That seems to be the guiding light behind a lot of stuff Trump is doing. If it was a policy pushed by Obama, Trump wants it off the books.
Way to stoke the fire of partisan politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has to do with American citizens being essentially forced to give opportunities in their own country away to foreigners because of corporate greed and in this case, it's venture capitalist greed. Americans are being thrown under the bus but this greed.
Look, I have empathy for the rest of the world but I have empathy for my homeland first. If you can't understand that, you should move out of this country because you're not supporting it.
Probably won't happen. Ever-increasing population used to be a real concern, but demographics are trending differently now. The story is the same in country after country, and should be true on a global scale too: There is a huge population explosion following industrialisation due to reliable food, medicine, clean water, etc. People stop dying. But eventually the birth rate falls as well, due to the progression of other social factors that follow industrialisation - the need for longer periods in education, and increasing numbers of women in employment. Sure, people don't drop dead of old age at forty any more - but they don't start breeding at 17 either.
That is the nature of human hubris right there.:) Have you perhaps researched what has happened to other animals whose natural habitat and/or food source availability changes? Your entire claim is predicated on that humans are smart enough to solve whatever problems come their way. Those problems are increasing significantly in terms of complexity and difficulty as the population increases. One thing to consider is we are drawing on an unknown well. Science is compelled to investigate certain topics especially the ones where we think a discovery will yield progress towards a solution with a problem we are currently facing. For example, energy. We try to increase fuel economy and seek alternate energy and so forth. The only way to do that is scientific and technological progress. But you see your claim is that there is an infinite amount of scientific discovery to be made that will solve ALL problems eventually and there is not sufficient evidence to support that claim. It's a logical possibility but to claim you are certain that is the case is equivalent to religious faith. Your claim amounts to "we always seem to find a solution to all of our problems, therefore that should continue infinitely." That claim is very similar to some economic claims which are proving to be false over a long enough period of time in the sense of positive upward trend as t (time) approaches infinity. When you get to this level, you should not be thinking in terms of absolutes but more in terms of probabilities.
"I can't update X because of your crappy third party software that doesn't work right" to temporarily disable it, so they could apply the updates and then re-enable it or their product afterwards.
We both have valid points. Let's re-phrase. Microsoft and Kaspersky failed to coordinate to update their respective software in tandem to ensure proper compatability for both of their customers. It seems based on the evidence Microsoft was being proactive to ensure a better customer experience whereas Kaspersky did not. I'm not a Microsoft fan by the way. I want Linux to make Microsoft disappear and I'm cheering for it. I just don't think you can fault Microsoft here. No one has made a claim with sufficient justification to support that.
If you want to fault Microsoft, blast them about Windows Telemetry. That's where they deserve it BIG TIME.
If Microsoft thought that introducing incompatibilities was an ideal situation for the consumer (not being sarcastic here), I am unsure how that translates into the liberty of controlling what software someone chooses to run.
You don't understand how drivers work. Microsoft didn't introduce the problem Kapersky did. You might to fault Microsoft's driver certification program (required to get your driver signed) for not catching the issue but the issue is with the third party not Microsoft. I worked at a company that had a custom driver (not anti-virus) that was always fighting with misbehaving antivirus software. In that case, we would have to get in a three way conversation, us, Microsoft and the third party AV vendor. It's not as simple as you think and you probably don't want to know about the madness that occurs for your own sanity.:)
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet. Except, you know, Australian (all we know about those guys is whatever we saw on Crocodile Dundee; also, we imagine they all sound like Steve Irwin).
Even today, farmers work their ass off in planting and harvest seasons. The work doesn't stop in other seasons, but slows a lot. This has always been true.
I'm aware of this. I have family members that up until recently owned substantially sized farms and farmed all their life. They didn't spend all their time farming throughout the entire day though. My point being what a farmer refers to as "work" is based on what they have to do not what they get paid for. The farmer gets paid by selling crops, livestock, jam, basically anything they produce etc. It's not only the hours that you spend selling the goods that counts as work. That's the disconnect between the industrial world and the rural world.
Let me frame this for you, does a farmer have to work on their tractors/combines/equipment/etc. in order to make them work to be able to farm - yes. Does a person who commutes have to work on their car or have someone work on their car to be able to use the car to commute. The farmer's work on the tractor has a direct impact on their ability to produce goods for sale whereas my work on my car doesn't have that type of direct relationship but in both cases it's still considered "work". The difference is whether you are getting paid directly or indirectly for that work.
In order to understand why Microsoft may have logically chosen to do that for their CUSTOMERS, you would have to understand drivers. All pro-active virus scanning software sits in the driver stack. They intercept operating system calls to try to determine whether you're about to run i_h4x0r3d_j00.exe and prevent that from happening. Microsoft drivers also happen to sit in the same driver stack along with everyone else's. They all sit at a particular "altitude" in that driver stack. Some versions of software that are signed drivers that sit in this stack interfere with other drivers in that stack. Microsoft most likely proactively decided that instead of being like "I can't update X because of your crappy third party software that doesn't work right" to temporarily disable it, so they could apply the updates and then re-enable it or their product afterwards.
Now I realize that doesn't make for as sensational news story as something that implies Microsoft purposefully disabling other competitors software but it's more likely that something like what I said is the case. I hate to disappoint you. Cheers!
My grandfather worked 16 hours a day in the farmland and [thought he was] very busy. We work eight hours, five days a week and think we are very busy.
We are no longer rural societies. In rural societies, we worked on our farms side-by-side children and relatives. We ran our farms including taking care of the family and home as well. Today, because of the industrial revolution, we commute from our homes to our jobs and those things are separate. We work far more than eight hours when you take into consideration that the 16 hours of "rural work" included taking care of home and family. It's just a question of what work earns you paycheck and what doesn't. The work you don't get paid for isn't any less work.
I so wish I had mod points for you. However, I am sad to say you time frame is off a bit. It was John Maynard Keynes that first made this prediction in the 1930's actually. In the 1950's science and science fiction were both forecasting that technology advances would eliminate our need to work. Jack Ma is a tad bit late to the party. A better question he could answer is: why is it taking longer than predicted?
That is why some will get rich (off other investors), even if there will not be any significant advances in products.
You think the "other investors" care about any sort of progress? Most of those investors are like patent trolls so I don't see your statement as any sort of problem whatsoever. Sounds like business as usual to me.
First, there is nothing besides weak AI (i.e. the "AI" with no "I", better called "automation"). Second, it is not "exploding". There have been no fundamental breakthroughs for quite a while. There have been gradual speed-improvements, but they are, well, gradual. The only thing that has been "exploding" is the hype about AI, i.e. this is nothing but a bubble of hot air.
Investors investing in hype instead of actually understanding technology, no way! That's never happened before or has it? Pets.com sock puppet anyone?
Or I'm sure there are studies to show the correlation between ass kissing and promotions are ubiquitous across all fields. A corollary from this would be: It's not how well you do your job that matters, it's how well you kiss ass. Ego-stroking will get you everywhere. And that we also see in Silicon Valley as well.
No it doesn't. It has been shown repeatedly that the idea that thousands of people will look at code and magically spot bugs is a myth.
If you have bad reviewers, you get bad reviews. Garbage in/garbage out. With quality reviewers, you get quality results. It's a qualitative problem not a quantitative problem.
For those who are history buffs, you know very well the history of political propaganda. So really, this is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the medium. Instead of newspapers and posters, social media is now the primary medium. I think most likely many of us forgot about propaganda because we stopped reading newspapers and watching network television in favor of streaming media, websites and social media. The propaganda spinsters finally caught on and are using social media and now we're aware of it all over again. It's the new old thing.
Let's be honest here, any religion, if founded today as a club, would be under surveillance by NSA, FBI and various other TLAs for their charter alone, if they can be founded altogether considering how they treat minorities in general and women in particular.
And you wouldn't invite their leaders to some discussion about ethics or morals. You'd tell those fuckers to go away, far away preferably, because their insane ideologies have no place in a civilized society.
I hate to sound like a misanthrope but don't you find it ironic that humans are paranoid about themselves? It's like as a species we're essentially schizophrenic and paranoid and we basically are always suspicious of ourselves and spend a lot of our time attacking ourselves. What's amazing to me is that we manage to not do it to a point that we all go extinct.
Honestly I'm not sure why this would shock or surprise anyone. We should know by now that the majority of the Middle Eastern countries are Theocracies. Those Theocracies are based on Islam. Islam when followed in a literal, fundamentalist way condones this type of behavior. For example, Apostasy. If you leave the faith, you should be executed. This is described in both the Quran and the Hadith. Any society based on this sort of thing is going to be barbaric at best from a human rights perspective.
Why does anyone find this shocking? It's not like it's anything new.
Elitist douche? I was just trying to correct misinformation as someone who has coded JavaScript inside and outside of the Node stack. Roughly, Node is to JavaScript as Ruby on Rails is to Ruby.
I think you have somehow misinterpreted my pedantry on terminology as a bone to pick with the JavaScript community. Not so.
Being a pedant for the sake of being a pedant is the definition of an elitist douche. But carry on. I don't care.
Third party here...no, I think the issue is that NodeJS is REALLY NOT a language, but is rather a framework and approach for writing JavaScript.
Actually, you raise an interesting point. Node.js really does muddy the water but that doesn't make it illegitimate. I'm not exactly sure what Node.js the term specifically refers to in their stack. Chrome V8 Javascript engine and Javascript are two distinct entities. JavaScript as you pointed out is a language. Said language is interpreted, meaning it requires a runtime. Chrome uses the V8 Javascript engine. Node.js also uses that. JavaScript is interpreted by other technology in Firefox, Safari and IE/Edge. Node.js I suppose you could say hosts the V8 Javascript engine and glues it together to make it work from a console application. Where one ends and the other begins would require some further investigation. But what's the point? Do I really need to understand that to spin up a REST service? No.
FWIW, I'm an old gray hair programmer too. I started on the Vic 20 and shortly after the C64. Just because Node.js is different doesn't mean it isn't a real programming stack. In fact it is part of what is referred to as the MEAN stack. Whether you want to admit it or not, a lot of today's mobile apps are written in this fashion minus Angular/ReactJS/Ember/etc. sometimes for a more thick client experience.
Ever piece of software has a different set of needs and you must select the right tools for the job to get to market quickly and effectively.
Also, to criticize MEAN would be to criticize LAMP. There are many long-lived commercial web applications running on that stack too. I just get the sense that the naysayers here are people that are pining for the days of assembly language or C/C++ programming. Look, don't get me wrong, those compile time languages have their applications, for example gaming. I spent quite a few years programming in them. C++11 has made strides to adopt functional language programming semantics to be more like a modern language but these types of languages are not meant for spinning up web or mobile apps. They're just not. Hell, Microsoft didn't have a way to spin up a web application in C++ until Cassandra and that was only a few years ago. I think it's now called the CPP Rest SDK. Very late to the game. About 10 years ago, I worked at a company that was bought by another company. The buying company had decided to invent their own HTTP server in C. They absolutely could not keep up with Apache and IIS and were always running into problems and eventually scrapped it in favor of industry standard tools.
People who suffer from NIHS always lose. Hey I've re-invented a few wheels in my days too. Even though it's a lot of fun, I can objectively say it's pointless especially today if someone has already done it perfectly well. Don't be an elitist douche.
That sounds a bit nit-picky to me. In my workplace we generally refer to our VB / C# programmers as our.Net group.
No that's not nit-picky. I would be common to see two different platform teams in a company like the.NET team and the Java team. I think what you're getting hung up on is Java is used to refer to both the platform (JVM) and the language. They are often used interchangeably but they are not the same thing. For example, in your example, you might find a Scala programmer on the Java team. Why? Because it's a JVM language.
Well, in their defense, they were somewhat (but most likely unintentionally) correct in the sense that the.NET CLI defines a language of sorts in terms of requirements and limitations.
Sorry, that position is not defend-able. The only way that statement could be considered partially true is if they were referring to writing MSIL, which you most certainly could do, however I'm nearly certain that's not what they meant. They're just an unqualified instructor in that subject matter and are making themselves look incredibly dumb by attempting to teach subject matter they are obviously not educated about.
Studying CS, one group went to an exam on a paper about how.NET is a programming language and never mentioned C#.
They passed, and when asked about it, the teachers said there was no difference.
.NET is a technology stack. The.NET Runtime is the "virtual machine" that all MSIL runs on. There are many.NET languages, C#, F#, VB.Net, even Python. Each language compiles down into MSIL (byte code) similar to Java. The.NET Runtime then compiles the byte code down into machine language based on the CPU architecture. Teachers who don't have a basic understanding of this have no business teaching students about it. It's not particularly hard to learn about. One only need pick up the Jeffrey Richter book. It's a pretty quick read and you will be very educated about what goes on under the hood afterwards.
NodeJS is a language? Well, if people say things like these now, maybe I really should retire for my own sanity.
Is the issue that it's not a compile time language? If that's what you require for sanity then yes, you should retire to maintain your sanity. You see NodeJS is to Chromium as Java is to JVM as C# is to.NET runtime. In fact, you could lump PHP in there too. If you're not keen on compile time languages decreasing in popularity, you should have retired a long time ago I hate to say. It's just the trend that the industry followed, friend.
Slashdot Mirror
'Cause Obama did it.
That seems to be the guiding light behind a lot of stuff Trump is doing. If it was a policy pushed by Obama, Trump wants it off the books.
Way to stoke the fire of partisan politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has to do with American citizens being essentially forced to give opportunities in their own country away to foreigners because of corporate greed and in this case, it's venture capitalist greed. Americans are being thrown under the bus but this greed.
Look, I have empathy for the rest of the world but I have empathy for my homeland first. If you can't understand that, you should move out of this country because you're not supporting it.
Probably won't happen. Ever-increasing population used to be a real concern, but demographics are trending differently now. The story is the same in country after country, and should be true on a global scale too: There is a huge population explosion following industrialisation due to reliable food, medicine, clean water, etc. People stop dying. But eventually the birth rate falls as well, due to the progression of other social factors that follow industrialisation - the need for longer periods in education, and increasing numbers of women in employment. Sure, people don't drop dead of old age at forty any more - but they don't start breeding at 17 either.
That is the nature of human hubris right there. :) Have you perhaps researched what has happened to other animals whose natural habitat and/or food source availability changes? Your entire claim is predicated on that humans are smart enough to solve whatever problems come their way. Those problems are increasing significantly in terms of complexity and difficulty as the population increases. One thing to consider is we are drawing on an unknown well. Science is compelled to investigate certain topics especially the ones where we think a discovery will yield progress towards a solution with a problem we are currently facing. For example, energy. We try to increase fuel economy and seek alternate energy and so forth. The only way to do that is scientific and technological progress. But you see your claim is that there is an infinite amount of scientific discovery to be made that will solve ALL problems eventually and there is not sufficient evidence to support that claim. It's a logical possibility but to claim you are certain that is the case is equivalent to religious faith. Your claim amounts to "we always seem to find a solution to all of our problems, therefore that should continue infinitely." That claim is very similar to some economic claims which are proving to be false over a long enough period of time in the sense of positive upward trend as t (time) approaches infinity. When you get to this level, you should not be thinking in terms of absolutes but more in terms of probabilities.
"I can't update X because of your crappy third party software that doesn't work right" to temporarily disable it, so they could apply the updates and then re-enable it or their product afterwards.
Um, no. That 3rd party software worked perfectly fine with a previous version of Windows. It isn't compatible with newer version. Also one complaint with Kapersky Labs is that it didn't disable and re-enable. It uninstalled it then installed Windows Defender. "One of the key complaints is that Windows 10 uninstalls Kaspersky antivirus without the consent of users and enables the built-in Windows Defender."
We both have valid points. Let's re-phrase. Microsoft and Kaspersky failed to coordinate to update their respective software in tandem to ensure proper compatability for both of their customers. It seems based on the evidence Microsoft was being proactive to ensure a better customer experience whereas Kaspersky did not. I'm not a Microsoft fan by the way. I want Linux to make Microsoft disappear and I'm cheering for it. I just don't think you can fault Microsoft here. No one has made a claim with sufficient justification to support that.
If you want to fault Microsoft, blast them about Windows Telemetry. That's where they deserve it BIG TIME.
If Microsoft thought that introducing incompatibilities was an ideal situation for the consumer (not being sarcastic here), I am unsure how that translates into the liberty of controlling what software someone chooses to run.
You don't understand how drivers work. Microsoft didn't introduce the problem Kapersky did. You might to fault Microsoft's driver certification program (required to get your driver signed) for not catching the issue but the issue is with the third party not Microsoft. I worked at a company that had a custom driver (not anti-virus) that was always fighting with misbehaving antivirus software. In that case, we would have to get in a three way conversation, us, Microsoft and the third party AV vendor. It's not as simple as you think and you probably don't want to know about the madness that occurs for your own sanity. :)
It's so sad when scientists get old and turn in to crackpots.
As the Earth's population continues to increase exponentially what happens? I'm sure the answer is PROFIT! Yeah...
The Search for for Money
Wasn't that always FB's mission, to bring people closer together? That what social media is about, isn't it?
Tinder's mission is also to bring people together but in a slightly different way.
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet. Except, you know, Australian (all we know about those guys is whatever we saw on Crocodile Dundee; also, we imagine they all sound like Steve Irwin).
It's funny you mention Australia. You do realize it started out as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia right? History is fascinating. :)
Even today, farmers work their ass off in planting and harvest seasons. The work doesn't stop in other seasons, but slows a lot. This has always been true.
I'm aware of this. I have family members that up until recently owned substantially sized farms and farmed all their life. They didn't spend all their time farming throughout the entire day though. My point being what a farmer refers to as "work" is based on what they have to do not what they get paid for. The farmer gets paid by selling crops, livestock, jam, basically anything they produce etc. It's not only the hours that you spend selling the goods that counts as work. That's the disconnect between the industrial world and the rural world.
Let me frame this for you, does a farmer have to work on their tractors/combines/equipment/etc. in order to make them work to be able to farm - yes. Does a person who commutes have to work on their car or have someone work on their car to be able to use the car to commute. The farmer's work on the tractor has a direct impact on their ability to produce goods for sale whereas my work on my car doesn't have that type of direct relationship but in both cases it's still considered "work". The difference is whether you are getting paid directly or indirectly for that work.
In order to understand why Microsoft may have logically chosen to do that for their CUSTOMERS, you would have to understand drivers. All pro-active virus scanning software sits in the driver stack. They intercept operating system calls to try to determine whether you're about to run i_h4x0r3d_j00.exe and prevent that from happening. Microsoft drivers also happen to sit in the same driver stack along with everyone else's. They all sit at a particular "altitude" in that driver stack. Some versions of software that are signed drivers that sit in this stack interfere with other drivers in that stack. Microsoft most likely proactively decided that instead of being like "I can't update X because of your crappy third party software that doesn't work right" to temporarily disable it, so they could apply the updates and then re-enable it or their product afterwards.
Now I realize that doesn't make for as sensational news story as something that implies Microsoft purposefully disabling other competitors software but it's more likely that something like what I said is the case. I hate to disappoint you. Cheers!
We are no longer rural societies. In rural societies, we worked on our farms side-by-side children and relatives. We ran our farms including taking care of the family and home as well. Today, because of the industrial revolution, we commute from our homes to our jobs and those things are separate. We work far more than eight hours when you take into consideration that the 16 hours of "rural work" included taking care of home and family. It's just a question of what work earns you paycheck and what doesn't. The work you don't get paid for isn't any less work.
I so wish I had mod points for you. However, I am sad to say you time frame is off a bit. It was John Maynard Keynes that first made this prediction in the 1930's actually. In the 1950's science and science fiction were both forecasting that technology advances would eliminate our need to work. Jack Ma is a tad bit late to the party. A better question he could answer is: why is it taking longer than predicted?
That is why some will get rich (off other investors), even if there will not be any significant advances in products.
You think the "other investors" care about any sort of progress? Most of those investors are like patent trolls so I don't see your statement as any sort of problem whatsoever. Sounds like business as usual to me.
First, there is nothing besides weak AI (i.e. the "AI" with no "I", better called "automation"). Second, it is not "exploding". There have been no fundamental breakthroughs for quite a while. There have been gradual speed-improvements, but they are, well, gradual. The only thing that has been "exploding" is the hype about AI, i.e. this is nothing but a bubble of hot air.
Investors investing in hype instead of actually understanding technology, no way! That's never happened before or has it? Pets.com sock puppet anyone?
Or I'm sure there are studies to show the correlation between ass kissing and promotions are ubiquitous across all fields. A corollary from this would be: It's not how well you do your job that matters, it's how well you kiss ass. Ego-stroking will get you everywhere. And that we also see in Silicon Valley as well.
No it doesn't. It has been shown repeatedly that the idea that thousands of people will look at code and magically spot bugs is a myth.
If you have bad reviewers, you get bad reviews. Garbage in/garbage out. With quality reviewers, you get quality results. It's a qualitative problem not a quantitative problem.
For those who are history buffs, you know very well the history of political propaganda. So really, this is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the medium. Instead of newspapers and posters, social media is now the primary medium. I think most likely many of us forgot about propaganda because we stopped reading newspapers and watching network television in favor of streaming media, websites and social media. The propaganda spinsters finally caught on and are using social media and now we're aware of it all over again. It's the new old thing.
Let's be honest here, any religion, if founded today as a club, would be under surveillance by NSA, FBI and various other TLAs for their charter alone, if they can be founded altogether considering how they treat minorities in general and women in particular.
And you wouldn't invite their leaders to some discussion about ethics or morals. You'd tell those fuckers to go away, far away preferably, because their insane ideologies have no place in a civilized society.
I hate to sound like a misanthrope but don't you find it ironic that humans are paranoid about themselves? It's like as a species we're essentially schizophrenic and paranoid and we basically are always suspicious of ourselves and spend a lot of our time attacking ourselves. What's amazing to me is that we manage to not do it to a point that we all go extinct.
Honestly I'm not sure why this would shock or surprise anyone. We should know by now that the majority of the Middle Eastern countries are Theocracies. Those Theocracies are based on Islam. Islam when followed in a literal, fundamentalist way condones this type of behavior. For example, Apostasy. If you leave the faith, you should be executed. This is described in both the Quran and the Hadith. Any society based on this sort of thing is going to be barbaric at best from a human rights perspective.
Why does anyone find this shocking? It's not like it's anything new.
Elitist douche? I was just trying to correct misinformation as someone who has coded JavaScript inside and outside of the Node stack. Roughly, Node is to JavaScript as Ruby on Rails is to Ruby.
I think you have somehow misinterpreted my pedantry on terminology as a bone to pick with the JavaScript community. Not so.
Being a pedant for the sake of being a pedant is the definition of an elitist douche. But carry on. I don't care.
Third party here...no, I think the issue is that NodeJS is REALLY NOT a language, but is rather a framework and approach for writing JavaScript.
Actually, you raise an interesting point. Node.js really does muddy the water but that doesn't make it illegitimate. I'm not exactly sure what Node.js the term specifically refers to in their stack. Chrome V8 Javascript engine and Javascript are two distinct entities. JavaScript as you pointed out is a language. Said language is interpreted, meaning it requires a runtime. Chrome uses the V8 Javascript engine. Node.js also uses that. JavaScript is interpreted by other technology in Firefox, Safari and IE/Edge. Node.js I suppose you could say hosts the V8 Javascript engine and glues it together to make it work from a console application. Where one ends and the other begins would require some further investigation. But what's the point? Do I really need to understand that to spin up a REST service? No.
FWIW, I'm an old gray hair programmer too. I started on the Vic 20 and shortly after the C64. Just because Node.js is different doesn't mean it isn't a real programming stack. In fact it is part of what is referred to as the MEAN stack. Whether you want to admit it or not, a lot of today's mobile apps are written in this fashion minus Angular/ReactJS/Ember/etc. sometimes for a more thick client experience. Ever piece of software has a different set of needs and you must select the right tools for the job to get to market quickly and effectively.
Also, to criticize MEAN would be to criticize LAMP. There are many long-lived commercial web applications running on that stack too. I just get the sense that the naysayers here are people that are pining for the days of assembly language or C/C++ programming. Look, don't get me wrong, those compile time languages have their applications, for example gaming. I spent quite a few years programming in them. C++11 has made strides to adopt functional language programming semantics to be more like a modern language but these types of languages are not meant for spinning up web or mobile apps. They're just not. Hell, Microsoft didn't have a way to spin up a web application in C++ until Cassandra and that was only a few years ago. I think it's now called the CPP Rest SDK. Very late to the game. About 10 years ago, I worked at a company that was bought by another company. The buying company had decided to invent their own HTTP server in C. They absolutely could not keep up with Apache and IIS and were always running into problems and eventually scrapped it in favor of industry standard tools.
People who suffer from NIHS always lose. Hey I've re-invented a few wheels in my days too. Even though it's a lot of fun, I can objectively say it's pointless especially today if someone has already done it perfectly well. Don't be an elitist douche.
That sounds a bit nit-picky to me. In my workplace we generally refer to our VB / C# programmers as our .Net group.
No that's not nit-picky. I would be common to see two different platform teams in a company like the .NET team and the Java team. I think what you're getting hung up on is Java is used to refer to both the platform (JVM) and the language. They are often used interchangeably but they are not the same thing. For example, in your example, you might find a Scala programmer on the Java team. Why? Because it's a JVM language.
Well, in their defense, they were somewhat (but most likely unintentionally) correct in the sense that the .NET CLI defines a language of sorts in terms of requirements and limitations.
Sorry, that position is not defend-able. The only way that statement could be considered partially true is if they were referring to writing MSIL, which you most certainly could do, however I'm nearly certain that's not what they meant. They're just an unqualified instructor in that subject matter and are making themselves look incredibly dumb by attempting to teach subject matter they are obviously not educated about.
Studying CS, one group went to an exam on a paper about how .NET is a programming language and never mentioned C#.
They passed, and when asked about it, the teachers said there was no difference.
.NET is a technology stack. The .NET Runtime is the "virtual machine" that all MSIL runs on. There are many .NET languages, C#, F#, VB.Net, even Python. Each language compiles down into MSIL (byte code) similar to Java. The .NET Runtime then compiles the byte code down into machine language based on the CPU architecture. Teachers who don't have a basic understanding of this have no business teaching students about it. It's not particularly hard to learn about. One only need pick up the Jeffrey Richter book. It's a pretty quick read and you will be very educated about what goes on under the hood afterwards.
NodeJS is a language? Well, if people say things like these now, maybe I really should retire for my own sanity.
Is the issue that it's not a compile time language? If that's what you require for sanity then yes, you should retire to maintain your sanity. You see NodeJS is to Chromium as Java is to JVM as C# is to .NET runtime. In fact, you could lump PHP in there too. If you're not keen on compile time languages decreasing in popularity, you should have retired a long time ago I hate to say. It's just the trend that the industry followed, friend.