Am 15.01.2014 21:48, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:50:53 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> Am 14.01.2014 23:10, schrieb Doctor John:
>
>> Interestingly, in Einstein's days there apparently wasn't. He was a
>> kind of pop icon of his time.
>>
> ..even though he stopped in the middle of the road when the "Don't Walk"
> light lit up :)

Sounds like the witty type of humor I'd expect from him :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2014 20:11, schrieb Warp:

> Also, feeling inferior in mental capacity is a much more touchy
> subject than feeling inferior eg. in soccer or throwing a javelin.

Might be because most people associate soccer or throwing a javelin with 
training, but mental capacity with genetic disposition.

My personal presumption is that they all depend on both disposition and 
training. If you are of short growth, chances are you'll never play in 
the top basketball league or become a world-class sprinter, no matter 
how hard you try. On the other hand, even the best genetic disposition 
for mental skill won't make you a grandmaster of chess unless you spend 
many hours on mental exercises each day.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2014 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>>
>>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the average
>>> person of your age.
>
>> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
>> considers to be the "average person".
>
> I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
> is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
> the results so that the average gets 100 points.
>
If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things 
happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has 
equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in 
equivalent ways, and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a 
test, it never has to be recalibrated. A good example would be something 
like handling money. Would someone in the UK, prior to the Euro, be 
"smarter" than someone in the US? I mean, after all, there where like 40 
different kinds of money, some of them sounding more like weight/liquid 
measures, being with like.. 1/8th of some higher denomination, and 
stuff, and people *used* all the bloody things, while, the US currency 
was all metric. Then, you could ask the same question the other way, is 
it more clever to deal with inches, feet, yards, etc., or the metric 
system? More to the point, someone with the wrong way of thinking is 
going to go, "WTF is this?!", no matter which category they are in, when 
dealing with the ones where there are fractional coinage. Personally.. I 
think the UK went metric because it was a huge burden on the state to 
place both their economists *and* engineers in rubber rooms, instead of 
just one set, but... lol

This is BTW what I meant about "tricks" before. If you don't know how to 
think about a problem, you either can't solve it, or take far longer to 
do so, or you solve it wrong. But, think in terms of like.. memory. 
Memory mnemonics are used all the time by "experts" on memorizing lists 
and things. As a child, almost everyone probably went through a stage of 
sing songing objects, and attaching other things to them, which is 
exactly how that "trick" works, but then... how many parents, when their 
kids are in the middle of doing that say, "Stop that, you are being 
silly.", and, perhaps derail a natural tendency to learn such a method 
of memorizing complex sets? In math, the "experts" use short cuts. Some 
of them they come up with on their own, others they may pick up from 
other sources, but.. they may not retain either, without the proper 
conditions.

By the same token, you can "learn" how to solve puzzles, by learning ho 
to think about them, including the ones that get stuffed on IQ tests, 
and that includes the stuff Mensa uses (I know, I have seen them, and 
wasn't impressed). When I was eight, these things might have been 
interesting, though, only because they where better than going back to 
the classroom, and listening to someone drone on about how to now 
multiply 4x, instead of 3x, while most of the class had their brains 
dripping out of their ears. Now.. I just don't have the patience for 
them, and some of them "require" skills that I never cultivated, because 
I didn't need them (which results in my taking longer at them than the 
ones I find mind numbingly simple).

And, since I don't really plan to make more replies here, this is *one* 
reason why being in it doesn't impress me. The other reason is that, my 
experience to date, with people willing to mention being in it, have 
tended to do so in the context of wanting people to go, "Wow!", so that 
they then question their own certainty about a subject, or more easily 
believe the guy claiming it, when, in point of fact, in their case, its 
intended to shield some howler of an opinion, or claim, or hypothesis, 
they have about something, which they either don't actually understand, 
or have completely misunderstood.

So.. I apologize for calling the whole thing a social club for the stuck 
up and self obsessed. Its not like I have had a huge opportunity to 
meet, or talk to, the ones that where not.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/14 02:50, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>>>
>>>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the
>>>> average
>>>> person of your age.
>>
>>> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
>>> considers to be the "average person".
>>
>> I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
>> is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
>> the results so that the average gets 100 points.
>>
> If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things
> happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has
> equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in
> equivalent ways, and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a
> test, it never has to be recalibrated. A good example would be something
> like handling money. Would someone in the UK, prior to the Euro, be
> "smarter" than someone in the US? I mean, after all, there where like 40
> different kinds of money, some of them sounding more like weight/liquid
> measures, being with like.. 1/8th of some higher denomination, and
> stuff, and people *used* all the bloody things, while, the US currency
> was all metric. Then, you could ask the same question the other way, is
> it more clever to deal with inches, feet, yards, etc., or the metric
> system? More to the point, someone with the wrong way of thinking is
> going to go, "WTF is this?!", no matter which category they are in, when
> dealing with the ones where there are fractional coinage. Personally.. I
> think the UK went metric because it was a huge burden on the state to
> place both their economists *and* engineers in rubber rooms, instead of
> just one set, but... lol
> 
> This is BTW what I meant about "tricks" before. If you don't know how to
> think about a problem, you either can't solve it, or take far longer to
> do so, or you solve it wrong. But, think in terms of like.. memory.
> Memory mnemonics are used all the time by "experts" on memorizing lists
> and things. As a child, almost everyone probably went through a stage of
> sing songing objects, and attaching other things to them, which is
> exactly how that "trick" works, but then... how many parents, when their
> kids are in the middle of doing that say, "Stop that, you are being
> silly.", and, perhaps derail a natural tendency to learn such a method
> of memorizing complex sets? In math, the "experts" use short cuts. Some
> of them they come up with on their own, others they may pick up from
> other sources, but.. they may not retain either, without the proper
> conditions.
> 
> By the same token, you can "learn" how to solve puzzles, by learning ho
> to think about them, including the ones that get stuffed on IQ tests,
> and that includes the stuff Mensa uses (I know, I have seen them, and
> wasn't impressed). When I was eight, these things might have been
> interesting, though, only because they where better than going back to
> the classroom, and listening to someone drone on about how to now
> multiply 4x, instead of 3x, while most of the class had their brains
> dripping out of their ears. Now.. I just don't have the patience for
> them, and some of them "require" skills that I never cultivated, because
> I didn't need them (which results in my taking longer at them than the
> ones I find mind numbingly simple).
> 
> And, since I don't really plan to make more replies here, this is *one*
> reason why being in it doesn't impress me. The other reason is that, my
> experience to date, with people willing to mention being in it, have
> tended to do so in the context of wanting people to go, "Wow!", so that
> they then question their own certainty about a subject, or more easily
> believe the guy claiming it, when, in point of fact, in their case, its
> intended to shield some howler of an opinion, or claim, or hypothesis,
> they have about something, which they either don't actually understand,
> or have completely misunderstood.
> 
> So.. I apologize for calling the whole thing a social club for the stuck
> up and self obsessed. Its not like I have had a huge opportunity to
> meet, or talk to, the ones that where not.

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.

Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.

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
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Stephen, I find your babbling delightful.  :)

My doggies say hi to you, too.

--Sherry Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 3:21 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.

ROTFLOL

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> You can certainly train your deductive skills, but people with a
> higher intelligence often find it easier and become more proficient
> at it.

This is the key point, without any training, or with very little 
training, a "would-be" very intelligent person will not be considered 
intelligent. On the other hand, someone with mediocre intelligence could 
spend 16 hours a day for 30 years studying physics and maths and be seen 
as a very intelligent person, able to solve complex equations with ease etc.

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2014 03:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/15/2014 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>>>
>>>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the
>>>> average
>>>> person of your age.
>>
>>> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
>>> considers to be the "average person".
>>
>> I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
>> is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
>> the results so that the average gets 100 points.
>>
> If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things
> happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has
> equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in
> equivalent ways,

Like so many other people, you seem to believe that intelligence is 
something innate. It isn't - it /is/ something acquired.

> 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.

> A good example would be something
> like handling money. Would someone in the UK, prior to the Euro, be
> "smarter" than someone in the US?

We're not talking about being smart - we are talking about being 
intelligent. And, as I wrote previously:

"Intelligence is the fitness to perform well in a so-called intelligence 
test."

> And, since I don't really plan to make more replies here, this is *one*
> reason why being in it doesn't impress me.

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.

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2014 10:12, schrieb clipka:

>> If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things
>> happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has
>> equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in
>> equivalent ways,
>
> Like so many other people, you seem to believe that intelligence is
> something innate. It isn't - it /is/ something acquired.

... in other words: There's nothing wrong with intelligence tests. If a 
job requires a skill that typically correlates with intelligence, then 
an intelligence test is what you want to do.

Problems arise when people use intelligence tests on children, in an 
attempt to asses their /potential/ for intelligence: That is indeed 
something intelligence tests are rather poor at.

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't know how you would go about
>> changing it, perhaps separate out by ability at a much earlier age?
>
> The only thing I can think of is that if somebody does well at school,
> people hate them out of jealousy - and there's where this "cool to be
> dumb" crap comes from. If that's the psychology behind this, then more
> separation would just make the problem worse...

Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just 
different classes.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2014 11:28 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 15/01/14 23:07, andrel wrote:
>> (it is one of the
>> reasons for the 'her' in my sig)
>>
>>      Andrel
>>
>
> I missed that.
>
> (Note to self: read the sig properly. It tells you a lot about the person)
>

Does it?
What did Patrick's old Sig say?
Other that he did not like Windows?
Do you remember the one I'm talking about?
It went on for pages in the form of a snipit of code.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2014 11:29 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 15/01/14 19:32, Stephen wrote:
>> I am all ears.
>>
>
> Pardon?
>
> John
>
I heard that!

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2014 11:21 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> If you had met Stephen, you would know that he's a George Clooney
> look-alike, albeit somewhat less than 160 cm tall ( a bit like Albert
> Finney - and he was a real sex-god over here in the UK) He is also no
> stranger to smooth talking. (Just kidding, Regan. Put down that axe. I
> said put down that AAArgh)

Oh! Thank'e kind sir.

<Blushes.>
<Puts forefinger to chin and sinks into a deep curtsy holding his 
crinoline up with his other hand. Thus exposing a pretty turn of ankle.>

PS Don't think too deeply about the movements. Crinolines don't behave 
like that but I can't remember the name of style I'm thinking about.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2014 1:45 PM, clipka wrote:
> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the average
> person of your age.
>
> Intelligence is the fitness to perform well in a so-called intelligence
> test.

I am so glad that you wrote that second sentence.
I would add a few caveat to the first, though. If I were to take it 
seriously. Because /Intelligence/ is a word that we all know what it 
means but seldom agree on the same definition. e.g. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions

So without using tautology (circular logic). Discuss. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2014 9:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The challenge here, especially with larger companies, seems to be that to
> not get eliminated early on, you have to have the degree, or your CV is
> never even reviewed by a human.
>

I am in a different position as I have not applied directly to a company 
for over thirty years. Agencies are the intermediary's.
Now, you can talk to them. It is their job to get someone in the post.
In fact my current job was done like that only the other way around.

BTW My UAT was a disaster. The users refused to take part. After I 
explained what we were going to do and walked through the processes. 
They said that it was not what they wanted and the Head Office never 
listened to them.
Arrg! Internal politics and egg on my face.

> So I have to take my advice to Andy repeatedly - trying to find an
> insider to walk my CV to the appropriate person so they actually*see*  it.
>

Nearly a full time job in itself.

> I found a position posted a couple days ago with a well-known online
> retailer that I'm pretty excited about - it has to do with an internal
> certification program that's being developed, and I've got the exact
> skill set they're looking for.  But I suspect that if I go in through the
> front door, the right person will never even see it, so I'm mining my
> professional network for a connection that can help (I know one person at
> this company, which is weird considering how large they are).
>
> Because if I can get past that first automated screening hurdle, my
> experience and proven track record are what they really need to see to
> know that I'm exactly the person they're looking for.


That is certainly the attitude to have. Although it does leave you open 
to disappointment if you don't succeed.

Best of luck, break a leg.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 8:01 AM, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
> Stephen, I find your babbling delightful.  :)
>

Gobbledegook! Gobbledegook! :-)

> My doggies say hi to you, too.
>

Buy them an aniseed toy. My treat.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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


-- 
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

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> No, that's pretty well defined: The average person is the one that has a 
> higher intelligence than 50% of the remaining population, and a lower 
> one than the other 50%.

Is the scoring scaled so that 100 points is assigned to the average
or to the median score?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 06:25 PM, Warp wrote:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>> No, that's pretty well defined: The average person is the one that has a
>> higher intelligence than 50% of the remaining population, and a lower
>> one than the other 50%.
>
> Is the scoring scaled so that 100 points is assigned to the average
> or to the median score?

And is that the arithmetic mean or the geometric mean?

And with population are you sampling to get your calibration curve?

And...

...like I said, each test design probably gives slightly different answers.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 10:00 AM, scott wrote:
>>> I don't know how you would go about
>>> changing it, perhaps separate out by ability at a much earlier age?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is that if somebody does well at school,
>> people hate them out of jealousy - and there's where this "cool to be
>> dumb" crap comes from. If that's the psychology behind this, then more
>> separation would just make the problem worse...
>
> Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just
> different classes.

Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of 
people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent 
to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 7:02 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 16/01/2014 06:25 PM, Warp wrote:
>> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>>> No, that's pretty well defined: The average person is the one that has a
>>> higher intelligence than 50% of the remaining population, and a lower
>>> one than the other 50%.
>>
>> Is the scoring scaled so that 100 points is assigned to the average
>> or to the median score?
>
> And is that the arithmetic mean or the geometric mean?
>
> And with population are you sampling to get your calibration curve?
>
> And...
>
> ....like I said, each test design probably gives slightly different
> answers.

Does it make any difference?
It is all hogwash, anyway.

If you only have a vague idea of what you are testing for. How can you 
have any confidence in the results?
And how do you weight them for cultural, gender and educational bias.

IMO It is more commercial, educationalist  and wishful thinking, 
gobble-de-gook than anything that approaches a science.
Western world Hoodo.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 7:07 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just
>> different classes.
>
> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?

100% Correct.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 03:13:49 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Am 15.01.2014 21:48, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:50:53 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.01.2014 23:10, schrieb Doctor John:
>>
>>> Interestingly, in Einstein's days there apparently wasn't. He was a
>>> kind of pop icon of his time.
>>>
>> ..even though he stopped in the middle of the road when the "Don't Walk"
>> light lit up :)
>
> Sounds like the witty type of humor I'd expect from him :-)
>
Yeah :)

This one is my favourite:
http://harryneelam.com/photoblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Einstein.jpg

=D

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/14 19:07, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 
> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?

Certainly, that was the case in the state sector up until the late
sixties. There's a good article on it in Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System ) In the fee-paying
sector, the situation was and still is that pupils of all abilities
attend the same school but are streamed on entry according to their
perceived potential.
Which system is better is not a question I'm qualified to answer. The
private sector tended to have proportionally more university entrants
than the state sector, but that may have been down to the fact that they
had much smaller class sizes as well as very highly qualified teachers.
At my school ( www.shrewsbury.org.uk/‎ ) most of the teachers had
Masters degrees and there were a fair few with Doctorates.
Maybe, if more money was thrown at the state sector so that class sizes
could be reduced and the teachers were paid more (so that those who go
to the private sector for the money would have less of an incentive to
make that choice) then perhaps we would see an evening out of the system.
However, having said that, you would still have schoolkids forming their
own little cliques and judging each other's worth by some arbitrary
measurement. Stopping that is a whole other story.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Does it make any difference?

If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
than 100 and 50% of over 100.

However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.

Both methods may give interesting information.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 8:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> Does it make any difference?
>
> If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
> than 100 and 50% of over 100.
>
> However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
> equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
> have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
>
> Both methods may give interesting information.
>

Does it make any difference?
<see above>

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/01/2014 21:41, Stephen nous fit lire :
> On 16/01/2014 8:36 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> Does it make any difference?
>>
>> If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
>> than 100 and 50% of over 100.
>>
>> However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
>> equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
>> have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
>>
>> Both methods may give interesting information.
>>
> 
> Does it make any difference?
> <see above>
> 
Median or average IQ is not important. IQ is a failed attempt to project
a multidimensional space in a single metric line.

The truly important value would be the KQ. but in most group, that's a
hint for abuse.

KQ: Kindness Quotient.

Quizz of the month: would you agree or not with rule 0 of the three
Asimovian rules of robotics ?

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 9:05 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Quizz of the month: would you agree or not with rule 0 of the three
> Asimovian rules of robotics ?

Not really. We are destined to be eaten by green scaly lizards from 
outer space.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/01/2014 22:05, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 16/01/2014 21:41, Stephen nous fit lire :
>> On 16/01/2014 8:36 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>> Does it make any difference?
>>>
>>> If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
>>> than 100 and 50% of over 100.
>>>
>>> However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
>>> equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
>>> have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
>>>
>>> Both methods may give interesting information.
>>>
>>
>> Does it make any difference?
>> <see above>
>>
> Median or average IQ is not important. IQ is a failed attempt to project
> a multidimensional space in a single metric line.
>
> The truly important value would be the KQ. but in most group, that's a
> hint for abuse.
>
> KQ: Kindness Quotient.
>
What about the HQ (human quotient)? The ability to live with others.



---
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 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:03:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15/01/2014 11:29 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 15/01/14 19:32, Stephen wrote:
>>> I am all ears.
>>>
>>>
>> Pardon?
>>
>> John
>>
> I heard that!

What?



-- 
"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

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:29:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> I am in a different position as I have not applied directly to a company
> for over thirty years. Agencies are the intermediary's.
> Now, you can talk to them. It is their job to get someone in the post.
> In fact my current job was done like that only the other way around.

Yeah, I've got a couple that are looking for me.  The first one hasn't 
gotten back to me in a while; the second is new.  There actually was a 
third, but after the first contact, I didn't hear from them again, either.

> BTW My UAT was a disaster. The users refused to take part. After I
> explained what we were going to do and walked through the processes.
> They said that it was not what they wanted and the Head Office never
> listened to them.
> Arrg! Internal politics and egg on my face.

I hate when that happens.  Have a pint. ;)  Not of egg.

>> So I have to take my advice to Andy repeatedly - trying to find an
>> insider to walk my CV to the appropriate person so they actually*see* 
>> it.
>>
>>
> Nearly a full time job in itself.

Yep.  The outplacement agency I was offered to use have said repeatedly 
that a job search is a full-time job.

>> I found a position posted a couple days ago with a well-known online
>> retailer that I'm pretty excited about - it has to do with an internal
>> certification program that's being developed, and I've got the exact
>> skill set they're looking for.  But I suspect that if I go in through
>> the front door, the right person will never even see it, so I'm mining
>> my professional network for a connection that can help (I know one
>> person at this company, which is weird considering how large they are).
>>
>> Because if I can get past that first automated screening hurdle, my
>> experience and proven track record are what they really need to see to
>> know that I'm exactly the person they're looking for.
> 
> 
> That is certainly the attitude to have. Although it does leave you open
> to disappointment if you don't succeed.
> 
> Best of luck, break a leg.

Thanks.  Good news on the house, too - the "expensive" items our buyer 
identified aren't actually that expensive (the sane ones, anyways - the 
*insane* one - raising the radiant heating pipes into the basement 
ceiling - is pricey but our plumber said not only is it unnecessary, but 
prohibitively expensive and not worth the effort.  Putting them into the 
ceiling would be the last choice, raising them to the ceiling or re-
routing them along the walls is what he'd recommend *if absolutely 
necessary*.  But he said - just as the guy who came out to look at what 
is assumed to be asbestos - you don't buy an old house and expect it not 
to be built like an old house.

Our house turned 100 years old in 2012.

And we got approval for the exact apartment we wanted in Seattle.  So if 
we can get the sale to come together, we're set to move next month. :D

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

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:46:17 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 15/01/14 18:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:08:27 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>> I was never quite brave (?) enough to try something like that.
> 
> I think you might mean stupid

That was the other word I was thinking of. ;)

>> were a couple of kids on the football team (well, one in particular
>> that I remember well) who were really good to me, but mostly I just
>> didn't make friends easily because I was as I described.
> 
> Oddly, I've always pictured you as a typical US high school jock. You
> know, 6 foot three and 190 lbs.

LOL

I'm about 5'9, and about 220 lbs.  I spend most of every day sitting in 
front of a computer, working, socializing, or goofing around.

We move, that changes - the apartment complex has a workout room with 
cardio equipment and weights.  And I know how to use them properly. :)

>> I haven't played in years, though, because of that.  One of our
>> neighbors is a violin maker, even, but he said it'd cost about $400 to
>> get it fixed, because he'd have to take the front off the instrument to
>> fix it.
>> 
> Good luck in selling the house then. House prices here in London seem to
> be heading for the inflation levels of '74-76 with many buyers queuing
> up to gazump each other.

Yeah, if this sale falls through for some reason, prices are supposed to 
keep rising here in SLC during 2014.  If it doesn't work, we wait 3 
months, re-list and try again.  We're not in a hurry unless a job comes 
along that requires we move right away, so we *could* outwait our buyer.  
But we have some ideas now on how to mitigate the current round of 
negotiations.

>> ...
>> Thanks, that helps.  Oooh, coffee. :)
>> 
>> 
> <Looks at the time> A small snifter of the malt of your choice?

Yeah, OK - we were thinking beer was called for tonight - at our 
plumber's recommendation. ;)

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

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:32:06 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Everyone is a winner and liked on fakebook for it

LOL



-- 
"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 16/01/2014 22:47, FractRacer a écrit :
>>
> What about the HQ (human quotient)? The ability to live with others.


Herd Quotient would be that ability.

The only Human Quotient would be related to War and kill, many tests
done and in progress in various area of the worlds. Not a club I want to
be part of.

Human: probably the only living animal that can kill without the
need/justfication to eat its prey. Contamination to nearby animals, like
dogs, has been observed on specific individuals.

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 08:31 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Human: probably the only living animal that can kill without the
> need/justfication to eat its prey. Contamination to nearby animals, like
> dogs, has been observed on specific individuals.

*sigh* here we go again...

There are _plenty_ of other animals which kill for reasons other than 
food. Siamese fighting fish kill rivals for the chance to mate - but 
they don't eat them. Several special of ants wage actual *wars*, 
sometimes on other species, sometimes on neighbours of their own kind.

Humans are of course the only animals to have developed tool usage. Oh, 
wait...

Ah, but humans *are* the only species who have sex for reasons other 
than reproduction. Oh, no, wait...

Post a reply to this message

>> Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just
>> different classes.
>
> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?

And how is that any different than the labelling of people today based 
on which university they went to rather than what they actually 
achieved? And what is the problem with that (assuming they passed the 
course)?

I don't know much about how the old system worked in the UK, but I 
assume if you couldn't keep up or were obviously too bright you switched 
schools (eg you had a bad day or a fluke for the entry exam)? After all 
this kind of system seems to work ok in other countries (eg Germany), 
seems to me like the implementation details were just wrong here.

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/01/2014 09:47, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 17/01/2014 08:31 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
>> Human: probably the only living animal that can kill without the
>> need/justfication to eat its prey. Contamination to nearby animals, like
>> dogs, has been observed on specific individuals.
>
> *sigh* here we go again...
>
> There are _plenty_ of other animals which kill for reasons other than
> food. Siamese fighting fish kill rivals for the chance to mate - but
> they don't eat them. Several special of ants wage actual *wars*,
> sometimes on other species, sometimes on neighbours of their own kind.
>
> Humans are of course the only animals to have developed tool usage. Oh,
> wait...
>
> Ah, but humans *are* the only species who have sex for reasons other
> than reproduction. Oh, no, wait...
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?
Not only a story of IQ or HQ. We have just to see TV or movies to 
understand some of the reasons why humans make the wrong choice.

---
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

> But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or not).

?? I thought all animals made choices? Even a single logic gate is 
capable of making a choice.

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/01/2014 12:56, scott a écrit :
>> But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or not).
>
> ?? I thought all animals made choices? Even a single logic gate is
> capable of making a choice.
A logic gate know why it make a choice? Human know about his choice. It 
is what I want to say.

---
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 17-1-2014 13:06, FractRacer wrote:
> Le 17/01/2014 12:56, scott a écrit :
>>> But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or not).
>>
>> ?? I thought all animals made choices? Even a single logic gate is
>> capable of making a choice.
> A logic gate know why it make a choice? Human know about his choice. It
> is what I want to say.

chimps decide if and when they go to war with the neighbours. Within the 
group there are constant power struggles where the individuals need to 
think of who to support.
In order to make us unique you need to combine a number of features. 
Like: we are the only species that use sex (rape) as an instrument in 
war *and* wear clothes over our skin.
But then there is also just one species of bear that is black and white 
and is an exclusive vegetarian.



-- 
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

>> ?? I thought all animals made choices? Even a single logic gate is
>> capable of making a choice.
> A logic gate know why it make a choice?

How do you want to define "knowing" why it made a choice? Because it 
can't talk to you or write to you to explain itself? How about if it 
spoke a simple message like "I chose action X because A and B were both 
positive", would that count as knowing why it made the choice?

> Human know about his choice. It
> is what I want to say.

Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you 
train a dog to do certain things?

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 2:19 PM, scott wrote:
>> A logic gate know why it make a choice?
>
> How do you want to define "knowing" why it made a choice?

It must be some sort of intelligent design. ;-)

> Because it
> can't talk to you or write to you to explain itself? How about if it
> spoke a simple message like "I chose action X because A and B were both
> positive", would that count as knowing why it made the choice?
>
>> Human know about his choice. It
>> is what I want to say.
>
> Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you
> train a dog to do certain things?

And if they have done something wrong.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/01/2014 15:47, Stephen a écrit :
> On 17/01/2014 2:19 PM, scott wrote:
>>> A logic gate know why it make a choice?
>>
>> How do you want to define "knowing" why it made a choice?
>
> It must be some sort of intelligent design. ;-)
>
>> Because it
>> can't talk to you or write to you to explain itself? How about if it
>> spoke a simple message like "I chose action X because A and B were both
>> positive", would that count as knowing why it made the choice?
>>
A logic gate isn't intelligent, even if a message like "I chose action X 
because A and B were both positive" is emit, the gate can't explain the 
words "positive" or "A"...
Can we says the machine are intelligent?
>>> Human know about his choice. It
>>> is what I want to say.
>>
>> Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you
>> train a dog to do certain things?
>
> And if they have done something wrong.
>
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?

---
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 17/01/2014 3:10 PM, FractRacer wrote:
> Le 17/01/2014 15:47, Stephen a écrit :

> A logic gate isn't intelligent, even if a message like "I chose action X
> because A and B were both positive" is emit, the gate can't explain the
> words "positive" or "A"...
> Can we says the machine are intelligent?

Again, what do we mean by intelligence? I cannot answer until I know 
what you understand the meaning is.
And then we would probably argue over if for so long. We would have 
forgotten what the question was. :-)

>>>> Human know about his choice. It
>>>> is what I want to say.
>>>
>>> Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you
>>> train a dog to do certain things?
>>
>> And if they have done something wrong.
>>
> 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?
>

It was animals I was talking about. I was thinking about dogs in particular.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 3:30 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Can we says the machine are intelligent?
>
> Again, what do we mean by intelligence?

To give you a quick answer. No, not at the moment.
But that is not to say that they never will be. IMO

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> A logic gate isn't intelligent, even if a message like "I chose action X
> because A and B were both positive" is emit, the gate can't explain the
> words "positive" or "A"...

With a few more logic gates it could look up the definition on wikipedia 
and read it out to you. An animal can't explain any words though. Which 
is more intelligent?

> I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose.

Your brain gets inputs and stores them, and then when it is required to 
make a decision it utilises the past inputs to make a decision. If that 
process can be called "choosing", then it seems to me like other animals 
and machines can also "choose". What's the difference?

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.01.2014 09:31, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> Human: probably the only living animal that can kill without the
> need/justfication to eat its prey. Contamination to nearby animals, like
> dogs, has been observed on specific individuals.

That's actually nonsense, arising from some kind of "inverse 
human-centric" mindset. Some examples:

When male lions defeat others to take over their harem, they tend to try 
and kill any cubs the females are currently raising. (This seems to be a 
common trend in other felines as well, except that males only rarely 
come across cubs.)

During the "salmon season", Bears are know to kill many more salmons 
than they can possibly eat, devouring only the most tasty parts and 
leaving the rest of the cadavers to rot.

Orcas have been observed in what appear to be "killing games" with seals.

In plenty of species, rival males sometimes fight to the death.

In some spider species, females tend to kill the male they mate with.


(Not to mention the countless species that, when aggravated, will try to 
kill whatever they deem a threat to their young.)


I suspect the list could be continued with plenty more examples if we 
only dared to look more carefully at the habits of other creatures.

Post a reply to this message

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.


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.


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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.01.2014 11:23, schrieb scott:

> I don't know much about how the old system worked in the UK, but I
> assume if you couldn't keep up or were obviously too bright you switched
> schools (eg you had a bad day or a fluke for the entry exam)? After all
> this kind of system seems to work ok in other countries (eg Germany),
> seems to me like the implementation details were just wrong here.

There are tendencies in Germany to try and get rid of that system. Not 
sure I approve of that.

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 10:23 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just
>>> different classes.
>>
>> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
>> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
>> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?
>
> And how is that any different than the labelling of people today based
> on which university they went to rather than what they actually
> achieved? And what is the problem with that (assuming they passed the
> course)?

I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody 
seems to care much where you got it. (Unless it was somewhere really 
famous like Oxford or Cambridge. But that's because almost nobody goes 
there...)

By the time you reach adulthood, you have presumably given up on calling 
people names because they're "teacher's pet". Question is, how do we get 
younger children to do that...

Post a reply to this message