 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] anonymous org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
