You have no idea what agnostic and atheist mean, and your refusal to stop arguing using your fictional meanings for words makes it a total waste of time to converse with you. I know what atheist means, and that I am one. You know neither.
"Ironically you are an anti-scientist. You have the opposite attitute to a scientist, who holds all things possible until disproven (not the same as absence of evidence)."
Obviously you are incapable of responding to me without making up bullshit and intentionally misrepresenting what I said. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. I did not say "it is impossible for god to exist", or "I have proven that god does not exist". I said "I do not believe in god".
"You make this assertion when there is actual scientific evidence that contradicts you. It's been in the news several times."
There have been studies that show porn makes men violent too. However if you look into the specifics of the studies in question, you would find they used very questionable methods to manufacture the results they wanted. Feel free to point to any actual evidence you believe supports your claim that video games harm children (and throwing the game at the kid doesn't count), but just waving your hand and dismissively stating "there's evidence" doesn't actually make evidence.
"These peoples don't fit your greeed/selfishness model too well."
Right, the entirety of recorded human history is full of wars, persecution, genocide, torture, etc, and that doesn't fit "my" model. It fits it perfectly, as does the behaviour of baby-killing, war-mongering chimps, our closest relatives.
"The modern atheistic mentality of the last 200 years or so has its roots in the reformation. As much as the ahteists have made the protestant theory their own it is still the protestants that began it all."
Wow, you are are truely stupid individual. There is no "atheistic mentality". It is not a religion. It is simply the lack of belief in a god. It implies nothing else, and any two athesist need not have anything else in common.
"After all atheists can't actually prove that there isn't a supreme being/force."
Nor do we care to. I have no desire to prove any negatives, its a completely moronic idea. If you lack even the most basic understanding of what atheism is, then you should probably not make stupid statements about it.
"It's not completely unreasonable that you should have been fooled in to thinking that the atheist position is rational"
It is 100% rational. There is no evidence of god, hence I do not believe in it. Its not complicated, and anything you try to read into it is your own delusions. Its not a faith, or a religion. Its simply not believing things for no reason. I don't believe in ghosts either, for the same reason. That doesn't make me part of an anti-ghost religion, nor does stupid people's personal anecdotes about ghosts make believing in ghosts rational.
"Did you know that the father of modern genetics was a catholic monk, amd the first proposer of the big bang theory was a catholic priest?"
Yes, and this has what to do with anything? I didn't saying believing in stupid shit renders one incapable of also observing facts. Is it so hard to make an actual point to support your nonsense claims that you have to resort to just blathering on about random things that have nothing to do with the discussion?
"You might be interested in the technical definition of the word 'faith' as taught by catholics"
No, I already know the actual definition of the word faith. I do not care how idiots choose to misuse those words to try to make themselves seem less irrational and foolish.
"you don't believe for no reason, you believe because God has revealed it to you personally. Supremely rational."
And people who are tripping on acid and try to fly are acting supremely rationally too right? They know full well they cannot fly, they choose to believe they can because they are mush heads. They are acting on faith, not rationality. Luckily thinking you can fly is much less dangerous than believing in god.
Quit with the bullshit and get to the supporting your nonsense claims, or there is no point in attempting to discuss anything with you. Video games do not cause harm, hence there is nothing to protect anyone from.
Its interesting that your try to pretend religion has anything to do with this. I am an atheist. I think people who believe in moronic fairytales are stupid. I choose logic, facts and reality over emotional, unsupported beliefs. You assert that video games harm people, yet you have no evidence to support this claim. The idea that video games harm your children is ridiculous. Your children already have naturally violent tendancies, they do not learn violence, they are born with it. Why have little boys burned ants since magnifying glasses have been available? Did video games do it to them by transmitting their evil back through time? Violence and domination is instinctive. You do not teach children to breathe, or eat, or drink because it is instinctive. Our greedy, self-obsessed, violent tendancies are also instinctive. Its how we survived. Only the truely feeble minded would believe in the fairy tale of childhood innocence.
No, its not splitting hairs, its two totally different things. You can't protect someone from something that doesn't hurt them. Violent video games will not attempt to eat your children, there is nothing to protect against. You instead try to shelter them from violent video games because you are crazy.
"You mean all those screwed up children that hate each other?"
So, every single human being in the entire history of our species has been "screwed up" and hates everyone? Yep, that sounds like a very rational view well supported by evidence. Has it seriously never occured to you that people are naturally greedy, selfish, violent, aggressive creatures? And that we need to teach our children to make use of their big brains to decide to behave in a socially acceptable way instead of relying on their instincts and behaving in natural ways? Children will be violent, sadistic, greedy little fucks if you don't teach them not to be, regardless of wether or not they ever see any violent media of any kind.
AMD has always been incredibly helpful and suportive of open source. They supply full documentation for their hardware, and even donate hardware to open source projects. Its just ati that has sucked, and even then it wasn't always that way. They used to provide docs before they started trying to seriously compete with nvidia. Give AMD some time to deal with the merger before deciding how the new company will behave.
Dismissing anything you don't like as "having no class" and being "not a good movie" is just trolling. Just because you are a prude, doesn't mean anything with sex or violence is bad.
Young animals are not sheltered from the real world. They are simply protected from dying. Baby animals fight with their siblings all the time, learning how to fight because they need to in the real world. Their parents do not stop them, and tell them to play nice. Their parents simply try to prevent predators from killing them. Apply this same logic to humans. Parents should prevent their children from being killed. They should not prevent them from learning how to cope with life.
You have it quite backwards, for all of human history, children have coped with the real world. They are not stupid, they are very capable of handling reality and learning to deal with it. Put the strong copy instinct to good use: have them copy you skills at dealing with reality so they learn to do it to. If you pretend there is nothing bad, they never learn how to deal with all the bad out there.
Game console programming is just as sheltered as any other narrowly focused programming field. Higher level languages aren't about sheltering, they are about abstraction. I understand the low level implimentation details, but I can choose to leave those details out of my mind, and concentrate on the high level problem. You use this same technique all the time, but you have the unfortunately common misconception that abstracting certain things is good, and abstracting other things is bad.
You don't have to impliment functions/procedures yourself, because you are using a high enough level language that it provides an abstraction for that. This makes you more productive, and your code easier to modularize and maintain. Keep moving up the high level chain and more and more things get abstracted, making you more productive and your code better. Especially since most low level programmers fail to impliment many abstractions that are very powerful, because they have never bothered to try existing high level languages and discover the power those abstractions provide.
Apache 2 is for windows. The threaded model doesn't perform any better than the prefork model on unix. For unix users, apache 2 is just a way to get a less reliable version of apache that has had many new security holes introduced.
And its syntax does suck. I don't think that's a good enough reason to dismiss it however, especially since its so damn good in every other way:
* Fast bytecode compilation that can be used in #! scripts * optimizing native code compilation that performs as well as or better than every other language outside of C/C++/D * debugger with backstepping * profiler * modules with seperate compilation * strong static typing * variant types and pattern matching * imperative and OO features for when you want them * a full lex and yacc * camlp4 for creating syntax extensions or redefining syntax
How anyone could pass on all that just because the syntax is crappy is beyond me.
Do you listen to yourself? Watching a movie is expressing yourself? Do you seriously believe that? If that were true, then copyright would be shot down, since it would still be expressing myself just as much to watch movies I never purchased at all, and to provide copies for other people to "express themselves" by watching something and not expressing themselves in any way, shape or form. Don't you know a lawyer you could talk to about this? You sound retarded.
Tons of jobs require certs and/or degrees, and even say so in the job ads. It has nothing to do with sex. You need to find a job with a company that has good hiring practices, where the people hiring are actually capable of telling qualified individuals from unqualified ones. This is the same for self taught men or women.
Just because people make up pretend security problems every time any "new" (in this case its actually quite old, just new to PCs) technology comes out to get attention for themselves, doesn't mean its true. There's nothing special about VT that creates any mythical security risk, nevermind a "huge" one. I guess HP should stop selling XP systems and go back to Me right? Damn those raw sockets destroying the internet.
Did you even read what you copy and pasted? THE SOUTHERN PART of the island was "lush". Like is now. Like it has been for as long as we know. Greenland was never green, it was named that for marketing reasons (seriously). We've taken 200,000 year old ice core samples from the ice sheets covering most of Greenland, it was not green a few hundred years ago.
You are seriously uninformed. The charter predates cable companies trying to charge extra for having more than one TV, and it does not stop them from doing so. Your ability to WATCH something that SOMEONE ELSE CREATED to express THEIR views is not a matter of your freedom of expression. The charter is completely and totally irrelivant. You seriously need to talk to a lawyer if you think that section 2b has any relevance at all to copyright law limiting your ability to copy other people's works. Copying something is not expressing yourself.
Did you even read that link? Copyright DOES NOT reserve any magical "licensing" right for the author. You are reserved the rights to copy, modify, distribute, publicly display, etc your work. Licensing is simply the process of saying "I give you the following rights which copyright would otherwise reserve for me, if you obey the following conditions". Licenses themselves have nothing to do with copyright and are used in all sorts of manner. One manner just happens to be the transfer of previously exclusively held copyrights.
If you give me permission to modify, copy and distribute your work so long as I keep a small copyright notice intact, than that's exactly what I can do. I can redistribute your work, and I can say "you must be left handed to copy this" if I want to.
32 ounces of water is 0.95 L. Going by the low end 0.9L, she is going to be unable to keep up. If she has been tricked into a low sodium diet by quack "nutritionists" who pretend that's healthy, then she'd be in real trouble right there, no "severe" defeciency needed. But on top of that, your kidneys slow down when your bladder is full, which makes it worse, and they increased the water intake as the contest went on.
She ended up drinking over a gallon of water in the contest. Everyone else who lasted any length in the contest was also very sick. On top of the fact that the idiots running this contest should have known better, a nurse called in to the station to warn them to stop or they could die, and the DJ dismissed her warning and said it was just a fun contest.
Harper v Canada has nothing to do with it, its not a copyright case. He was fighting against spending limits, claiming that the law protecting voters from rich parties dominating the campaign violates his right to free expression.
If you tried to take the same (incorrect) approach to copyright law, then it would mean copyright law itself is invalid. Wether I am expressing myself in a way covered by the fair dealing provisions or not, I am still expressing myself. So copyright shouldn't be allowed to stop me from expressing myself by selling your copyrighted work according to your (lack of) logic.
He doesn't even provide anything to try to back up his crazy claim, he just keeps repeating his conclusion that "you must distribute it under the BSD license" under all these circumstances. The closest thing he gets is claiming that the BSD license doesn't explicitly permit re-licensing. But copyright doesn't have anything to do with licensing, so its totally irrelivant. The BSD license grants you the copyright granted rights that normally are reserved for the author, if you obey the terms. Applying your own license terms later on has nothing to do with copyright, and hence the author of the software has no right to stop you. The GPL prevents you from using your own license not because of some magical "you can't relicense" part of copyright law, but because the GPL explicitly says you can't in the license.
We're not asking for "computer expertise". We're asking for basic ability to use an every day tool, and common sense. I don't expect everyone to be a phone expert either, but if you have to call me and ask how to check your voicemail over and over again, then you need to be fired. Just like if you have to call me and ask how to spell check a word document every time you write one.
"What arrogant IT people sometimes forget is that the IT department does not make money"
What idiot PHBs sometimes forget is that no company is a single department. Accounting doesn't make money either, nor does maintenance. Hell, in alot of companies marketing is the biggest expense, where they just blow tons of money on stupid shit all the time with no return at all. The fact is, THE COMPANY makes money, because all the departments do their jobs to allow the company to function as well as possible. Simply because one department is directly responsible for producing the product you sell does not mean they are more important than everyone else. They do not exist in a vacuum, and without the other departments making the company run, the product would not exist, and neither would the company. Are MBA douches sleeping through their classes now or what? You should have learned this.
First of all, IT and computer science are two different things. Programmers are the people who write the horrible software that IT departments are forced to put up with. You can't blame IT that the software you are forced to use sucks, IT doesn't like it either.
Second, we don't want you to know how to change your oil or spark plugs. We want you to grasp the basics of driving, like which pedal is the "go button" and which one is the "stop button". People REFUSE to learn the basics of USING a computer, not FIXING a computer, just USING it. This is not acceptable if your job involves using a computer.
You don't need to know how to fix the toilet either, but you damn well better know how to use it. You think you'd keep your job if every single time you went to take a piss you had to get someone from maintenance to come and show you how? Do you call maintenance and ask them "my turds are just floating there in the bowl, can you come take a look?", like people call IT to "come take a look" at the message on their screen asking them to reboot after installing something?
Catalyst fits perl very well.
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
You seem very confused. Catalyst is flexible, and lets you use whatever components you want. But no, you do not "have to choose" anything, use the defaults if you don't have a reason not to. If you are coming to catalyst having already used mason in other projects, you will probably want to use mason for your views in catalyst, so it lets you do this easily. If you haven't used any templating module before, then just stick with the default TT and get coding.
The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't say anything about copyright at all. There is no such thing as fair use in Canada, just fair dealing which is in fact in the copyright act.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea what agnostic and atheist mean, and your refusal to stop arguing using your fictional meanings for words makes it a total waste of time to converse with you. I know what atheist means, and that I am one. You know neither.
"Ironically you are an anti-scientist. You have the opposite attitute to a scientist, who holds all things possible until disproven (not the same as absence of evidence)."
Obviously you are incapable of responding to me without making up bullshit and intentionally misrepresenting what I said. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. I did not say "it is impossible for god to exist", or "I have proven that god does not exist". I said "I do not believe in god".
"You make this assertion when there is actual scientific evidence that contradicts you. It's been in the news several times."
There have been studies that show porn makes men violent too. However if you look into the specifics of the studies in question, you would find they used very questionable methods to manufacture the results they wanted. Feel free to point to any actual evidence you believe supports your claim that video games harm children (and throwing the game at the kid doesn't count), but just waving your hand and dismissively stating "there's evidence" doesn't actually make evidence.
"These peoples don't fit your greeed/selfishness model too well."
Right, the entirety of recorded human history is full of wars, persecution, genocide, torture, etc, and that doesn't fit "my" model. It fits it perfectly, as does the behaviour of baby-killing, war-mongering chimps, our closest relatives.
"The modern atheistic mentality of the last 200 years or so has its roots in the reformation. As much as the ahteists have made the protestant theory their own it is still the protestants that began it all."
Wow, you are are truely stupid individual. There is no "atheistic mentality". It is not a religion. It is simply the lack of belief in a god. It implies nothing else, and any two athesist need not have anything else in common.
"After all atheists can't actually prove that there isn't a supreme being/force."
Nor do we care to. I have no desire to prove any negatives, its a completely moronic idea. If you lack even the most basic understanding of what atheism is, then you should probably not make stupid statements about it.
"It's not completely unreasonable that you should have been fooled in to thinking that the atheist position is rational"
It is 100% rational. There is no evidence of god, hence I do not believe in it. Its not complicated, and anything you try to read into it is your own delusions. Its not a faith, or a religion. Its simply not believing things for no reason. I don't believe in ghosts either, for the same reason. That doesn't make me part of an anti-ghost religion, nor does stupid people's personal anecdotes about ghosts make believing in ghosts rational.
"Did you know that the father of modern genetics was a catholic monk, amd the first proposer of the big bang theory was a catholic priest?"
Yes, and this has what to do with anything? I didn't saying believing in stupid shit renders one incapable of also observing facts. Is it so hard to make an actual point to support your nonsense claims that you have to resort to just blathering on about random things that have nothing to do with the discussion?
"You might be interested in the technical definition of the word 'faith' as taught by catholics"
No, I already know the actual definition of the word faith. I do not care how idiots choose to misuse those words to try to make themselves seem less irrational and foolish.
"you don't believe for no reason, you believe because God has revealed it to you personally. Supremely rational."
And people who are tripping on acid and try to fly are acting supremely rationally too right? They know full well they cannot fly, they choose to believe they can because they are mush heads. They are acting on faith, not rationality. Luckily thinking you can fly is much less dangerous than believing in god.
Quit with the bullshit and get to the supporting your nonsense claims, or there is no point in attempting to discuss anything with you. Video games do not cause harm, hence there is nothing to protect anyone from.
Its interesting that your try to pretend religion has anything to do with this. I am an atheist. I think people who believe in moronic fairytales are stupid. I choose logic, facts and reality over emotional, unsupported beliefs. You assert that video games harm people, yet you have no evidence to support this claim. The idea that video games harm your children is ridiculous. Your children already have naturally violent tendancies, they do not learn violence, they are born with it. Why have little boys burned ants since magnifying glasses have been available? Did video games do it to them by transmitting their evil back through time? Violence and domination is instinctive. You do not teach children to breathe, or eat, or drink because it is instinctive. Our greedy, self-obsessed, violent tendancies are also instinctive. Its how we survived. Only the truely feeble minded would believe in the fairy tale of childhood innocence.
No, its not splitting hairs, its two totally different things. You can't protect someone from something that doesn't hurt them. Violent video games will not attempt to eat your children, there is nothing to protect against. You instead try to shelter them from violent video games because you are crazy.
"You mean all those screwed up children that hate each other?"
So, every single human being in the entire history of our species has been "screwed up" and hates everyone? Yep, that sounds like a very rational view well supported by evidence. Has it seriously never occured to you that people are naturally greedy, selfish, violent, aggressive creatures? And that we need to teach our children to make use of their big brains to decide to behave in a socially acceptable way instead of relying on their instincts and behaving in natural ways? Children will be violent, sadistic, greedy little fucks if you don't teach them not to be, regardless of wether or not they ever see any violent media of any kind.
AMD has always been incredibly helpful and suportive of open source. They supply full documentation for their hardware, and even donate hardware to open source projects. Its just ati that has sucked, and even then it wasn't always that way. They used to provide docs before they started trying to seriously compete with nvidia. Give AMD some time to deal with the merger before deciding how the new company will behave.
Dismissing anything you don't like as "having no class" and being "not a good movie" is just trolling. Just because you are a prude, doesn't mean anything with sex or violence is bad.
Young animals are not sheltered from the real world. They are simply protected from dying. Baby animals fight with their siblings all the time, learning how to fight because they need to in the real world. Their parents do not stop them, and tell them to play nice. Their parents simply try to prevent predators from killing them. Apply this same logic to humans. Parents should prevent their children from being killed. They should not prevent them from learning how to cope with life.
You have it quite backwards, for all of human history, children have coped with the real world. They are not stupid, they are very capable of handling reality and learning to deal with it. Put the strong copy instinct to good use: have them copy you skills at dealing with reality so they learn to do it to. If you pretend there is nothing bad, they never learn how to deal with all the bad out there.
Game console programming is just as sheltered as any other narrowly focused programming field. Higher level languages aren't about sheltering, they are about abstraction. I understand the low level implimentation details, but I can choose to leave those details out of my mind, and concentrate on the high level problem. You use this same technique all the time, but you have the unfortunately common misconception that abstracting certain things is good, and abstracting other things is bad.
You don't have to impliment functions/procedures yourself, because you are using a high enough level language that it provides an abstraction for that. This makes you more productive, and your code easier to modularize and maintain. Keep moving up the high level chain and more and more things get abstracted, making you more productive and your code better. Especially since most low level programmers fail to impliment many abstractions that are very powerful, because they have never bothered to try existing high level languages and discover the power those abstractions provide.
Apache 2 is for windows. The threaded model doesn't perform any better than the prefork model on unix. For unix users, apache 2 is just a way to get a less reliable version of apache that has had many new security holes introduced.
And its syntax does suck. I don't think that's a good enough reason to dismiss it however, especially since its so damn good in every other way:
* Fast bytecode compilation that can be used in #! scripts
* optimizing native code compilation that performs as well as or better than every other language outside of C/C++/D
* debugger with backstepping
* profiler
* modules with seperate compilation
* strong static typing
* variant types and pattern matching
* imperative and OO features for when you want them
* a full lex and yacc
* camlp4 for creating syntax extensions or redefining syntax
How anyone could pass on all that just because the syntax is crappy is beyond me.
Do you listen to yourself? Watching a movie is expressing yourself? Do you seriously believe that? If that were true, then copyright would be shot down, since it would still be expressing myself just as much to watch movies I never purchased at all, and to provide copies for other people to "express themselves" by watching something and not expressing themselves in any way, shape or form. Don't you know a lawyer you could talk to about this? You sound retarded.
Tons of jobs require certs and/or degrees, and even say so in the job ads. It has nothing to do with sex. You need to find a job with a company that has good hiring practices, where the people hiring are actually capable of telling qualified individuals from unqualified ones. This is the same for self taught men or women.
Just because people make up pretend security problems every time any "new" (in this case its actually quite old, just new to PCs) technology comes out to get attention for themselves, doesn't mean its true. There's nothing special about VT that creates any mythical security risk, nevermind a "huge" one. I guess HP should stop selling XP systems and go back to Me right? Damn those raw sockets destroying the internet.
Did you even read what you copy and pasted? THE SOUTHERN PART of the island was "lush". Like is now. Like it has been for as long as we know. Greenland was never green, it was named that for marketing reasons (seriously). We've taken 200,000 year old ice core samples from the ice sheets covering most of Greenland, it was not green a few hundred years ago.
Carpenter's glue? Fiber helps it flow, it doesn't clog your tube.
You are seriously uninformed. The charter predates cable companies trying to charge extra for having more than one TV, and it does not stop them from doing so. Your ability to WATCH something that SOMEONE ELSE CREATED to express THEIR views is not a matter of your freedom of expression. The charter is completely and totally irrelivant. You seriously need to talk to a lawyer if you think that section 2b has any relevance at all to copyright law limiting your ability to copy other people's works. Copying something is not expressing yourself.
Did you even read that link? Copyright DOES NOT reserve any magical "licensing" right for the author. You are reserved the rights to copy, modify, distribute, publicly display, etc your work. Licensing is simply the process of saying "I give you the following rights which copyright would otherwise reserve for me, if you obey the following conditions". Licenses themselves have nothing to do with copyright and are used in all sorts of manner. One manner just happens to be the transfer of previously exclusively held copyrights.
If you give me permission to modify, copy and distribute your work so long as I keep a small copyright notice intact, than that's exactly what I can do. I can redistribute your work, and I can say "you must be left handed to copy this" if I want to.
32 ounces of water is 0.95 L. Going by the low end 0.9L, she is going to be unable to keep up. If she has been tricked into a low sodium diet by quack "nutritionists" who pretend that's healthy, then she'd be in real trouble right there, no "severe" defeciency needed. But on top of that, your kidneys slow down when your bladder is full, which makes it worse, and they increased the water intake as the contest went on.
She ended up drinking over a gallon of water in the contest. Everyone else who lasted any length in the contest was also very sick. On top of the fact that the idiots running this contest should have known better, a nurse called in to the station to warn them to stop or they could die, and the DJ dismissed her warning and said it was just a fun contest.
Harper v Canada has nothing to do with it, its not a copyright case. He was fighting against spending limits, claiming that the law protecting voters from rich parties dominating the campaign violates his right to free expression.
If you tried to take the same (incorrect) approach to copyright law, then it would mean copyright law itself is invalid. Wether I am expressing myself in a way covered by the fair dealing provisions or not, I am still expressing myself. So copyright shouldn't be allowed to stop me from expressing myself by selling your copyrighted work according to your (lack of) logic.
He doesn't even provide anything to try to back up his crazy claim, he just keeps repeating his conclusion that "you must distribute it under the BSD license" under all these circumstances. The closest thing he gets is claiming that the BSD license doesn't explicitly permit re-licensing. But copyright doesn't have anything to do with licensing, so its totally irrelivant. The BSD license grants you the copyright granted rights that normally are reserved for the author, if you obey the terms. Applying your own license terms later on has nothing to do with copyright, and hence the author of the software has no right to stop you. The GPL prevents you from using your own license not because of some magical "you can't relicense" part of copyright law, but because the GPL explicitly says you can't in the license.
We're not asking for "computer expertise". We're asking for basic ability to use an every day tool, and common sense. I don't expect everyone to be a phone expert either, but if you have to call me and ask how to check your voicemail over and over again, then you need to be fired. Just like if you have to call me and ask how to spell check a word document every time you write one.
"What arrogant IT people sometimes forget is that the IT department does not make money"
What idiot PHBs sometimes forget is that no company is a single department. Accounting doesn't make money either, nor does maintenance. Hell, in alot of companies marketing is the biggest expense, where they just blow tons of money on stupid shit all the time with no return at all. The fact is, THE COMPANY makes money, because all the departments do their jobs to allow the company to function as well as possible. Simply because one department is directly responsible for producing the product you sell does not mean they are more important than everyone else. They do not exist in a vacuum, and without the other departments making the company run, the product would not exist, and neither would the company. Are MBA douches sleeping through their classes now or what? You should have learned this.
First of all, IT and computer science are two different things. Programmers are the people who write the horrible software that IT departments are forced to put up with. You can't blame IT that the software you are forced to use sucks, IT doesn't like it either.
Second, we don't want you to know how to change your oil or spark plugs. We want you to grasp the basics of driving, like which pedal is the "go button" and which one is the "stop button". People REFUSE to learn the basics of USING a computer, not FIXING a computer, just USING it. This is not acceptable if your job involves using a computer.
You don't need to know how to fix the toilet either, but you damn well better know how to use it. You think you'd keep your job if every single time you went to take a piss you had to get someone from maintenance to come and show you how? Do you call maintenance and ask them "my turds are just floating there in the bowl, can you come take a look?", like people call IT to "come take a look" at the message on their screen asking them to reboot after installing something?
You seem very confused. Catalyst is flexible, and lets you use whatever components you want. But no, you do not "have to choose" anything, use the defaults if you don't have a reason not to. If you are coming to catalyst having already used mason in other projects, you will probably want to use mason for your views in catalyst, so it lets you do this easily. If you haven't used any templating module before, then just stick with the default TT and get coding.
The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't say anything about copyright at all. There is no such thing as fair use in Canada, just fair dealing which is in fact in the copyright act.