Simple tests like this are meant to reveal how comfortable an applicant is at interpreting a problem and quickly translating it to code. It's analogous to how math tests in school required you to translate word problems to algebra. If someone struggles at this stage, they probably won't be a good coding hire. Or instead they might show some foresight into likely problems, gotchas, scalability, or testing.

I've been whiteboarded in a few interviews, and I've been hired based on a phone call. I don't know what the best method is, but I really hate the idea of "instant-fail" questions with a narrow "correct" answer. It's better to ask a few relatively easy, open-ended questions and see how comfortable the applicant is.

I applaud the open minded question.

Well, my wife has worked competently at the blood bank for over 10 years. Her responsibilities increased, so her boss hired her an assistant with absolutely no training, and hired him (as an assistant) at the same pay rate she got after 10 years of being there (and being a department head)....so you can say they get the 'same pay for the same work', but she had to work competently for 10+ years to get that pay rate, he got it day one for nothing more than showing up with a penis....and he lasted less than a year.

EDIT: I also have to think that the uncontested under representation at the top means a HUGE discrepancy across the board. Consider that the top 5% receive 72% of the GDP, so a small under representation there is multiplied greatly when the math gets done. Lets say for argument sake that the remaining 95% are paid exactly equally, but women are completely missing in the top 5% (almost true). That means men would receive 86% of GDP, women 14%, even though women are actually 47% of the workforce and all paid equal pay for equal work.

I'm late back to this party and iI don't have time to properly address all the points you make so I'll just stick to this one.

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

There really is a lot of very good peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Darwin may well have taken a leap of faith but it is one which has now been backed up with a huge amount of evidence. Evolution is not open for questioning any more than gravity is. It's a very simple process which can even be seen happening around us.

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

That said mutations can be big as well as small. We've all seen photos of two headed snakes for example. That happens to be a detrimental change, but if a large change occurred that happened to be beneficial and the individual survived to breed then a large change could occur very quickly. Remember these are chance occurrences, there's no intelligence driving evolution, it's just a simple process of random mutation and natural selection.

If you accept that genes can mutate randomly (something which is known to be fact and can be shown happening) and that natural selection occurs (again something which can be shown happening) then there really isn't anything more to be said. Those two processes, given a lot of time can change an animal or plant dramatically. And time is something life has had a lot of. Even the cambrian explosion you mentioned happened over 20 million years or so.

This is evolution. There's nothing complex about the process, there really isn't. There's no way that mutations and natural selection can fit together in any way that isn't evolution.

Well, when your job is to film people getting speeding tickets for no other reason that titillation, your worth as a human being is pretty much open to question.

@heropsycho

1. My original point was more aimed at questioning whether teaching is so exceptional. It is certainly harder than many other jobs, but does it deserve exclusive status with it's restrictive labour laws? If so, do you believe jobs equal to or more stressful than teaching should receive the same benefits? More specifically, if we knew that greater job security in stressful jobs created better outcomes (ie, in teaching the students are better taught), then why is it that the private sector has not willingly adopted this? What I'm saying is, there's double standards at play.

2. This is getting off topic, but I don't think anything is innate. We may have a predisposition to better at certain things but anything that we wish to excel at will ultimately require countless hours of practice. Again, I think you're being selective in exemplifying only a very good teacher which directly engages with everyone in the class. Most of what I recall (from 4 schools) involved teachers teaching in their own style 'at' a class, not directly to individuals.

3. My point would be that merit pay would raise the wages of 'good' teachers and thereby attract more teachers into the workplace. It won't ever be perfect as a system, enterprise bargaining in the private sector is subject to the whims of cronyism/favoritism of your superiors and isn't a perfect reflection of performance, but as a system it functions. By the way, I'm not in any way implying multiple choice tests are sufficient, open ended questions can be standardized just fine.

5. I would put down the opposition of unions to merit pay to several reasons:

a) Unwillingness to change - this reflects all changes not just merit pay. There are potential ups and downs but there is no incentive for them to take a risk. You would think flagging students scores relative to other countries (particularly Scandinavian and rich SE Asian countries) would be an incentive, but ultimately they are delinked from these outcomes.

b) Potential fall in membership - A move to individual wage setting over a seniority based wage (at least that is what it's here in OZ) would diminish their power and their members base. Standardized wages are generally seen in low skilled jobs where there is high turnover, a large supply of willing workers to replace them and therefore constant pressure to push down wages - a place where unions have great value in preventing this from happening. We both agree teaching requires considerable expertise. Were the labor system to move to individual wage setting on performance their role would diminish and their members base would dwindle.

As far as I'm concerned merit pay is but a scapegoat to justify their opposition from a more selfish point of view.

Last point - As I made sure to mention, I'm not opposed to the arts. What I'm appalled by is teacher's union activists talking about the benefits of these ultimately extracurricular areas when there are countless schools in impoverished regions unable to imbue many of their students with the ability to hold down an rudimentary job. Talking about these luxury activities and painting a rosy picture detached from reality, while glossing over the overt failings of basis education in derelict communities is disgusting to me frankly.

>> ^NicoleBee:

Oh god, intelligent questions, intelligent answers, no psychotic, hurried pace.. Where can I watch television like this???


"Western" world, 22 years ago

>> ^hpqp:

Stephen Fry gets an automatic upvote from me.


That's how Hitler got to power!!1!!one!!!!

I somewhat disagree with him on this particular item. I think that the word "atheist" is just a shortcut around some opening-round questions.

We can elect to avoid labeling ourselves as such, but the simple fact of the matter is that anyone who asks me the question "Do you believe in any god/gods/supreme being?", to which I answer "no", is going to label me as an atheist whether I self-apply it or not. Furthermore, refusing to self-apply the label just gives the detractors an excuse to give a dismissive, haughty little laugh to themselves and think "well, if they are so sure of themselves, why are they trying to weasel out of this rather simple term?".

I think "atheist" is often used as a loaded term along the lines of "gay", and related words whether used in an attempt to be derogatory or not. When some idiotic 13 year old (its OK, I was an idiot when I was 13 too) says "this food is gay", "this music is gay", etc. their use of the term in that way says much more about themselves than about whatever they are applying it to. When a somewhat more mature, yet tragically not yet mature enough adult calls a homosexual a "fag", they are usually applying the term in a way that is meant to shut down discussion. Fag, worthy of derision or not worthy of any consideration whatsoever, end of story.

"Atheist" is used by many religious people in much the same way. This person doesn't believe what I believe, their lack of vision is worthy of derision or at best they should just be ignored, end of story. However, in both instances it is very clear for any witnesses capable of rational evaluation that this person doesn't have anything of real substance to bring to the discussion. They are, in effect, parading their bias and ignorance for all to see.

So I tend to think that a much better approach to this labeling than avoidance is to embrace it. Yes, I am an atheist. Many people will make stereotypical judgments about me based on an association of my with that term. However, the only way to break those stereotypes is to freely accept the label, and provide counterexamples to them as living proof that they are false. That guy freely acknowledges that he is an atheist, yet maybe he is polite. Perhaps he has a family with well-mannered children. He may seem to be a moral/ethical individual. He can be a good friend. All of these things in spite of what the zealot in the pulpit would have many believe about the dreaded "atheists".

It took some time (and will take more) for many people to figure out that "teh gays" aren't all child molesters, they probably won't try to rape you if you happen to meet one on a dark street at night, etc. in spite of what the pope might insinuate or flat out say about them. People accepting that atheists aren't bogeymen will take some time too.

"Will you marry me" isn't supposed to be an open-ended question. Private is fine, public is fine. The point is, you 100% know the answer before you ask the girl. You should have already talked about it plenty (though not "officially" asked her yet). For something like this to work, you should be at a point in the relationship where she's already expecting the question and just wondering when and how you will ask - where's she's already made up her mind before you ask. Putting her on the spot is a huge mistake.

And if you think I'm off my rocker, I'm from the South. Yes, it really is a different culture than the rest of the U.S., but I thoroughly love it.

What they've unwittingly done is show why science is superior to religious dogma. Ofcourse there are many scientific "truths" that, in time, will be qualified or disgarded, it's called learning. The difference between science and religion is that scientists question and look for the correct answer. They keep questioning until a truth- like the earth being a globe or the earth orbiting the sun- is arrived at. At any time their "truth" is also open to question. Were it not, we would still believe the earth was flat and the sun orbited us. The religious, on the other hand, question nothing and simply accept with blind faith. "Faith means never wanting to know what is true" Friedrich Nietzsche.

1. When I was 4 or 5 I fell on a log that contained a bees nest and was stung over 30 times. I'm not afraid of bees anymore.
2. I wish I had gotten to meet my maternal grandfather and I wish I had known my paternal grandfather better before he died.
3. I seem to be immune to poison ivy and poison sumac.
4. The only time I feel comfortable in my surroundings is when I'm out in the woods.
5. I have always felt like an outcast, even among other outcasts.
6. I have struggled with depression and anxiety at various times throughout my life.
7. I think people try too hard to avoid death and that it hurts the species as a whole.
8. I wish I didn't have to work so I could focus on hobbies and things that actually matter.
9. In contrast to almost all my friends, I don't seem to have any phobias.
10. I am a skeptic. I don't believe claims that aren't supported with evidence.
11. I can make rational decisions about very emotional topics without those emotions clouding my judgment.
12. What I think and what I feel are often at odds with each other.
13. I really struggle to connect with people.
14. I find humor in everything, even the most horrible things. It's my coping mechanism.
15. I'm completely open to questions and encourage people to ask me whatever they want, especially since I'm usually at a loss for words.
16. I spend a lot of time reading wikipedia.
17. I really want to design and create a videogame.
18. I have no patience for stupid people.
19. I've never even been tempted to try drugs, cigarettes or alcohol. I just don't see the point.
20. I think all drugs should be legalized. If you're dumb enough to smoke crack, you're supposed to die. Bring back natural selection!
21. I have the full gamut of almost-siblings: a step-sister, a half-sister and an adopted sister.
22. I think I've wasted most of my life.
23. I take pride and joy in deflating big heads.
24. I don't really like being the center of attention.
25. I never did manage to learn to swim. Through great effort I can stay afloat for a minute or so, but that's it.

>> ^asakatali:
I don't see why if evangelicals can keep banging their drums, Dawkins can't.


He can. I'm not saying he can't I just don't see the point. If someone told me there was a magical elephant that ruled the Universe and controls all the laws of physics (and a large number of people also believed this) and I were a talented biologist I wouldn't take that as a challenge to convince everyone that the magical elephant doesn't exist. I feel he's made his point and responded to everything he can respond to and expressed his viewpoints in as clear and rational way as possible, if the rest of the world keep banging on about magical elephants then just ignore it and carry on with important work that can only help strengthen your position in the long run. Don't give credibility to the stories by constantly answering to them and rebutting them. My second point was that he's not got the same charisma that would give him the edge in convincing people and winning them over.

>> ^Psychologic:
Dawkins is "preaching" to the convertable... people who will listen but who may not have been exposed to the right information. He knows that there are people who will never change their mind, but there are plenty of others who really are looking for answers.
I'm glad that Dawkins exists. Perhaps more people will invest in reason rather than custom in the future. It will be a gradual change, but it will only happen because more and more people like Dawkins exist in the public domain.


If that's the case then I suppose it's fair enough, maybe it's useful to have someone winning these people over. I personally don't know any. I only ever meet atheists/agnostics, and very occasionally Christians. The Christians I've met are not open to questioning their beliefs so I wouldn't spend a great deal of my time trying to win them over, and besides they've heard it all before, and they all have very good answers (as far as they are concerned) to anything you may raise to doubt Christianity. Admittedly none of it follows real logic and is filled with lots of slightly clever logical fallacies that win over those who don't notice it, but still you can see when a Christian smugly answers one of your questions about anything which doubts God/Christianity/religion in general that you're not going to change their mind.
Anyway, as I mentioned before I just don't think Dawkins himself should be doing this. I'm not saying there shouldn't be someone out there fighting this socio-political PR battle on behalf of science, just that why Dawkins?
Why are we sending one of our most talented scientists to fight a battle for hearts and minds when he isn't talented in this area? It just seems such a waste. I'm sure there are much less talented scientists who are charming, knowledgeable and charismatic who would be better suited to this kind of role.

>> ^Irishman:
If this clip made you think for yourself, question your beliefs, do your own digging around for information and open your eyes to the power of culture and myth, then it did its job and deserves an upvote.
There is no book, video or authority on ANY subject that isn't open to questioning and further research. ONLY when it comes to religion do people demand some kind of instant de-programming of prior beliefs.
If you DO require instant deprogramming of prior beliefs, a good dose of psylocibin mushrooms or LSD, in your own living room, on a Friday night, will be just the thing.


Exactly how I feel. Thanks for posting.

If this clip made you think for yourself, question your beliefs, do your own digging around for information and open your eyes to the power of culture and myth, then it did its job and deserves an upvote.

There is no book, video or authority on ANY subject that isn't open to questioning and further research. ONLY when it comes to religion do people demand some kind of instant de-programming of prior beliefs.

If you DO require instant deprogramming of prior beliefs, a good dose of psylocibin mushrooms or LSD, in your own living room, on a Friday night, will be just the thing.

>> ^bcglorf:
> The interviewer was leading him with a tricky question? You've got to be kidding me. When Galloway has repeatedly boasted of how he has been condemning Saddam since the 80's, I think it's fair to point out that in the 90's Galloway went to Saddam to share 'heartfelt fraternal greetings and support'.

yes, and i'd agree that was fair to point out.
which is why you'll notice my objection was to "the interviewer's actual question".

it's phrased as a slippery slope that associates galloway's having once praised saddam, with thinking that iraq was better off under saddam than not.

another great example of this kind of thing is Madeleine Albright. 3rd paragraph in, there, "In 1996 she was also criticized for..." footage here, with lesley stahl.

she still takes an enormous amount of flak for her poor answer, to this day. look no further than the description at that last youtube clip. "Albright makes statement that ultimately led to 9/11." oy. by what quantum leap of deduction?!? see? again, slippery.

so, yeah.
first off, the interviewer shouldn't have relied on easily-dismissed 3rd-party allegations that galloway once praised saddam. why not instead, simply run the footage you should already have, supporting that fact?
then, just turn & ask galloway a fair, open-ended question: "what's your reaction?"
does he regret saying it? had there been a recent event that sparked your praise for his courage? what had saddam done to warrant this flattery?

instead, they present him with an opportunity to lie and backpedal, which he promptly does.

watch that powell clip again, where he catches a slippery question and responds intelligently, and let me know if my original point makes sense now.