You're obviously American, so I can make some allowances for your deficient education, but those "non diverse" Nordic countries are more diverse than you.
Ahhhh....more pig ignorant American cannon fodder. Gotta love 'em and their naivety.
That is laughable. Finland and Sweden are fairly diverse by European standards, but the entire European continent is not very diverse. A quick look at France, Germany, and Italy show they have over 90% of their population in their respective ethnicity. The United States largest ethnicity is German, with about 17%.
From Populstat.info:
Norway -> 96.4% Norwegian, 0.5% Laplander, 0.3% Finnish, 2.8% Other Sweden -> 89.3% Swedish, 3% Finnish & Laplander, 0.8% Yugoslavian, 0.6% Iranian, 6.3% Other Finland -> 93% Finnish, 6% Swedish, 0.1% Laplander, 1% Other Iceland -> 98% Icelanders (Norweigian, Celts), 0.5% Swedish, 0.4% Danish Denmark -> 97% Danish, 3% Other
United States -> 75% White (So much varied ethnicity the site doesn't try to list them all), 12% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Asian, 0.7% Native American
So, what is it worth to get past that first hurdle?
As compared to what? Not getting past the first hurdle because a dozen other applicants had certificates in the applications you are being hired to be an expert in? It doesn't matter if the HR drone is an idiot, you have still possibly missed out on an opportunity.
And I have worked with companies that have horrible HR departments, but great software developer teams. So the general response of "good riddance since I don't want to work there anyway" doesn't always apply.
I generally get relevant certificates in technologies I am working with just because it takes very little effort and I can always convince work to pay for it anyway. And any time spent studying for a certificate is usually valuable just for the learning experience. I never know everything about the platforms I am working on, so it doesn't hurt to read some manuals.
What about a college degree? At one level, a diploma is no more than a very expensive certification.
Nope. Getting a college degree, you actually learn something.
While I have taken certificate exams that were meaningless (they are useful in the consulting world), I have learned quite a lot getting some certifications. They often force me to dabble in areas of an application, language, etc. that I haven't had to work with on the job. Obviously I could have learned it without the certificate training (since I have always just prepared from books and self-practice), but getting the certificate is what actually motivated me to learn the material. I have had times where a problem came up and I knew a feature existed to solve it because of my exam prep (although its always possible I would have found the feature anyway).
If I compared the number of hours spent preparing for tests compared to the hours spent in college, I wouldn't be surprised if my various exam preps were a more efficient way to learn overall. The degrees are more financially valuable though by far; since they are essentially certificates that hold far more weight with employers.
"He made a contribution in proportion to his income." Seriously, that's kind of the point of "The Widow's Mite"......quote: "Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all"
That quote is intentionally inaccurate to make a point. It is no different than if I tell someone "My new coworker is tall as a tree." or "my father is the nicest man in the world". They are all hyperbole.
There is a lot of hyperbole in the Bible. Jesus never meant the widow literally cast in more than they all. She obviously made a lesser contribution than the others, but Jesus is trying to point out her contribution was more meaningful (to God that is).
ok, you suck at definitions. There are multiple ways to measure things, and you've only thought of one.
True there are multiple ways of measuring the magnitude of a contribution, but all of them must be related to the impact of the contribution or else you are simply using the wrong word. An hour of labor is measured differently than a monetary donation, and sometimes even a simple reference (that takes almost no time or money) can have a large impact.
But the effort taken does not factor into a measurement of contribution. Another AC put it perfectly so I won't even try to paraphrase it: "'Tries hard' only goes on your report card when there is nothing better to say". Even the balance sheet of a charity doesn't list how hard their employees worked; it lists the output of their work. If one non-profit employee can get twice as much done in half the time, they will still have contributed more than the employee who worked harder but got less done.
There are many people in the open source community who have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. That is a much bigger contribution than giving some amount of money that doesn't even affect his lifestyle.
You either meant to say "That is a much bigger sacrifice than giving some amount of money...", or else you are simply incorrect. The level of contribution is not dependent on the level of sacrifice, the motives, etc. of the person doing the contributing. The magnitude is the only factor when measuring the level of contribution.
# Does your hospital not keep enough staff on hand to cover for sick doctors? no, barely enough even when everybody is working.
Then your actual answer to my question was Yes. Yes your hospital does not keep enough staff on hand to cover for sick doctors. So there is a financial interest for why doctors in your hospital work when sick, its just that your employer (in your case probably the tax payers) are reaping the benefits of cheaper health care. There is an amount of money that could be paid for health care which could hire enough doctors where none of you would have to work when sick.
A more free market does allow for different tiers of care, although the top care is then limited to those with the most money. This is generally how it is in the US, where health care for those in the upper class is arguably the best in the world, but a large percentage of people receive little to no care. Americans often complain that socialized medicine would delay care like you mention in your post, but this is generally only a concern for those with money.
Off course there are hospitals and doctors over here that are being paid by the patient/treatment. But, like i said, the same work ethos applies to those who are not financially inclined to come. That indicates that the financial interest is not the (main) reason for this behaviour. I see this in all civil servant doctors as well.
Financial interest is still the main reason why your industry forces such a work ethic on doctors. Doctors are not born with that work ethic, it is ingrained into them by an industry that requires that level of commitment because of how it is operated. Health care would be more expensive if the economy supported the number of doctors necessary for doctors to take the likely 20+ sick days per year that would be necessary to not work when sick.
You do realise you are often infectious to others before you are aware of being ill or even becomming ill at all? For instance for the flu, noro or chicken-pox. The whole "come in and infect everybody in the office / clinic" argument is really weak. People get sick via all sorts of routes.
People are not automatically infected with someone by being in the same workplace. The length of time and frequency of contact are huge factors in whether a contagion is transferred to a coworker. So one day of exposure compared to three to four days of exposure greater impact the chances you will spread your contagion to one or more coworkers.
I am a medical doctor, and work in a government owned hospital. That makes me kind of a civil servant. I get paid per month, not per patient/treatment.
I completely recognize my colleagues and myself in this report. One doesn't call in sick, unless one has 39,5C fever or isn't capable of driving the car to work.
Financial interest has nothing to with this, your remark reflects your utter ignorance for the matter and lacks any form of humour.
Are you claiming there are no doctors who get paid per visit or per service offered? Because unless that is the case, your remarks reflect your utter ignorance for the matter.
Even for you and your colleague who never calls in sick, I doubt there are no financial interests at play. Do you have a limited number of sick days? Do you have to take vacation days after those sick days are exhausted? Are you compensated at the year's end for unused sick days? Are your sick days and vacation days all combined into a single PTO group? Does your hospital not keep enough staff on hand to cover for sick doctors? If you said "Yes" to any of these questions then there are financial interests at play.
These issues are either caused by financial interests, ignorant doctors, or doctors who don't care about their patients' health. I am betting on the first, and would be very sad if you think it is one of the two latter explanations.
One size doesn't fit all, so it should come as no surprise that a currency made for industrial nations doesn't work so well for a tourist economy.
Umm... that wasn't what this referendum was about. The Greeks will never accept an exit from the Euro. Even though they thoroughly deserve to be booted out.
What do you think this referendum was about? A "no" vote is effectively the equivalent of Greece saying "We will not accept your bailout deal, so if you do not give us a better one we are leaving the Euro". Unless the EU caves, Greece could be off of the Euro this week.
While an argument could be made that the average Greek didn't fully understand what a "no" vote means, there is no doubt what it means for the economic future of Greece. Either the EU caves on Monday or Greece starts to print drachmas. (or some other lender comes to the rescue, but that is a very far fetched possibility)
are you saying there exists some implementation that analyzes every resume in existence perfectly? it's "incomplete" in the sense that any such effort is incomplete and imperfect by nature of the problem. your criticism is invalid, you don't understand the task if you expect completeness is possible
The task is to determine which professional skills relate to each other (this goal comes from TFA, not just the summary). The use of resumes to accomplish this is an implementation decision. Any shortcomings of using resumes is not necessarily an inherent limitation to solving the task at hand. There are other ways to complete the task that do not rely on resumes at all, or that rely on them less.
For instance, you could use web search results to obtain data for your distributional semantics research. Websites that discuss MongoDB are probably more likely to use the term Database more often than Spring, even though the opposite is true for resumes. And in this case MongoDB has far more to do with databases than the Spring framework, so this methodology would return better results in this case.
I am not necessarily saying a web crawl would return better results overall, I am only clarifying why problems caused by implementation decisions should not be used to claim the problem itself will always suffer from this problem.
Denying your kid is your own? That's something I think a lot of younger guys can relate to, if they're scared about becoming a father and everything it involves. Doubly so if you actually have grand plans for something like a business venture and fear that becoming a parent would decimate the free time and dedication you'd have to devote to it, to make it work.
I'm just going to assume you don't have kids since you are rationalizing how abandoning your child because it will hurt your career is somehow okay, or simply being immature. If I abandoned my wife and kids I could save up enough money in one year to work full time on my startup idea for two years. Instead I am working on it 15-20 hours a week when everyone is asleep and occasionally on weekends. This doesn't make me a great parent, it just makes me not a sociopath.
You, sir, have very very low standards as to what a "positive impact" on the world is.
Mother Teresa and the countless number of volunteers helping 3rd world countries is a positive impact. Preventing a war is a positive impact. Donating to various charities and foundations is a positive impact.
Compared to you I guess I do have a very low standard. I think someone being a good parent has a positive impact on the world. I think someone starting a construction company that builds quality homes for people has a positive impact on the world. I think someone who corrects a cashier when they give them $20 in change instead of $10 has a positive impact on the world.
I also think that in most cases, for profit enterprises have a much greater positive impact on the world than charities. They usually reach far more people and move societal progress further ahead. Charities are usually more involved with helping the people that progress left behind.
It is very arguable which one is more commendable. Is it better to improve a billion people's lives by 0.1% or a hundred peoples lives by 10000%? I don't think the answer to that question is clear cut. I do however think it is clear we want both types of people in this world.
Someone is lazy and untalented if they think a father who abandoned his child is a dick? There are plenty of other examples of what a horrible person he was, but that alone is enough to damn anyone.
We're all dicks. It will inspire some to try to do it without dickness; others are going to be dicks regardless. Seriously, does anyone make it to the top without at least some dickness?
People call Steve Jobs a dick not because he was just a pushy businessman (like most other successful people) but because he really was a dick. He abandoned his daughter for years, which by itself is enough to show he was deep down not a good person. He chose financial success over his own child; other than murder or torture I cannot think of a worst act. It could be argued he became a better person later in life, since it appears he tried to rectify the worst thing he ever did. But financially supporting her after he had plenty of money is hardly a grand gesture.
The world is probably a better place because Steve Jobs existed, but that only goes to show even the most deplorable people can have a very positive impact on the world.
It's called a "push poll". It's a fancy way of asking questions to make some people seem stupid. It's grown-up name calling. That's all.
A push poll uses manipulative or loaded questions. Like asking "Do you like Obamacare" while not specifying if you think it goes too far or not far enough. A quick glance at these questions doesn't reveal any loaded or manipulative questions to me.
Someone people seem stupid because they are, not because a poll is being manipulative.
a) do you really trust any measure of intelligence?
Yes. I trust no claim of a 100% accurate measurement of intelligence, but trust that many measurements of intelligence are at least able to measure large differences in intelligence. A standard deviation is a big difference, so I do believe a 15 point difference in IQ is going to have a great deal of predictive ability regarding someone's ability to learn and understand information.
b) do you really think that scientists have higher intelligence?
Yes. I have worked with PhD students and professional researchers, and I have worked with "average" people, and there is a big difference in intelligence. It is hard to quantify the difference, but it is there.
c) do you really think that intelligence has anything but the most minor role to play in career success as a scientist?
I guess it depends on what you mean by minor role. There are likely very few prominent scientists who are less than one standard deviation smarter than the average person. In this context intelligence has a very major role. But once you are at least this smart, access to education and hard work will have far more to do with your success than raw intelligence. In this context it has a very minor role.
It is similar to how beauty impacted how I evaluated potential romantic partners. There was a minimal level of attractiveness before I would contemplate starting a romantic relationship with someone. This is probably a 7 out of 10 in quantitative terms. But after reaching this threshold, beauty has almost no impact on how overall attractive a woman is to me. Intelligence, humor, shared interests and beliefs, etc. are far more important. Success in most careers that demand a certain level of intelligence is just about the same in my opinion.
Two great careers for software developers who don't really like writing software are project management and business analyst. Both are very necessary in almost any IT group, and having software development experience will be an asset in both. Analysts that can write SQL and fully understand object modeling are rare and valuable, as are project managers who understand the software development life cycle from the viewpoint of developers.
UoP degree holding candidates should simply be treated the same as self taught candidates. Up until recently there were no other options to get BS degrees online or at night school for the vast majority of majors, so students were forced to attend diploma mills like UoP or Devry. To get past HR filters schools like UoP were the only choice for many people.
I got my BS degree from UoP for these very reasons, but I followed it up with a MS degree from a real school. Even the MS degree wasn't that useful for someone self-taught and motivated (I could have taught all but 3 of my 13 classes), but I knew I wouldn't want UoP on my resume in the future because of employers that would just black ball me.
As someone who did attend, you are correct that the degrees given by UoP are worthless as anything but a way to get past HR resume filters.
I had no other option in 2009 other than an online degree because I needed to work full time. Standard brick and mortar schools didn't offer online or night school BS programs in anything but a handful of degrees (oddly enough none of them IT related). Today that is no longer the case, so there really is no reason to attend UoP anymore. They simply prey on people with underhanded recruiting, and the world will be a better place when the school is just shut down.
They offered a much needed service 5 years ago because no worthwhile schools were doing it. I was already self taught so I didn't need an education; I just needed a degree. I also decided to get a Masters degree from a real school (plenty of colleges offer good nigh and weekend MS degrees) so I no longer even mention UoP on my resume.
Phoenix and other for profit schools are nothing more than diploma mills. They need to die.
And this is different from state run schools how?
If you actually attended both UoP and any state school, you would understand the difference. I already was self educated so the lack of rigor wasn't a problem (I literally just needed the piece of paper / diploma), but it was truly a waste of time for anyone trying to learn a trade.
To put it in context, here are the 5 assignments I had in my second semester SQL class at UoP. They constituted almost 100% of the grade (the rest was just participation in forums). One assignment was due each week of the 5 week class.
1) Create a database (literally just a CREATE DATABASE command). 2) Create three tables 3) Create foreign key relationships between the tables 4) Populate the tables with data from a CSV file 5) Create a report listing the data ina tabular format
One wonders whether it's the "for-profit" nature of the institution, or its "lack of government subsidy" that puts it at relative risk.
It is neither, UoP is at relative risk because it provides little to no value to students. The only value it provides is giving a degree that can pass through an HR filter, and this usually only works when the filter doesn't pay attention to the institution name. Anyone willing to hire a UoP graduate is likely willing to hire someone without a degree as well.
The majority of government subsidies all private colleges receive today are in the form of government backed student loans. This is probably the majority of subsidies for public schools at this point as well. So UoP receives plenty of government subsidies. They price their classes so around 95% of the tuition can be paid with Stafford loans. They even do tricks like filing for student loans more frequently than once a year to get more money from the government (not sure why this works, but it does).
Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license.
You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.
That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.
No, another very valid reason not to use copyleft code is because you are developing proprietary software where you do not intend to release the source code. Do you truly believe everyone developing closed source proprietary software is a sociopath? I am not sure even Richard Stallman thinks that, and I thought his was the most extreme opinion in the free software community.
I am developing software that takes use of many open libraries, but only ones that are truly open. This is because I currently intend to release the software with a dual license similar to MySQL. If I can find a way to fund the project another way I will, because I would prefer the software to be completely free, although I don't want to back myself into a corner and limit my options in the future by using GPL code.
Slashdot Mirror
You're obviously American, so I can make some allowances for your deficient education, but those "non diverse" Nordic countries are more diverse than you.
Ahhhh....more pig ignorant American cannon fodder. Gotta love 'em and their naivety.
That is laughable. Finland and Sweden are fairly diverse by European standards, but the entire European continent is not very diverse. A quick look at France, Germany, and Italy show they have over 90% of their population in their respective ethnicity. The United States largest ethnicity is German, with about 17%.
From Populstat.info:
Norway -> 96.4% Norwegian, 0.5% Laplander, 0.3% Finnish, 2.8% Other
Sweden -> 89.3% Swedish, 3% Finnish & Laplander, 0.8% Yugoslavian, 0.6% Iranian, 6.3% Other
Finland -> 93% Finnish, 6% Swedish, 0.1% Laplander, 1% Other
Iceland -> 98% Icelanders (Norweigian, Celts), 0.5% Swedish, 0.4% Danish
Denmark -> 97% Danish, 3% Other
United States -> 75% White (So much varied ethnicity the site doesn't try to list them all), 12% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Asian, 0.7% Native American
So, what is it worth to get past that first hurdle?
As compared to what? Not getting past the first hurdle because a dozen other applicants had certificates in the applications you are being hired to be an expert in? It doesn't matter if the HR drone is an idiot, you have still possibly missed out on an opportunity.
And I have worked with companies that have horrible HR departments, but great software developer teams. So the general response of "good riddance since I don't want to work there anyway" doesn't always apply.
I generally get relevant certificates in technologies I am working with just because it takes very little effort and I can always convince work to pay for it anyway. And any time spent studying for a certificate is usually valuable just for the learning experience. I never know everything about the platforms I am working on, so it doesn't hurt to read some manuals.
What about a college degree? At one level, a diploma is no more than a very expensive certification.
Nope. Getting a college degree, you actually learn something.
While I have taken certificate exams that were meaningless (they are useful in the consulting world), I have learned quite a lot getting some certifications. They often force me to dabble in areas of an application, language, etc. that I haven't had to work with on the job. Obviously I could have learned it without the certificate training (since I have always just prepared from books and self-practice), but getting the certificate is what actually motivated me to learn the material. I have had times where a problem came up and I knew a feature existed to solve it because of my exam prep (although its always possible I would have found the feature anyway).
If I compared the number of hours spent preparing for tests compared to the hours spent in college, I wouldn't be surprised if my various exam preps were a more efficient way to learn overall. The degrees are more financially valuable though by far; since they are essentially certificates that hold far more weight with employers.
"He made a contribution in proportion to his income."
Seriously, that's kind of the point of "The Widow's Mite"......quote: "Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all"
That quote is intentionally inaccurate to make a point. It is no different than if I tell someone "My new coworker is tall as a tree." or "my father is the nicest man in the world". They are all hyperbole.
There is a lot of hyperbole in the Bible. Jesus never meant the widow literally cast in more than they all. She obviously made a lesser contribution than the others, but Jesus is trying to point out her contribution was more meaningful (to God that is).
ok, you suck at definitions. There are multiple ways to measure things, and you've only thought of one.
True there are multiple ways of measuring the magnitude of a contribution, but all of them must be related to the impact of the contribution or else you are simply using the wrong word. An hour of labor is measured differently than a monetary donation, and sometimes even a simple reference (that takes almost no time or money) can have a large impact.
But the effort taken does not factor into a measurement of contribution. Another AC put it perfectly so I won't even try to paraphrase it: "'Tries hard' only goes on your report card when there is nothing better to say". Even the balance sheet of a charity doesn't list how hard their employees worked; it lists the output of their work. If one non-profit employee can get twice as much done in half the time, they will still have contributed more than the employee who worked harder but got less done.
There are many people in the open source community who have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. That is a much bigger contribution than giving some amount of money that doesn't even affect his lifestyle.
You either meant to say "That is a much bigger sacrifice than giving some amount of money ...", or else you are simply incorrect. The level of contribution is not dependent on the level of sacrifice, the motives, etc. of the person doing the contributing. The magnitude is the only factor when measuring the level of contribution.
# Does your hospital not keep enough staff on hand to cover for sick doctors? no, barely enough even when everybody is working.
Then your actual answer to my question was Yes. Yes your hospital does not keep enough staff on hand to cover for sick doctors. So there is a financial interest for why doctors in your hospital work when sick, its just that your employer (in your case probably the tax payers) are reaping the benefits of cheaper health care. There is an amount of money that could be paid for health care which could hire enough doctors where none of you would have to work when sick.
A more free market does allow for different tiers of care, although the top care is then limited to those with the most money. This is generally how it is in the US, where health care for those in the upper class is arguably the best in the world, but a large percentage of people receive little to no care. Americans often complain that socialized medicine would delay care like you mention in your post, but this is generally only a concern for those with money.
Off course there are hospitals and doctors over here that are being paid by the patient/treatment. But, like i said, the same work ethos applies to those who are not financially inclined to come. That indicates that the financial interest is not the (main) reason for this behaviour. I see this in all civil servant doctors as well.
Financial interest is still the main reason why your industry forces such a work ethic on doctors. Doctors are not born with that work ethic, it is ingrained into them by an industry that requires that level of commitment because of how it is operated. Health care would be more expensive if the economy supported the number of doctors necessary for doctors to take the likely 20+ sick days per year that would be necessary to not work when sick.
You do realise you are often infectious to others before you are aware of being ill or even becomming ill at all? For instance for the flu, noro or chicken-pox. The whole "come in and infect everybody in the office / clinic" argument is really weak. People get sick via all sorts of routes.
People are not automatically infected with someone by being in the same workplace. The length of time and frequency of contact are huge factors in whether a contagion is transferred to a coworker. So one day of exposure compared to three to four days of exposure greater impact the chances you will spread your contagion to one or more coworkers.
In other news, Microsoft is hiring 7800 H1B workers to head up their new mobile division.
I am a medical doctor, and work in a government owned hospital. That makes me kind of a civil servant. I get paid per month, not per patient/treatment.
I completely recognize my colleagues and myself in this report. One doesn't call in sick, unless one has 39,5C fever or isn't capable of driving the car to work.
Financial interest has nothing to with this, your remark reflects your utter ignorance for the matter and lacks any form of humour.
Are you claiming there are no doctors who get paid per visit or per service offered? Because unless that is the case, your remarks reflect your utter ignorance for the matter.
Even for you and your colleague who never calls in sick, I doubt there are no financial interests at play. Do you have a limited number of sick days? Do you have to take vacation days after those sick days are exhausted? Are you compensated at the year's end for unused sick days? Are your sick days and vacation days all combined into a single PTO group? Does your hospital not keep enough staff on hand to cover for sick doctors? If you said "Yes" to any of these questions then there are financial interests at play.
These issues are either caused by financial interests, ignorant doctors, or doctors who don't care about their patients' health. I am betting on the first, and would be very sad if you think it is one of the two latter explanations.
One size doesn't fit all, so it should come as no surprise that a currency made for industrial nations doesn't work so well for a tourist economy.
Umm... that wasn't what this referendum was about. The Greeks will never accept an exit from the Euro. Even though they thoroughly deserve to be booted out.
What do you think this referendum was about? A "no" vote is effectively the equivalent of Greece saying "We will not accept your bailout deal, so if you do not give us a better one we are leaving the Euro". Unless the EU caves, Greece could be off of the Euro this week.
While an argument could be made that the average Greek didn't fully understand what a "no" vote means, there is no doubt what it means for the economic future of Greece. Either the EU caves on Monday or Greece starts to print drachmas. (or some other lender comes to the rescue, but that is a very far fetched possibility)
are you saying there exists some implementation that analyzes every resume in existence perfectly? it's "incomplete" in the sense that any such effort is incomplete and imperfect by nature of the problem. your criticism is invalid, you don't understand the task if you expect completeness is possible
The task is to determine which professional skills relate to each other (this goal comes from TFA, not just the summary). The use of resumes to accomplish this is an implementation decision. Any shortcomings of using resumes is not necessarily an inherent limitation to solving the task at hand. There are other ways to complete the task that do not rely on resumes at all, or that rely on them less.
For instance, you could use web search results to obtain data for your distributional semantics research. Websites that discuss MongoDB are probably more likely to use the term Database more often than Spring, even though the opposite is true for resumes. And in this case MongoDB has far more to do with databases than the Spring framework, so this methodology would return better results in this case.
I am not necessarily saying a web crawl would return better results overall, I am only clarifying why problems caused by implementation decisions should not be used to claim the problem itself will always suffer from this problem.
Denying your kid is your own? That's something I think a lot of younger guys can relate to, if they're scared about becoming a father and everything it involves. Doubly so if you actually have grand plans for something like a business venture and fear that becoming a parent would decimate the free time and dedication you'd have to devote to it, to make it work.
I'm just going to assume you don't have kids since you are rationalizing how abandoning your child because it will hurt your career is somehow okay, or simply being immature. If I abandoned my wife and kids I could save up enough money in one year to work full time on my startup idea for two years. Instead I am working on it 15-20 hours a week when everyone is asleep and occasionally on weekends. This doesn't make me a great parent, it just makes me not a sociopath.
You, sir, have very very low standards as to what a "positive impact" on the world is.
Mother Teresa and the countless number of volunteers helping 3rd world countries is a positive impact. Preventing a war is a positive impact. Donating to various charities and foundations is a positive impact.
Compared to you I guess I do have a very low standard. I think someone being a good parent has a positive impact on the world. I think someone starting a construction company that builds quality homes for people has a positive impact on the world. I think someone who corrects a cashier when they give them $20 in change instead of $10 has a positive impact on the world.
I also think that in most cases, for profit enterprises have a much greater positive impact on the world than charities. They usually reach far more people and move societal progress further ahead. Charities are usually more involved with helping the people that progress left behind.
It is very arguable which one is more commendable. Is it better to improve a billion people's lives by 0.1% or a hundred peoples lives by 10000%? I don't think the answer to that question is clear cut. I do however think it is clear we want both types of people in this world.
it's just analyzing the appearance of words in listed skills
so it makes sense "database" would only be a tiny little distant circle
So what you are saying is their chosen implementation for analyzing relationships between skills is incomplete?
Someone is lazy and untalented if they think a father who abandoned his child is a dick? There are plenty of other examples of what a horrible person he was, but that alone is enough to damn anyone.
We're all dicks. It will inspire some to try to do it without dickness; others are going to be dicks regardless. Seriously, does anyone make it to the top without at least some dickness?
People call Steve Jobs a dick not because he was just a pushy businessman (like most other successful people) but because he really was a dick. He abandoned his daughter for years, which by itself is enough to show he was deep down not a good person. He chose financial success over his own child; other than murder or torture I cannot think of a worst act. It could be argued he became a better person later in life, since it appears he tried to rectify the worst thing he ever did. But financially supporting her after he had plenty of money is hardly a grand gesture.
The world is probably a better place because Steve Jobs existed, but that only goes to show even the most deplorable people can have a very positive impact on the world.
Sometimes people seem stupid because they are, not because a poll is being manipulative.
Fixed it for myself. Sometimes people need to proofread better so they don't seem stupid.
It's called a "push poll". It's a fancy way of asking questions to make some people seem stupid. It's grown-up name calling. That's all.
A push poll uses manipulative or loaded questions. Like asking "Do you like Obamacare" while not specifying if you think it goes too far or not far enough. A quick glance at these questions doesn't reveal any loaded or manipulative questions to me.
Someone people seem stupid because they are, not because a poll is being manipulative.
a) do you really trust any measure of intelligence?
Yes. I trust no claim of a 100% accurate measurement of intelligence, but trust that many measurements of intelligence are at least able to measure large differences in intelligence. A standard deviation is a big difference, so I do believe a 15 point difference in IQ is going to have a great deal of predictive ability regarding someone's ability to learn and understand information.
b) do you really think that scientists have higher intelligence?
Yes. I have worked with PhD students and professional researchers, and I have worked with "average" people, and there is a big difference in intelligence. It is hard to quantify the difference, but it is there.
c) do you really think that intelligence has anything but the most minor role to play in career success as a scientist?
I guess it depends on what you mean by minor role. There are likely very few prominent scientists who are less than one standard deviation smarter than the average person. In this context intelligence has a very major role. But once you are at least this smart, access to education and hard work will have far more to do with your success than raw intelligence. In this context it has a very minor role.
It is similar to how beauty impacted how I evaluated potential romantic partners. There was a minimal level of attractiveness before I would contemplate starting a romantic relationship with someone. This is probably a 7 out of 10 in quantitative terms. But after reaching this threshold, beauty has almost no impact on how overall attractive a woman is to me. Intelligence, humor, shared interests and beliefs, etc. are far more important. Success in most careers that demand a certain level of intelligence is just about the same in my opinion.
Two great careers for software developers who don't really like writing software are project management and business analyst. Both are very necessary in almost any IT group, and having software development experience will be an asset in both. Analysts that can write SQL and fully understand object modeling are rare and valuable, as are project managers who understand the software development life cycle from the viewpoint of developers.
[Have a UoP degree] screams "Hey! I'm a moron!"
UoP degree holding candidates should simply be treated the same as self taught candidates. Up until recently there were no other options to get BS degrees online or at night school for the vast majority of majors, so students were forced to attend diploma mills like UoP or Devry. To get past HR filters schools like UoP were the only choice for many people.
I got my BS degree from UoP for these very reasons, but I followed it up with a MS degree from a real school. Even the MS degree wasn't that useful for someone self-taught and motivated (I could have taught all but 3 of my 13 classes), but I knew I wouldn't want UoP on my resume in the future because of employers that would just black ball me.
As someone who did attend, you are correct that the degrees given by UoP are worthless as anything but a way to get past HR resume filters.
I had no other option in 2009 other than an online degree because I needed to work full time. Standard brick and mortar schools didn't offer online or night school BS programs in anything but a handful of degrees (oddly enough none of them IT related). Today that is no longer the case, so there really is no reason to attend UoP anymore. They simply prey on people with underhanded recruiting, and the world will be a better place when the school is just shut down.
They offered a much needed service 5 years ago because no worthwhile schools were doing it. I was already self taught so I didn't need an education; I just needed a degree. I also decided to get a Masters degree from a real school (plenty of colleges offer good nigh and weekend MS degrees) so I no longer even mention UoP on my resume.
Phoenix and other for profit schools are nothing more than diploma mills. They need to die.
And this is different from state run schools how?
If you actually attended both UoP and any state school, you would understand the difference. I already was self educated so the lack of rigor wasn't a problem (I literally just needed the piece of paper / diploma), but it was truly a waste of time for anyone trying to learn a trade.
To put it in context, here are the 5 assignments I had in my second semester SQL class at UoP. They constituted almost 100% of the grade (the rest was just participation in forums). One assignment was due each week of the 5 week class.
1) Create a database (literally just a CREATE DATABASE command).
2) Create three tables
3) Create foreign key relationships between the tables
4) Populate the tables with data from a CSV file
5) Create a report listing the data ina tabular format
One wonders whether it's the "for-profit" nature of the institution, or its "lack of government subsidy" that puts it at relative risk.
It is neither, UoP is at relative risk because it provides little to no value to students. The only value it provides is giving a degree that can pass through an HR filter, and this usually only works when the filter doesn't pay attention to the institution name. Anyone willing to hire a UoP graduate is likely willing to hire someone without a degree as well.
The majority of government subsidies all private colleges receive today are in the form of government backed student loans. This is probably the majority of subsidies for public schools at this point as well. So UoP receives plenty of government subsidies. They price their classes so around 95% of the tuition can be paid with Stafford loans. They even do tricks like filing for student loans more frequently than once a year to get more money from the government (not sure why this works, but it does).
Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license.
You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.
That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.
No, another very valid reason not to use copyleft code is because you are developing proprietary software where you do not intend to release the source code. Do you truly believe everyone developing closed source proprietary software is a sociopath? I am not sure even Richard Stallman thinks that, and I thought his was the most extreme opinion in the free software community.
I am developing software that takes use of many open libraries, but only ones that are truly open. This is because I currently intend to release the software with a dual license similar to MySQL. If I can find a way to fund the project another way I will, because I would prefer the software to be completely free, although I don't want to back myself into a corner and limit my options in the future by using GPL code.