And I really don't care about the rights of a foreigner and I am pretty sure they would reciprocate the same feelings in spades.
Whether or not the foreigner cares about your rights is 100% irrelevant to whether or not theirs should be respected. I just don't think we should conduct mass surveillance on innocent people. Is that so crazy?
And I believe the original poster acknowledged the fallibility while you have declared the entire judicial system as defunct.
Not defunct. It just has a number of flaws. When it comes to matters of challenging the constitutionality of a law or policy, there really needs to be a way to streamline the process, and people shouldn't be turned away just because they can't prove they were 'harmed'; I'd say the mere existence of an unconstitutional law harms every citizen.
Besides, the original poster acted as if judges were somehow more trustworthy and that they're the only ones who can declare that something is unconstitutional and be right about it; that's historically and logically inaccurate.
Just saying something is unconstitutional or illegal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something unconstitutional or illegal
Just saying something is constitutional or legal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something constitutional or legal.
There is a well defined process where the laws and actions in question can be evaluated by the courts.
Courts can be wrong. Courts have been wrong. The constitution can be read by anyone. You're not fooling anyone, bootlicker.
Here's a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs."
The idea that the courts are always right is not only historically ludicrous, but it's a logical fallacy (the courts have disagreed with their own past decisions!).
So far I have only been hearing people proclaiming their rights have been violated in some nebulous sort of way that is nothing but political activism gone amok than good judicial processes.
Our judicial processes are anything but good. You seem to only consider it a violation if some judges say it is, but, again, that's a mere fallacy. If you do not think it is a violation of people's rights to conduct mass surveillance on people's communications, then you're delusional.
A lot of people also seem to be under the impression that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights apply internationally and they certainly do not.
Rarely does the constitution use the word "citizen."
Furthermore, whether or not it is constitutional, that doesn't make violating people's rights a moral thing to do. I would rather risk death than violate innocent people's privacy haphazardly.
Vanish.
I see what you were trying to say, but "without reason" usually means "for no good reason."
They had reason. We may think it's a totally bullshit reason, but it's an easily understandable reason.
Rapists have reasons. Murderers have reasons. Hitler had reasons. What does that matter? I mean, you even said that we may think it's a totally bullshit reason, which I clearly already thought, so what's the point of mentioning it?
Though that's pretty vague.
The TSA, for example. But they have reasons.
Coding tests like FizzBuzz (that one is useless because people can merely memorize the answer)
They can... and yet it seems to eliminate numerous people anyway. An ideal test would utilize someone's logical thinking skills and would be created by someone with actual experience.
You can't watch or evaluate 100 people code FizzBuzz- it's impractical.
It's not as impractical as you think.
And I've already given my answer for eliminating people when there are too many candidates. Besides, again, colleges pump out too many losers for degrees to be useful in most cases.
Without economic incentive you do cut off higher education for anyone below upper class.
Not necessarily, no. But even if that were, it would be a necessary evil, because real education isn't about job training, though getting a nice job is a good bonus.
People who want such economic incentives and a focus on job training should go to trade schools.
It's not just "clueless HR drones" that use degrees as requirements.
True. It's also clueless and greedy employers.
The percentage of useless people with degrees is going to be less than the percentage of useless people without.
But not much less. Once you eliminate the obvious fools by looking at their resumes (whether they have degrees or not), the gap becomes even closer.
A lot of people use it as a baseline to avoid wasting countless amounts of time.
And yet a lot of places, like where I work, don't take into account degrees at all.
It's not a "this isn't what college is for" issue.
Sadly, it is. Too many people enter a college with a 'I want to get a nice job!' mentality, and they're obviously unsuited for college.
Oh, and the tasks you ask them to complete needn't be too simple, but it does save time to have them complete a few simple tasks before the person who knows what he's doing starts asking the real questions.
There is no such thing as "simply" testing for aptitude. Which again is the point of the degree.
Which, again, the degree fails at. That's why clueless HR drones tend to use degrees to eliminate candidates, while jobs with better atmospheres tend to avoid that nonsense altogether. Word of advice: If a company can't be bothered to hire people other than HR drones to handle the hiring, then look elsewhere.
That individual should have had to go through several levels of not simple testing to get the degree.
And yet it results in almost nothing for most people, due in part to the factors I've already pointed out. The testing in most colleges and universities actually *is* simple.
You can actually eliminate a surprising number of candidates (Yes, even large numbers of people with degrees!) just by telling them to code (even in pseudocode) trivial programs (FizzBuzz is a popular example, but that's not all). I've witnessed this first-hand, though that's just my experience and the experience of those I work with. Hiring based on degrees will not only cause you to miss highly intelligent and skilled people, but it will cause you to hire a lot of garbage.
It's a cute cliche but complete nonsense in practice.
It's the truth in practice.
In your world I suppose college and university are only for those rich enough to be able to afford taking 4 or so years off of working with no economic benefit to themselves?
Incorrect. I do not suggest getting rid of loans and grants. I do, however, think we should limit who gets them. As it is now, far too many people who shouldn't get loans or grants get them anyway, and it ruins the atmosphere in colleges and universities and causes them to strive to be more like trade schools, which is poisonous for education.
There is a large gap between requiring an applicant to prove their aptitude through earning a degree and expecting universities to do all job training.
There might be a gap, but it's leaning towards the latter. These shitty discriminatory policies are just some factors that are killing real education.
There are no losses to begin with. Not gaining is not the same as losing.
Technically, they also can just walk around and shoot organ donors to steal organs, but it doesn't really mean they are.
That's why I said that I'm not saying it's actually happening. But he said that it "never" happens, which I find ridiculous. Unlikely and impossible are different things.