Except that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Nice try changing it to a meta-topic though, since you've been proven so wrong on the main points.

You can stop trying now, you lost about 3 posts ago.

No...I never said that. Go re-read it, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Even if that premise were true, the conclusion doesn't follow. I could require a degree and still heavily vet candidates (in fact, I do vet everyone that claims the required skills). After reading comprehension, try taking a logic course.

You know, maybe at a university?

Let's say you DO ambush the local officers coming through the door. You'd just be firing at cops that don't even have their guns drawn, in which case training on either side doesn't matter, its fish in a barrel.

On the other hand, if they even think you're armed and likely to use it on them, they're not going to come unless they already have better shooters - and the best will be on the point. And if we're talking SWAT, they're going to have the blueprint to your house, and they're not going to come in the front door without a flash/pepperball grenade - they'll tear down a wall if its the only way they can get the jump on you. And that's not counting the marksmen you mentioned, covering all the exits from across the street.

Anything in between is where the cops' training comes in handy for them. And situational awareness is exactly not looking around to increase awareness, it doesn't distract you from your focus.

What you've done is constructed an elaborate fantasy world where both sides are magically already in conflict with no backstory, and then dropped them into an environment heavily favoring the defender.

Which sounds a lot like a video game.

So its the police's fault that you exceeded the speed limit you agreed to when you got your license?

It helps to not be ignorant when talking about things like road safety. Speed limits allow people to do things like merge onto the highway safely, not just travel in a straight line without regard for others. Things like light timing, sign placement, and the actual construction of the road itself also take speed limits into consideration. The safe speed is the marked speed.

Speak for yourself.

This is a straw man argument and I don't know why you think this is relevant to the discussion, do you think I just hire people based on the lies on their resume?

Are you saying I should hire people who have no experience and no education?

And you haven't been in the industry long enough to know that interviews aren't conducted by HR: I'm a hardcore software engineer. I'm just not sure why you brought this up as it wouldn't have made my points any less true even I was in HR.

Vetting candidates is always challenging, even if you factor out that resumes are complete fabrications. It takes good programmers to spot other good programmers, no amount of education or certification can change that.

Company's growing and getting lots of buyout offers, but thanks for the concern. I find it curious you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I prefer a degree instead of experience, as if somehow I spurn experienced programmers without degrees, despite having made no such implication.

I've met enough programmers to know which ones don't need a degree to be effective. There aren't many of them.

If two people were truly equal in all other terms, then yes, the degree gets the nod. But why is that objectionable in any way? To claim this should not be the case would be to grant that not having an education is somehow superior to having one. Which makes no sense.

It's much harder to quantify "experience" - that doesn't mean it should be discounted.

Your statement is incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start.

Claiming that education is not useless is now right-wing? Seriously? Your thought process is so fucked up that you clearly can't even articulate it.

By the way, I am pro gay marriage, pro strong government regulation, and pro legalization. So there goes that right-wing posit.

tl;dr: Shut the hell up.

Uhh...no. You convinced yourself that I did.

Your position has changed from claiming I proved a demonstrably false statement to claiming that I am "extremely impressed" by pieces of paper, which is also wrong. You are provably and factually incorrect.

There's this thing called "reality" where the state of things don't depend on how you understand them.

Yes. Which as you readily admitted, is already inferred by that statement.

I don't give two shits what you "seriously doubt" and I've already invalidated the rest of your argument, but nice try. And before you go making any more bullshit assumptions, I bet I code more than you in any given week of the year.

Youre missing my point that officers have a variety of training not directly related to firing at the range that increases their effectiveness with them, even if they are holstered all the time. Such as situational awareness, and being able to read body movements and facial cues. Not to mention psychological advantages such as the fact that they are under pressure every single day.

It's the culmination of all those things that determines the outcome, not just the number of bullets you discharge. The OP was implying that visiting the range a few times was going to be sufficient to outgun a cop.

Sure, maybe at the range.

+1. I've met people in their 30s still working on their degrees who were excellent programmers, and people fresh out of tech school who couldn't tell a compiler from their ass. It's not about paying tribute, its about showing you're not stuck up enough to actually shut up and try to learn something.

A small minority can also learn everything they need to on the job, but they'd have to be exceptionally driven, humble, and intelligent to be able to reach their full potential that way.

Point being you don't often see private citizens shooting up cops because of their supposed ineptitude with guns, and granted that's for a lot of reasons, one of which is that it's not as trivial to outgun them as OP suggested.

The thing about guns is people play counter-strike and go to the range a few times and suddenly think they're rambo. The simpler truth is that its a lot like sex and race car driving: every guy thinks he's good at it.

So which is it, did I prove that no employer evaluates the merits of their candidates and only cares if they have a degree, or that learning does not happen at institutions of higher education in 2 paragraphs?

Yeah...I don't think you know what you're talking about.