July 30, 2009 at 11:02 am
jcrawf02 (7/30/2009)
There are always exceptions because that's what humans are, a large collection of exceptions. But in aggregate, the qualities mentioned can tend to be indicators of maturity.
That's a sign of half-baked maturity because it's such aggregate thinking that kept women out of IT and other technical jobs until a generation ago. It's such aggregate thinking that keeps a woman's pay lower than a man. It's such aggregate thinking that kept whatever minority happened to be there conveniently discriminated. Even now people are fighting for equal pay for doing the same job. That's why we have laws against anyone using religion and faith-based indicators for judging qualifications for secular jobs. Why add indicators of faith, even when it does not run afoul of the laws, especially when there is no credible evidence?
July 30, 2009 at 11:31 am
sjsubscribe (7/30/2009)
jcrawf02 (7/30/2009)
There are always exceptions because that's what humans are, a large collection of exceptions. But in aggregate, the qualities mentioned can tend to be indicators of maturity.That's a sign of half-baked maturity because it's such aggregate thinking that kept women out of IT and other technical jobs until a generation ago. It's such aggregate thinking that keeps a woman's pay lower than a man. It's such aggregate thinking that kept whatever minority happened to be there conveniently discriminated. Even now people are fighting for equal pay for doing the same job. That's why we have laws against anyone using religion and faith-based indicators for judging qualifications for secular jobs. Why add indicators of faith, even when it does not run afoul of the laws, especially when there is no credible evidence?
Thanks for the insult, but you're not reading what I said.
"can tend to be indicators of maturity" "should be used as a basis to determine maturity"
Think "lies, damned lies and statistics" (Mark Twain), you can skew the numbers as you wish. But that doesn't mean that looking for those qualities won't get you what you're looking for. You are missing some, definitely, but you are likely to find what you're aiming at.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
July 30, 2009 at 11:46 am
sjsubscribe (7/30/2009)
jcrawf02 (7/30/2009)
There are always exceptions because that's what humans are, a large collection of exceptions. But in aggregate, the qualities mentioned can tend to be indicators of maturity.That's a sign of half-baked maturity because it's such aggregate thinking that kept women out of IT and other technical jobs until a generation ago. It's such aggregate thinking that keeps a woman's pay lower than a man. It's such aggregate thinking that kept whatever minority happened to be there conveniently discriminated. Even now people are fighting for equal pay for doing the same job. That's why we have laws against anyone using religion and faith-based indicators for judging qualifications for secular jobs. Why add indicators of faith, even when it does not run afoul of the laws, especially when there is no credible evidence?
The only way to eliminate aggregate thought processes would be to change the whole way that humans process information mentally.
The very word "minority" is an aggregate, so you're just as guilty as anyone else of this. All of humanity is. Every word that isn't a proper noun is an aggregate concept.
You're not making a lot of sense here. First you make outrageous, false claims about the Constitution, while also making a lot of snide comments about anyone who doesn't automatically agree with your every thought, then you start advocating the elimination of all logic.
There comes a point in every human relationship where you have to decide whether you can trust the person. There will be lot of complex calculations in this, either extrapolations from general categories and experiences with similar people, or interpolation from personal experience with the person, or some combination thereof.
When you try to decide who to vote into public office, when you try to decide who to hire, or what company to work with, who to date, who to marry, who to have a beer with after work, who to loan $5 to "till next paycheck", and so on, all of these involve judgements based on less than perfect data.
No matter how trustworthy you consider someone, there is always the chance that you're dealing with Bernie Madoff's ilk.
So, how do you hedge your bets? You extrapolate from general data or interpolate from specific data, or some combination thereof.
Men are usually expected to show up to job interviews in a suit, women in either a suit or something "appropriate". Why? Because people dressed in suits are supposed to create a better impression. Why is that? Because of a general perception that people in suits are more "professional" than people who aren't. So what does this word, "professional", mean? It's an aggregate judgement of performance that categorizes a wide swath of behavior generally associated with honesty, knowledge, work-ethic, judgement, skill, stability, dependability, and potentially other associated traits.
So even the criterion, "Only hire professionals" is a prejudiced, aggregate thought process.
So, as mentioned, you need to define and defend your position, with verifiable facts, or you will continue to not make much sense.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 30, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I love it when people bring up equal pay for equal work. How do you justify it, and how do you enforce it?
Please respond to the following scenario:
Hire A Hire B
6 Years Experience 6 Years Experience
-- 4 Years Junior DBA -- 4 Years Junior DBA
-- 2 Years Senior DBA -- 6 Years Senior DBA
Previous Salary - 83,000 Previous Salary - 83,000
Supported Supported
20 database servers 30 datbase servers
250 databases 175 databases
avg database 50 GB avg database 50 GB
max database 3 TB max database 4 TB
Both being hired by the same company as Senior DBA's
Each will lead a team of 3 Junior DBA's supporting
60 databases servers with 550 databases,
avg database is 100 GB with a max database of 15 TB
Both are offered a starting salary of 95,000.
One accepts the initial offer, the other negotiates a
starting salary of 102,000.
Based on Equal Pay for Equal Work, should the other individual
be given the higher salary?
The premise here is that one of these individuals felt they deserved
a higher salary and choose to negotiate. With only this information, who was it?
By the way, I have PM'ed another individual with some additional information so you can't claim I changed the full premise.
July 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm
With only this information, who was it?
It was the younger guy, Hire A, wasn't it - because us younger folks feel more entitled, since inflation caught up with us. 😉
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
July 30, 2009 at 1:15 pm
jcrawf02 (7/30/2009)
With only this information, who was it?
It was the younger guy, Hire A, wasn't it - because us younger folks feel more entitled, since inflation caught up with us. 😉
Can't answer that here yet (PM'ed you the answer). But since you made a quess, what about the other question. If you believe in equal pay for equal work, should both people be paid the same? Should the other hire also be given the higher salary even though the lower salary had been accepted?
I'm curious what people think.
July 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Lynn,
Interesting question. I have no idea which hire negotiated the higher salary. Without knowing a bit more, # of previous companies worked for, did one or both need to relocate, etc... anything I would do would be just a wild guess. Even based on years experience you can't necessarily infer age. I started in IT at almost 30, while a friend started at 22, so he'd have 8 more years industry experience, yet be the same age.
In theory hire B, purely based on experience, should have been offered more, assuming the total years experience was supposed to be 10. But more years experience does not necessarily mean more qualified. Also in this case you'd be basically in a seniority based slotting system like most unions or government positions, which I would argue is more unfair because the hardest and best workers are not rewarded.
The company clearly had a salary range and probably made the 1st offer on the lower end of the range and 1 person took the initiative, asked for more, and got it. In a free market situation this is perfectly acceptable. No one can make the argument that there was any discrimination since the original offer to both was the same.
I actually was part of a somewhat similar situation where I was hired at the same time as another person, and that person negotiated a 3rd week of vacation and I didn't. I didn't like it, but understood that I had not asked for it and he had.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
July 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I'm with Jack on this one, in our free market, hiring is negotiable. Since both candidates were offered the same to start, one accepted and one bargained, that's ok with me.
Now if the offer was different, it might get more complicated. But even then it isn't fair to say it's unfair without knowing the circumstances. Maybe the team needed that person and so the hiring manager had to offer a higher wage to bring them in. Maybe the one person is relocating and the other isn't.
So as long as they're 'comparable', which in this case they're less than 10% apart so I'd say they are, then it's fair.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
July 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Looks like some of us are in agreement regarding the concept of Equal Pay for Equal Work.
Unfortunately, I do know a few people that would agrue that the hire that accepted the lower salary should get an adjustment to the higher salary, particularly if A were a white male and B a minority under the concept of Equal Pay for Equal work.
July 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm
We don't have unions. If you want a higher salary, ask for it, negotiate for it. If you don't ask, you won't get it. And if you feel you're underpaid, go negotiate for more. In Lynn's example, one gets $95, one gets $102. That's it.
While there should not be set scales that say a person that is of the female (or any aggregate group) persuasion gets 10% less than a person of some other group, there isn't a lot of equality.
I'm for setting levels, setting pay, letting people slot into those levels. They can negotiate or argue for a higher level when they're hired, review time, whatever, but it sets an equivalent space for all candidates of some relative equality.
July 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Since it's impossible to prove the non-existence of diety, the denial of said existence is just as much a question of faith as the assertion of the opposite. It's knowledge without proof. Either point of view can be backed up by logic and reason, by a variety of forms of evidence, but neither can be scientifically proven. Thus, they are both faith, by definition. Again, that makes athiesm a personal or group avocation built upon faith, which makes it a religion.
[\quote]
It is not practically possible to prove the non existence of a deity, correct. The implication of this fact is that the burden of proof is on those who claim a deity exists. Without such proof the rational conclusion is that there is no god.
Logic and reason alone cannot prove anything without evidence. There are no 'a priori' proofs for anything, let alone god.
The leap of faith required to believe in God is over a gulf of zero evidence (the bible does not constitute evidence by any reasonable definition, scientific, or legal, for such an extraordinary claim)
This is very different from coming to the conclusion there is no god because there is no evidence. The two stances can hardly be said to have a comparable amount of faith involved.
GSquared, of course I live in another country - why else would I say that I dont live under your constitution. The legal definitions that apply in the US are hardly the last word on anything. I suggest you read a few dictionary definitions , atheism does not qualify as a religion by any stretch of the imagination. Consider this: you are an atheist with regard to the Viking God Odin (I assume) - do you consider this lack of belief in Odin to be a religion?
July 30, 2009 at 9:03 pm
mtucker (7/30/2009)
Since it's impossible to prove the non-existence of diety, the denial of said existence is just as much a question of faith as the assertion of the opposite. It's knowledge without proof. Either point of view can be backed up by logic and reason, by a variety of forms of evidence, but neither can be scientifically proven. Thus, they are both faith, by definition. Again, that makes athiesm a personal or group avocation built upon faith, which makes it a religion.
[\quote]
It is not practically possible to prove the non existence of a deity, correct. The implication of this fact is that the burden of proof is on those who claim a deity exists. Without such proof the rational conclusion is that there is no god.
Logic and reason alone cannot prove anything without evidence. There are no 'a priori' proofs for anything, let alone god.
The leap of faith required to believe in God is over a gulf of zero evidence (the bible does not constitute evidence by any reasonable definition, scientific, or legal, for such an extraordinary claim)
This is very different from coming to the conclusion there is no god because there is no evidence. The two stances can hardly be said to have a comparable amount of faith involved.
GSquared, of course I live in another country - why else would I say that I dont live under your constitution. The legal definitions that apply in the US are hardly the last word on anything. I suggest you read a few dictionary definitions , atheism does not qualify as a religion by any stretch of the imagination. Consider this: you are an atheist with regard to the Viking God Odin (I assume) - do you consider this lack of belief in Odin to be a religion?
Unfortunately that fact that there is no scientific proof that God exists DOES NOT mean he does not exist, as there is no scientific proof for that statement either.
Faith is, by definition, the acceptance of something that isn't proven. It is by Faith that we as Christians, Jews, and Muslims belive in the existance of the God of Abraham.
I personally see evidence of God all around me every day. It exists in the grass in my lawn, the water in the streams, the mountains to the west of me, the clouds in the sky and the stars themselves. I have have seen Gods wonders in the eyes of a new born baby. None of what I see or experience is by random chance. Too many things had to happen for us to have been created by accident. Do I believe in creationism as described in Genesis in the Old Testament, no. I believe the story of creation is simply ancient mans attempt to explain how man evolved. I do believe in evolution, but that it is guided by Gods hand. We are simply too complex to have happened by simple chance, there had to some extreme intelligence behind it all.
Can I prove it scientifically, no; but neither can you prove other wise.
I read somewhere this statement: I would rather live my life believing that there is a God only to die and find out I'm wrong than to live my life as if there weren't only to die and learn I was wrong.
Those of us who believe do so on Faith. It guides us, and strengthens us. It helps us through the darkest times of lifes, and provides peace during the good times.
If you chose not to believe, fine, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise as it is your choice. I only ask that you give me the same consideration in return.
July 30, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Lynn Pettis (7/30/2009)
mtucker (7/30/2009)
Unfortunately that fact that there is no scientific proof that God exists DOES NOT mean he does not exist, as there is no scientific proof for that statement either.
the burden of proof is on those that claim god exists - see previous comment for the reason why
Faith is, by definition, the acceptance of something that isn't proven.
Not quite, faith is belief without evidence. It is not necessary to have 100% proof to say you 'know' something, just a reasonable amount of evidence. We require extremely stringent standards of evidence in science before we say the thing in question is a fact. The existence of God is an extraordinary claim, and so requires standards of evidence at least as severe as those we might require to claim that electrons exist, for example.
I personally see evidence of God all around me every day. It exists in the grass in my lawn, the water in the streams, the mountains to the west of me, the clouds in the sky and the stars themselves. I have have seen Gods wonders in the eyes of a new born baby. None of what I see or experience is by random chance. Too many things had to happen for us to have been created by accident.
This is a common logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity, it is also a form of circular reasoning.
Do I believe in creationism as described in Genesis in the Old Testament, no. I believe the story of creation is simply ancient mans attempt to explain how man evolved. I do believe in evolution, but that it is guided by Gods hand. We are simply too complex to have happened by simple chance, there had to some extreme intelligence behind it all.
So you pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in the literal sense. Are these parts marked with an asterisk? or are they just the parts you find inconvenient?
Before you can say evolution is guided by gods hand you must show that god exists, and then show evidence of his intervention in biology. Strange how god intervenes in evolution, but not in any other way that might tip us off that he exists dont you think?
Can I prove it scientifically, no; but neither can you prove other wise.
The burden of proof is on you. I dont see you providing proof that Odin doesnt exist, or any of the thousands of other gods that people have believed in. Why is that? (rhetorical question)
I read somewhere this statement: I would rather live my life believing that there is a God only to die and find out I'm wrong than to live my life as if there weren't only to die and learn I was wrong.
In that case you really should be believing in the God that threatens the most serious consequences, are you sure that is your God?
Those of us who believe do so on Faith. It guides us, and strengthens us. It helps us through the darkest times of lifes, and provides peace during the good times.
It weakens you. You are an intelligent person who forces himself to discard rational thinking in order to maintain faith.
If you chose not to believe, fine, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise as it is your choice. I only ask that you give me the same consideration in return.
you can ask, but there is that whole freedom of speech thing you were carrying on about before
July 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm
mtucker (7/30/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/30/2009)
mtucker (7/30/2009)
Unfortunately that fact that there is no scientific proof that God exists DOES NOT mean he does not exist, as there is no scientific proof for that statement either.
the burden of proof is on those that claim god exists - see previous comment for the reason why
-- Actually the burden of proof is on you. You are denying God exists, prove he doesn't.
Faith is, by definition, the acceptance of something that isn't proven.
Not quite, faith is belief without evidence. It is not necessary to have 100% proof to say you 'know' something, just a reasonable amount of evidence. We require extremely stringent standards of evidence in science before we say the thing in question is a fact. The existence of God is an extraordinary claim, and so requires standards of evidence at least as severe as those we might require to claim that electrons exist, for example.
-- You are playing word games. If I have no proof, do I have evidence?
I personally see evidence of God all around me every day. It exists in the grass in my lawn, the water in the streams, the mountains to the west of me, the clouds in the sky and the stars themselves. I have have seen Gods wonders in the eyes of a new born baby. None of what I see or experience is by random chance. Too many things had to happen for us to have been created by accident.
This is a common logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity, it is also a form of circular reasoning.
-- Not a fallacy to those of us who believe. We have only theories to explain how the universe was created, no proof to how it actually occurred.
Do I believe in creationism as described in Genesis in the Old Testament, no. I believe the story of creation is simply ancient mans attempt to explain how man evolved. I do believe in evolution, but that it is guided by Gods hand. We are simply too complex to have happened by simple chance, there had to some extreme intelligence behind it all.
So you pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in the literal sense. Are these parts marked with an asterisk? or are they just the parts you find inconvenient?
-- Who are we to know God and how he works? He does work in mysterious ways.
Before you can say evolution is guided by gods hand you must show that god exists, and then show evidence of his intervention in biology. Strange how god intervenes in evolution, but not in any other way that might tip us off that he exists dont you think?
-- Actually, again, no I don't have to prove he exists.
Can I prove it scientifically, no; but neither can you prove other wise.
The burden of proof is on you. I dont see you providing proof that Odin doesnt exist, or any of the thousands of other gods that people have believed in. Why is that? (rhetorical question)
-- Because he doesn't, there is only one God.
-- The burden of proof, again, is not on me. You are the one denying he exists, so me your proof.
I read somewhere this statement: I would rather live my life believing that there is a God only to die and find out I'm wrong than to live my life as if there weren't only to die and learn I was wrong.
In that case you really should be believing in the God that threatens the most serious consequences, are you sure that is your God?
-- My God is a loving God. For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotton Son in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Those of us who believe do so on Faith. It guides us, and strengthens us. It helps us through the darkest times of lifes, and provides peace during the good times.
It weakens you. You are an intelligent person who forces himself to discard rational thinking in order to maintain faith.
-- It doesn't weaken me, it strengthens me.
If you chose not to believe, fine, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise as it is your choice. I only ask that you give me the same consideration in return.
you can ask, but there is that whole freedom of speech thing you were carrying on about before
-- Yes there is, but there is also a point where we each must realize that there is NOTHING either of us is going to say that will change the others mind. We have reach that point. If you wish to continue this argument, then you are the intolerant one, not me. I realize that nothing I say will change your position. I accept that and will honor it.
July 30, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Lynn, a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy regardless of what you believe. You can believe 1+1=3 as much as you like, but it is incorrect. Circular reasoning is not valid because it assumes the conclusion in the premise. The argument from incredulity is a fallacy because you are simply saying 'I cant imagine any other way, so it must be that way I believe'.
And yes, the burden of proof is on you to prove that God exists. There is a simple practical reason for this; it is not possible to prove that God does not exist - there is no way anyone can visit every corner of the universe to find him. So, if you claim he does exist the onus is on you to provide support for this point of view, and also to show that it is your God, and not some other.
My position is simple, there is no evidence so there is no reason to believe.
This is the same reason you do not believe in unicorns and fairies. Or will you say that I must believe in unicorns, fairies, and every god anyone has ever thought of until I can prove they dont exist?
Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 159 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply