 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:30:58 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
> seems to care much where you got it.
As long as it's from an accredited institution.
Often times, they don't even care what it's in. That you got it is
what's important to a lot of HR people.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
>> seems to care much where you got it.
>
> As long as it's from an accredited institution.
>
> Often times, they don't even care what it's in. That you got it is
> what's important to a lot of HR people.
Seems most *employers* don't really give a fig what qualifications
you've got - they just want experience.
Then again, given the number of people we've interviewed with "20 years
of development experience" who can't work out how to perform trivial
programming tasks like deciding whether a variable is negative or positive.
(Our office favourite is the guy who replied to one question with "oh,
I'm not sure how you'd do that - I haven't used strings for a while".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:16:23 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
>>> seems to care much where you got it.
>>
>> As long as it's from an accredited institution.
>>
>> Often times, they don't even care what it's in. That you got it is
>> what's important to a lot of HR people.
>
> Seems most *employers* don't really give a fig what qualifications
> you've got - they just want experience.
But as a gate to that experience, they want a degree. At least here in
the US.
I've been self-employed now for nearly 3 years. In the field I was
working in for nearly a decade before I was laid off, I was recognized by
peers as having a firm grasp on the concepts and ideas - and seen inside
my employer as a leader with expertise.
After the layoff, I applied at companies in that particular field
(technical certification program management), and with at least one, my
lack of a degree was cited as a *specific* issue they'd have with hiring
me. I didn't even get an interview.
My experience didn't even matter in that instance.
> Then again, given the number of people we've interviewed with "20 years
> of development experience" who can't work out how to perform trivial
> programming tasks like deciding whether a variable is negative or
> positive.
>
> (Our office favourite is the guy who replied to one question with "oh,
> I'm not sure how you'd do that - I haven't used strings for a while".)
LOL
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17/01/2014 18:12, clipka a écrit :
> Am 17.01.2014 16:10, schrieb FractRacer:
>
>> Yes, Human know if he make wrong action, waht about animals? Good or
>> evil are humans concepts, not animals, not machines.
>> I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose. Some
>> "educated" animals can also choose, but are they able to say waht is
>> good or bad?
>
> Are /you/ able to say what is good or bad? If so, tell me.
>
When I say good or bad, I don't set or defined rules, I just think
humans can have ethics - no matter what here. Yes, this ethics are
learned, but we can also think otherwise - we can question our
education, we can build new rules.
Human is able of abstract
> Kitten do learn what is good or bad, by interacting with their siblings
> and their mother. Good := behaviour provoking positive feedback, evil :=
> behaviour provoking negative feedback.
>
> For instance, kitten learn not to play too rough because this will cause
> the siblings to abort the game.
>
> This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others
> will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.
>
But kitten can't name his act. If kitten is a male, when it is
fully-grown it can kill some others kittens to have a chance to
copulate. This behavior, based on instinct, is normal in animals world;
for the humans it is reprehensible.
> No difference there to humans. We, too, unconsciously follow the very
> same underlying definition of good and evil, the details of which we
> have learned during childhood, in the very same manner.
>
Humans are considered responsible of their acts, not animals.
> Note that as a consequence there is no such thing as a universal concept
> of good and evil; each individual /inevitably/ has its own unique
> concept thereof, shaped by the family, society and culture he was
> brought up in.
>
I agreed, when I spoke about good and evil, I just refer to a conceptual
thing.
But I think humans are not - in general - focused on evil, I think
mutual aid is a instinctive quality (out of the good-evil concepts -
this concepts are relatively recent in the human history.)
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.01.2014 18:47, schrieb FractRacer:
>> Kitten do learn what is good or bad, by interacting with their siblings
>> and their mother. Good := behaviour provoking positive feedback, evil :=
>> behaviour provoking negative feedback.
>>
>> For instance, kitten learn not to play too rough because this will cause
>> the siblings to abort the game.
>>
>> This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others
>> will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.
>
> But kitten can't name his act.
Well, they can't talk, but they /are/ aware of whether they're behaving
"evil". Just watch a domestic cat that you have caught stealing food
from the table or some such.
> If kitten is a male, when it is
> fully-grown it can kill some others kittens to have a chance to
> copulate. This behavior, based on instinct, is normal in animals world;
That's because although kittens learn that /playing/ rough is evil,
there is a biological /necessity/ for /fighting/ rough. (In the wild, a
male cat that doesn't will never ever reproduce, and a female cat that
doesn't will not be able to secure a sufficient supply of food).
Note that we can only observe the /behaviour/ of the cat, not what
/thoughts/, /emotions/ or /instincts/ are driving this behaviour. Just
because the cat acts like it doesn't consider its acts evil doesn't
necessarily mean it really doesn't. It may well be that a young male cat
/will/ hesitate to seriously attack another male cat, but that in the
end its instincts are simply stronger - because in the wild that's how
it must be.
> for the humans it is reprehensible.
Quote you from a few posts ago:
"But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or
not). Unfortunately, the choice made is often the wrong (kill). Humans
can live in peace if they want, why it is not the case?"
Maybe it is testimony that our ability to make an educated choice is
overestimated, and that we, too, just like cats, are subject to
instincts that may overwhelm us?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2014 19:17, clipka wrote:
> Am 18.01.2014 18:47, schrieb FractRacer:
>
>>> This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others
>>> will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.
>>
>> But kitten can't name his act.
>
> Well, they can't talk, but they /are/ aware of whether they're behaving
> "evil". Just watch a domestic cat that you have caught stealing food
> from the table or some such.
obligatory cheezburger reference: http://cheezburger.com/55780097
--
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/01/2014 19:17, clipka a écrit :
> Am 18.01.2014 18:47, schrieb FractRacer:
>
>
> Well, they can't talk, but they /are/ aware of whether they're behaving
> "evil". Just watch a domestic cat that you have caught stealing food
> from the table or some such.
Yes, but the cat can rob again another piece of food, we just try to
make his education based on our life. The cat seems playing whis us.
>
>> for the humans it is reprehensible.
>
> Quote you from a few posts ago:
>
> "But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or
> not). Unfortunately, the choice made is often the wrong (kill). Humans
> can live in peace if they want, why it is not the case?"
>
> Maybe it is testimony that our ability to make an educated choice is
> overestimated, and that we, too, just like cats, are subject to
> instincts that may overwhelm us?
>
Maybe our education choice is overestimated, or maybe others
/educationals/ concepts must be take into consideration, I think of all
ouside influences.
I don't believe that a education made in the meaning of respect of life
and others people can be break easily. The education must learn us to
control our instincts. It is here I placed the difference between human
and others animals, we can control our instincts, we are social animals.
But sometimes some humans won't respect the implicit rules. Why? Why
this people acts against their peers? Bad education? Bad models?
Psychological disorders?
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/15/2014 8:21 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Oh dear, Patrick. You seem to have become obsessed with justifying your
> original comment by descending to the level of the bullies.
> If you had read my original post post properly, you would have noticed
> my comment about joining Thick As A Brick.
>
Yeah, I had. And, part of being "thick as a brick" for such groups is
presuming that mostly self selected people, taking special tests, which
they don't let anyone outside the group verify as being anything but
another silly, and useless IQ test, but **assert** must work, because,
its just not possible, unlike everyone else that believes in such tests,
that their own might have the same bloody flaws...
Kind of reminds me of a recent article, on the subject of intelligence,
talking about tracking methods used by certain "primitives", or rather,
by those attempting to maintain their methods, while having other
alternative they didn't before. After years of studying them the author
concluded that a) he would never be any where near as good at it, b)
while it used a lot of speculative prediction, our of necessity, it
contained the basic scientific principle that hypothesis about what
animals are doing require revision, if the original expectation was
wrong, and that c) the skill level of prior generations, who had to rely
in it far more, was likely even vastly superior to what the "current"
generation, who have other resources they can rely on, which their
ancestors didn't. In other words, the people in question probably had a
snowballs change in hell of passing a Mensa test, but they ***had to***
have the same level of logic and cognitive skills, which such tests are
"supposed to" test for, just to survive in a place where it might take
days to track an animal, and being able to take limited data, and
"project", with a high chance of being right, what every track and sign
they came across really meant, determined life or death. (This being
apposed to other regions, with things like forests, lakes, and, again,
other resources, which didn't bloody move around a lot, and where in
plain sight). It makes a skeptical of all "tests" you might give to take
such a measurement, in a modern context.
> Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.
>
Ah, gee.. Sorry for using "internet conventions". You sound like one of
the people that objects to language on the basis that it isn't long
winded enough to be inoffensive, even if the long winded version is
saying the same bloody things. Juvenile.. Apparently "adult" is saying
"get off my lawn", or rather, "I don't like all these new fangled
things, which we didn't need back in the day when we used to write 12
page essays on how we would silly we thought something is."
> Finally, read your responses at least twice before posting. It stops you
> from offending people who have been on the group longer than you.
>
> John
>
Yeah.. No. What society needs, frankly, is more people willing to offend
people, instead of always lending them automatic respect, based on what
they are members of. I won't do that with religions, why the hell would
I with anyone else? And, your evidence that any part of my original
comment is wrong is.. what? That some of them are actually nice, instead
of assholes, and *they* think their testing methods are valid? You see
the same argument from every other group making similar claims, all the
time, the difference, apparently, being that their "criteria" get
leaked, and are not "secret".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/16/2014 2:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> Why not? Is there any reason to be unimpressed by someone having
> acquired the skill to solve certain types of puzzles? Is it pointless?
> No more so than the skill to kick a ball into a rectangular frame I
> suspect: Both, as a side effect, tend to also make you good at other
> things that /can/ be of practical value.
>
Well, at least that implies some "skill". As an aside, there was some
post or other, which was reposted on a blog I read, which broke down
what goes on in "American Football", in terms of time spent. This was
the break down:
45 minutes of commercials.
83 minutes of people standing around talking (I think it was like 37
minutes of that which was couches, and other non-players doing that).
11 minutes of actual play time.
15 minutes of replays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/16/2014 10:21 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 16-1-2014 10:12, clipka wrote:
>
>>> and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a
>>> test, it never has to be recalibrated.
>>
>> To all my knowledge, those tests /are/ recalibrated every now and then.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
>
>
Kind of makes you wonder how many Mensa people, having been in it for
decades, would either a) blow the old test out of the water, due to
improvement, or b) fail spectacularly, because, in the intervening
years, they went off and did other things, without "improving" the
skills needed for the original test.
Mind, the latter is somewhat less likely.. It would be like expecting
someone good at crosswords to both stop doing crosswords, and get worse
at them, while still doing them. BTW - crosswords are something I hate,
because they, frankly, often reference what, for anyone that doesn't do
crosswords, are often obscure, or, among the general public, uncommon,
references, when/if they don't just stuff something in that involves
celebrities, or some other obscura, which no one, other than people
obsessed with crosswords, or "popular culture" would give a damn about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
