Why not take advantage of a more advanced and mature UI widget set, such as that provided by Java
Java is 20 years old, Javascript is 15 years old, and Java is mature while Javascript is not? Does that extra 5 years really make that much of a difference? Was Java considered not mature in 2005? There are plenty of mature Javascript UI libraries around that developers can take advantage of (ExtJS/Sencha, jQuery, Mootools, etc). There are several use cases where Java is a pain in the ass and an offline application is not an option. A rich internet application implemented in Javascript is perfectly fine for many situations. There's no shoehorn involved when it's the best tool for the job.
Uh, newsflash. It's not about JavaScript, but about the medium JavaScript operates: HTML. The only viable version of it for RIA with consistent behavior *might be* HTML5... and newsflash again, that's not a mature technology.
"I'm not sure what's "offline" about Java"
Not that I disagree with you, but there are plenty of offline applications written in Java, using Swing. Java is not limited to applets and application servers, there is a mature library for standalone/offline application development. As I remember things, the reason we do not see more desktop applications written in Java is the bad reputation Java had in the 90s for taking a long time to loa, and to some degree the fact that Swing does not integrate with the desktop look and feel (or at least it did not the last time I checked, which was admittedly years ago).
The problem is that most Java green horns have never seen anything other than webbie Java applications. Actually, most Java developers (be it junior or uber-senior) have never seen anything other than that (or back-end/workhorse systems not directly connected to web back ends).
So, it is not surprise people have no clue as of Java desktop application. Even now it is still of a bitch to write them, even with designers like Matisse, JBuilder's GUI designer or the Eclipse Rich Client Framework.
I would not be surprised if the percentage of non-thin-client Java development (including but not limited to Swing thick clients) is less than 0.01% - there are literally thousands of Java shops where I live, but I'm only aware of three/four (mine being one) that are not web-client-related.
> Unless our paychecks (and the money we get when we cash them in) are
> a figment of our collective imagination,
Well, actually... unless you get hard gold-backed cash in your hand then yes, your pay is imaginary.
I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the concept of Money Creation
Well, I guess everything I possessed that I've paid out of my salary and that I own in full (as opposed to what I own in credit) is also imaginary. Enter the Matrix!!!
Unless our paychecks (and the money we get when we cash them in) are a figment of our collective imagination, there is strong physical evidence that suggest they indeed do pay us. Maybe not in imaginary worlds, but certainly in the real one.
Since this was the first post asking the question on how to inject sql when paramters are used.
When the statment that parameters do not protect the person who is making the statement wants to beable to pass table names into the select statement, in the FROM portion, and you cannot paramaterize table names.
Yes they are missing the point.
The other example I have been given is they want to pass generate a complete where string pass that through a parameter and expect that the parameter will provide protection.
Except for the very extreme edge cases that need them, what sort of a deviant, over-engineering architectural astronaut code monkey designs a system with pass table names in the general type of web-facing systems?
Assuming one really needs to pass table names, I doubt they would be passed directly as parameters (but instead be computed from them through internal means not derived from their string representations.) And if we really want to push the envelop and indeed want to somehow expose table names that way, just wrap the hole thing in a stored procedure that constructs the SQL statement internally after successful validation and sanitation of parameters (which should be happening no matter what).
All that complexity to protect against attacks to a feature (passing a table name as a parameter) that no sane developer would ever expose in a web-facing system. Oh boy.
One thing for certain is that even when using prepared statements, one still has to validate and sanitize all parameters. More importantly, one has to structure code so as to be able to spot security issues during code inspections (which should also occur no matter what.) Joel Spolsky wrote something to that effect a while ago. People should read that and learn how to code properly rather than trying to find silver clutches : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
Parameterized SQL, or prepared statements, completely prevent SQL injection attacks. They might also speed things up in some circumstances. Why not simply use them exclusively?
I question the need for SQL. Can't we have a simple OO query system? We don't need to write strings of TCL to interact with GUI components.
Are you that naive to think everything can/should be modeled according to the OO paradigm?
Furthermore, what happen when you have terabytes of relational data? Are you going to rewrite it all into a OODB just so that we can execute OO-based queries on them?
... but he couldn't teach kindergartners the concept of load bearing supports. I like the idea, and I applaud the encouragement of sciences etc in school but kindergarten, really?
When people consider the kids ready for religion at kindergarten age, I don't see why they shouldn't be ready for science.
False analogy. Maybe you are trying to make a point, but geez, what a failx0r. Either you are trying to portrait religious people as dogmatic with an equally dogmatic (and erroneous) conclusion, or you are trying to prove the former to be an absurd by assuming the implication of the former with the later to be an absurd. Logic doesn't work that way. I'm amazed that people in/. actually voted that post as interesting. They pretty much become the mirror image of creationists when doing so.
Seriously, that is one of the most egotistical posts I've ever seen on here. Which is saying something.
Sheesh.
And why is that? To be honest, this matches what has been reported as a general observation of how things are. It certainly matches what I've seen in the real world. There is evidence to suggest that you need to collect a certain amount of hours taking things apart and programming to make your CS degree worthwhile. And you don't get that just by cruising through the CS curriculum.
Anecdotal as it might be, my observation has been that decent developers spent a large amount of time programming and taking things apart, time that was *outside* what they did for their courses. Either in the form of internships, working at a computer lab, or simply programming, programming and more programming for fun (sometimes to the detriment of their own homework), that's what makes good developers.
There is no reason for me to see a CS graduate who doesn't understand pointers (I've seen this), even if it is for a Java programming shop. There is a strong relation between knowing the intricacies of pointers and explicit resource management and writing memory-efficient, scalable Java systems. This is just a general observation, one of many. I've also met people who were darned good at development and never actually took a CS course... but they have been playing with hardware since they were teens.
I don't find that post egotistical at all; it reflects reality as we have seen it in the trenches. And I actually found it to be quite objective. If you find it egotistical, that has more to do with *you* than with anything else.
Not everyone is cut out for engineering in general, and software in particular. Testament of this is the mass of crappy, high-schoolish work done by people with 4-year degrees, people who would have never made it past their junior year 15-20 years ago, and who would have been better served at a different type of profession.
you dont need calculus for normal everyday business programming. if you feel you need to be elite, go join the guys in the pride parade.
That depends on what you mean by "everyday business programming". To be honest, if you narrow down "business programming" to writing forms and putting a webbie face to a database table, well, you don't even need a CS degree.
And you don't need do perform integration or differentiation in what we could refer as 'hard-core' business programming, you do need to understand limits and rate of change for discrete mathematics, theory of computation and algorithm analysis. You can' t understand the concepts behind fault tolerance, scalability and high performance (which you need if you work with high volume transaction systems, the heart of biznesses) if you don't understand these.
The very concept of rate of change is crucial in many aspects of life. You can't analyze business trends or write complex systems without knowing that. And you can't get a firm grasp of that without calculus.
Agreed. But corporations dont want you. They want dirt cheap mediocre labor.
It's why instead of hiring a seasoned developer they outsource it for 1/5th your cost to another place and then live with the sub-par result.
They might not want to but they end up having to concede and hire a seasoned developer to clean up the mess... or be stuck with a poorly written system with operational costs running high up (eating up any savings they were expected from off-shoring.)
Doesn't matter what they want, when the rubber hits the road, they have no choice but to hire/re-hire skilled developers back. I've seen this happening in 15 years work. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. It doesn't mean that right now there is no job shortage, but that's a function of the economy as a whole, and not of off-shoring.
In the last 10 years I've worked with 5 different companies were off-shoring played a big rule. There was a lot of job shuffling, but not the catastrophic layoffs people attribute to off-shoring. And every off-shored project going south is simply another opportunity to step up to the plate and clean it up (hopefully as a consultant with paid O/T.). If you are dumb and can't take advantage of it, then yeah, you are at risk of getting the pink slip, but that's on you, not off-shoring or IT as a whole.
The idea that companies can just get rid of skilled labor in favor off-shoring and getting away with it (and that such a thing becomes the status quo of the IT industry) is a fallacy.
Companies think they can save a buck by firing their skilled staff in favor of off-shoring for a 1/5th of a price? Let them. Let them do it and burn as they almost inevitably do. In the meantime, you re-invent yourself in some other slice of the IT sector, cleaning up the mess left by a previous badly managed off-shore effort (and make a good, steady and technically-rewarding living out of it.)
"Agreed. But corporations dont want you."
Two three month spells out of work in 20yrs says that regardless of what they want, they need skilled people.
Exactly. My experience has been that most efforts to offshoring go south real bad, real fast. In fact all this offshoring to mediocre developers have proven a good opportunity for skilled developers (at least for those that have the acumen to play it well).
They end up being hired (or re-hired) as consultants and specialists to clean up the mess. One thing for certain is that not all IT development requires highly skilled labor (in particular if all they do is maintaining dynamic web pages.)
So what we are seeing is a consolidation of work into two categories: one that requires specialized skills, and one that does not. Neither category is going to decrease or increase. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary in all these years of off-shoring hoopla.
Right, that's why we don't reward professions that require a lot of education with money and prestige...oh wait we do.
No, we don't.
Well, that's why most kids say they want to be ditch diggers or work at Wal-Mart or at a slaughterhouse. Oh wait, they don't.
In what industrialized society do you see the majority of kids saying that? How does this contrived statement becomes a statement of fact?
Well, I guess it's like how we don't have a system of higher education that people come from all over the world to learn from...Oops, we do again.
And here is where your line of logic breaks down. I have to break the news to you but academia is not representative of the population at large (and to be honest that is true in any country.) A large sector of the US population is actually "ZOMG MY TAXES!!!@###" hostile of having Chinese and Indian students coming to the US to get their Ph.Ds and become a substantial force in our engineering workforce.
I'm sure that here on/. you have seen plenty apparently college educated people posting "Indian Invasion is ruining IT for everyone, Goobacks Dey tuk er jerbs!" dumb shit.
What was your point again? I'm guessing unlike a lot of the anti-US ranters here, you are actually from the US based on your criticism of US politicians and US TV shows, as if the rest of the world is any better on either of those fronts.
His point is very exaggerated, but it does contain some degree of truth. Yours is equally exaggerated dotted with flat-out fallacies (about how our country rewards people with a lot of education.) For example, what is a lot of education? A Ph.D. in Bio Chemistry, then hell yeah, it pays well. A college degree (which to me passes the minimum threshold of a substantial education)? You should check the salaries of H/S teachers then. A Masters? How much do you think a professor holding a Masters in Mathematics, Physics or Sociology make? Or even a Ph.D holding professor (assuming he's not leading well-funded research center)?
Sorry to break the news: Substantial remuneration for people holding very advanced degrees does not prove your point. There is a substantial number of people having 4-year and master degrees who make decent salaries to get buy, but sometimes not enough to even buy a house. It does not prove either that the general culture of our country is somewhat antagonistic to intellectualism and academia.
His point is extremely exaggerated, and your argument is full of holes. Perfect pair for the penny arcade.
Think about it, instead of assuming I'm trolling, because I'm 100% not at all.
Indian kids do well in the highest levels of spelling competitions. Latin American kids do well in the highest levels of baseball. African American kids do well in the highest levels of basketball and football. Why is that any different from the headline?
You don't get to politically "correctify" you original post. You said this:
Different? Not at all. The strawman is the fact that "we are not supposed to talk about it".
... among some other dumb stuff implying some racial bias in a very blatant way. One thing I agree with you is that you are not trolling. You genuinely believe/care/fear this "ZOMG I can't talk about it" backlash... and that makes it all the dumber.
Why are African Americans so good at Sports? Why are Latin American kids so good at baseball?
Oh wait, those are politically incorrect, isn't it?
No, it is not. Besides, "politically incorrect" means shit. There is "appropriate" or "inappropriate", "right" or "wrong", "logical" or "illogical" (each depending on the context and intention). There is nothing inherently wrong in saying X groups excels or sucks at doing Y (when done analytically). Only dumbfuck people think it is.
We're not allowed to talk about that.
Is that a personal opinion, or a fact in the general case?
How is the article ANY different?
It might appear different... to you! Here, I have two tidbits for you to mentally munch over:
People who actively and unreasonably think these type of inquiries are wrong are mentally barren (and are probably projecting some sort of personal victim-make-believe shit to the rest of the world.)
People who think everybody/the majority/a substantial number of the world thinks like the former group described above, they are also mentally barren, also projecting some sort of personal victim-make-believe shit to the rest of the world and a sociopath chip on the shoulder bigger than Oprah's ass.)
Only those things that are probable. No real scientist would make the claim you are making here now.
It's the one thing it's actually good it. It's basically a process whereby you guess, figure out what the consequences are of that guess, and then see if those consequences exist within reality. And, most importantly, if it doesn't mesh properly with reality it is wrong, absolutely false, no matter how much you love it.
Religion says there was a global flood some 4,000 years ago.
You need to learn a thing or two about commanding the English language before you engage in this kind of crap.
First, which religion to begin with? You can't say "Religion says X" when we know for a fact that multiple religions do not abide by X. So you have be specific about which religion you are talking about.
So perhaps I can help you be more precise in creating your strawman. You are referring to a passage in the old testament, namely the Genesis. And this happens to a passage shared by many people in the Levant and Middle East, all the way back to the Sumerians.
Now, and if had an understanding of religion, ancient literature and social anthropology (which you should if you ever want to engage in this type of discussions without talking out of your ass), you'll know that most major Christian religions teach that this passage should never be taking literally. This is actually written as foot notes in the passages of many bibles.
It is also known the possibility that this ancient event found across Levantine, Akkadian and Sumerian literature might reflect an ancient event (flooding of the Black Sea, lowering and raising of the sea shores and many other similar events during the Younger Dryas.) Given the existing evidence, science would suggest that such ancient myths were a way for ancient people to explain that phenomena.
Science knows this. Most religions do teach that. Only fringe creationist retards think otherwise. And only retarded pseudo-scientist wannabes like to claim they represent religion as a whole.
Science is pretty much the goto-source for calling "bullshit". The fact that you could make up ad hoc and ex post facto reasons to wishy-washy the issue means your theory is crap to begin with. You don't special plead truth into existence.
I have no clue what you are referring to here. Give specifics when building an argument, otherwise, stop pretending to be discussing the merits of science. You are not.
Seems to me that US employers have shown a strong preference for foreign workers. Less than 25% of people who work at IBM were born in the USA, and Bill Gates testifies before the US congress, all the time, saying the US needs to raise H1B caps.
Yeah, and most of those work in the US. I'm sorry but seeing an engineer from India working in the US is not offshoring. We see a lot of foreign-born engineers working here because there is a demand for them. We do not produce sufficient engineers here, and whether people like it or not, many of those produced here suck. To be fair the same is true with an overwhelming number of engineers in India (as many companies have badly found out when trying to offshore.)
Why bother with any kind of tech degree, when you will just have your job offshored anyway. Either that or you will be training your H1B replacement.
Only inexperienced fools believe that. We offshore call centers, we offshore *some* development and IT support so that we work around the clock. I've worked with plenty of offshore teams (good and bad) and with companies that offshore (good and bad). There is nothing, nothing, but nothing that suggest, even remotely suggest the entire engineering disciplines will be replaced by offshoring.
Seriously, rub a pair of neurons together and tell me, how the hell are hospitals, insurance companies, or the military going to offshore their IT and software development efforts and assets? And what about the small company that has its IT group of say, 10 people. This is the typical small setup which constitutes a big chunk of IT work. Do you think they can offshore? Are you capable of grasping the impossibility of it?
Yeah, there are companies that offshore entire projects unsupervised... and they get bitten in the ass. Common offshoring that works to the benefit of US and foreign companies is when 1) you have qualified team leads offshore guiding efforts locally, or 2) qualified leads that are LOCAL leading the effort offshore, or 3) a combination thereof.
If you are so afraid of offshoring, shit, specialize, get an advanced degree, prove your worth, constantly improve your skills, be versatile and adaptable.
Been hearing this shit about offshore replacing since, what, 95? Didn't happen. It ain't happening. It just doesn't work that way. This reminded me of the clueless morons who used to tell me that studying computer science was a bad idea because computers were going to write their own programs and crap... and that got that info from watching Tron or something.
Then you have a very unusual idea of what IT is. It is work relating to technology used for information. Even a librarian in a library that doesn't have any computers counts.
Uh, no. Those would be users interfacing with an IT system.
Those are mostly management and data entry.
The management of an IT company has nothing to do with IT? Data entry has nothing to do with IT? How do you use IT if you don't get the data in?
Again, those are users of IT systems. You can argue they are the reason for an IT organization to exist, but that doesn't make them part of IT. They are part of the business organization that has IT as the backbone. IT people are those that make IT happen, the ones that keeps the backbone running for users to put data in and pull data out. You are confusing a business organization with IT organization (with the later being a component of the former.)
It'd be very rare to find an IT position that does not require any active programming. Maybe with tier I support... and even then it happens that tier I support people have a background in IT/MIS/CS or a 2-year technical degree. And that is why there is so much attrition in tier I support. Barring a moron or a student trying to make ends meet, no one with that type of background and an ounce of ambition can work helping people plug their mice over the phone for more than a year or two.
In general, you'll find people doing all type of programming at different levels for their tasks. Scripts for pushing updates, scripts for automating, oh I dunno, printer monitoring, scripts for testing, scripts for calling tethereal or snoop for troubleshooting network shit, MS office automation, etc. Programming is ancillary to their support functions, and could in theory do their work without it. But anyone competent in any IT function would look for some form of programmatic automation of some of their tasks.
The only exception is the hardware assembly/repair and that is just a factory job, not IT.
People who make house calls to repair someone's PC is somehow a "factory job"? You're not making a lot of sense.
Here, I agree with you. PC repair is not manufacturing. It's assembling, diagnosis and troubleshooting and analysis, core things in IT functions.
So, I could take a usb thumb drive, get it infected with, say, Win32/AutoRun.UG Worm, shove it up my ass, eat a burrito, poop it out and without washing it, plug it into a computer, and yell "Eureka!" when I start getting pr0n-filled popup adds as the worm takes over? The path to science is a weird one.
So you mean they chose MBA students to test the applicability of a device for students' use? They should have considered using real graduate students instead. As a grad student myself, I can say that the only way I would consider a kindle or ipad for my own use is if someone gave it to me for free...
It doesn't matter if it were MBA students or MS/Ph.d EE students since they were testing for usability in the classroom. Probably the study originally focused on MBAs hoping that a positive mark would lead to adoption as a (future) corporate tool.
I sadly reached the same conclusion after buying my Kindle 2 last year. It is excellent for pleasure reading, but horrible for studying. When studying you need to fast-flip through the book, and when doing research, you need to scan dozens of pages at a time to get a sense of structure before zooming in into key areas. None of that is possible with the Kindle.
Let's just say that, given I do very little pleasure reading, but a lot of technical reading, studying and researching (combined with its sub-par support for PDF documents), my Kindle 2 has been the worst investment I've ever made in electronics. I don't think I've ever bought anything that proved to be so useless for the task I intended to use (partly my fault for not doing enough research on this thing.)
In fact, based on my experience with the Kindle ergonomics, it cannot be done with a keypad. You need to go full touch screen with the ability to flip pages as fast as possible... AND (unlike the kindle) with the ability to see really large chunks of text (as close as possible with the original printed versions.)
The iPad (or something similar to it) would pave the way to electronic readers with the ergonomics necessary for studying and researching. The Kindle is really good for pleasure reading, it is really nice. But that's it. And I cannot imagine anyone wanting to pay $489 for it considering that for a few more bucks you can get an iPad (which with its touch screen could prove more suitable for the type of text reading and scanning required for studying and researching.)
I mean, really, I could understand in 2009, but now, who would in his/her right mind pay that much for a Kindle? Amazon is pretty much stuck with spoiled goods on this one.
Is posting bad jokes on Facebook a justifiable reason to give someone the boot?"
All things being equal, the answer is no.
Once you consider the context, it depends. If my jokes involve insulting the company I work for, my managers or co-workers, then yes. Obviously, that was not the case with this person, but it's important to answer this question, given slashdotters' penchant for asking what-would-jeebuz-do open ended questions without context.
In this particular case, look at it like this: One has to be a real idiot to post jokes like that when on that of job... specially after having multiple warnings and write-offs at work. The dispatch department shouldn't have the power to fire her off like that, but it can,and this woman put herself in that situation... after multiple warnings and write-offs, unrelated nonetheless, but she should have known the department was looking for a way to get rid of her.
It's as if I were to work for the Secret Service or the NSA, with multiple warnings and write-offs all the while making jokes or half-assed statements about flying a plane on a building. We don't need to be computer/privacy-savy to exercise rudimentary common sense.
Companies and orgs should not have the power to fire people for stupid jokes plastered on their facebooks... but it happens. If you are that stupid to fall for that, shame on the company for abusing its power, and shame on you for being a moron without an ounce of common sense. I know, I know, freedom of speech and all that, but do you really want to exercise your right to be a clueless moron on a job like that, after multiple warnings and write-offs, without giving it any thought, just because?
Not all religious groups, just those that follow ancient holy texts, and don't think people should do anything at all, because their survival should be solely up to 'god'.
And this qualifies the Catholic church, which is the one you were lambasting, and which is the one that is the focus of this article?
To be honest, I never said ALL,
Yes you did. I can quote every single sentence in your previous posts where you used the word "religious" quite liberally in a very negative connotation, without qualifying who exactly you were referring to. And given that this article was wrt to the specific religious group mentioned in the article (the Catholics), that's the group you were quite liberally painting with the generalization brush.
Whether you did that out of ignorance, stupidity or plain bigotry (or all of the above), only you know.
I am just talking about a typical case.
That's the typical case for you, either based on your own experiences with what you think are typical religious groups, or out of ignorance-fueled bigotry.
The worst thing to do when not knowing a subject is to make blatant generalizations about it.
I made no mention of exclusivity.
And that was your mistake. You should have been exclusive and specific in your negative criticisms. But you were not, you generalized with accusations that pretty much unfounded.
There was no "all christians" just "the religious" which consists of many religions,
You are pulling a generalized definition of "religious" out of your ass for the sake of argument.
and there is a measured tendency to oppose science.
Only for those religious groups that you *think* you know.
How the hell you get a bigoted statement out of that is beyond me.
When you generalize on the negative, that makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word.
If I said fat people had a tendency to be obese, it would be no more bigoted than that.
Nice red herring. Unfortunately you did not in any way said "tendency" anywhere. You did not qualify or quantify your criticisms. The sum of your bullshit is summarized here (bold is mine):
The religious still put science down
That is a generalizing negative statement; that qualifies it as a bigot statement. You didn't say who these religious groups were. If we use the English language the way it is supposed to be used, "the religious" encompasses anyone that practices a religion.
Considering that even now there is a shitload of scientists and academics that are actually religious and practicing, your statement is wrong. Not only wrong, but offensive and negative, hurtful, and most important of all, a generalization.
Here, more for you:
Bigotry (def):A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion.
The term is also used to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
The only reason now you are saying "I didn't say all christians" was because I called you on your blatant generalization. And even with all that, you have not explained how the hell all of your accusations apply to such a diverse group as the Catholics, much less to the specific individuals who endeavored to find the remains of Copernicus (who until then was in an unmarked grave) so that he would be given a proper burial with his name on it.
You didn't even read the fucking article. You simply saw the title, read a few sentences in the/. article, and from there you let you deep seated, negative and anecdotal-based opinions on a group of people run rampant.
Do you still wonder why your statements were bigoted?
Many scientists are responsible for modern theories. The term 'big bang' was actually just bullshit made up by the religious to insult the concept.
Really, I always thought that Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a established scientist and mathematician, given that he was a not only a researcher but a professor of mathematics, astronomy and physics.
But I guess it's cool to be a bigot and ignore the man's credentials just because he was in the clergy.
Back then there weren't the same social issues with hanging or burning someone, at least not to the modern extent.
Back then when? What the hell are you talking about. We are talking about modern scientists and about how, according to you, the church puts modern scientists down.
The religious still put science down to the lowest possible level, even saying it has no logical backing because it is not based on the bible.
Which religious, which religion? Are you that dumb that the only religious movement you know is the fundamentalist, creationist one? The Vatican funds and supports observatories and research centers. I'm not saying it is a perfect organization (shit look at the scandal of pedophilia). But if you can't coherently build your arguments, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
The religious still fight every scientific advancement that does not pertain to their interests.
Which religious groups? Which religions? See, change religious with say, "black", "jew", "homo", "socialist" or whatever aggregation, distinction or nationality, and what you get? A bigot statement. You are just spewing drivel without being able to back it up despite the hard evidence that not just the Catholic church, but many other religious organizations do promote science.
Get your head out of you ass. You seem to have a beef with the established creationist fundamentalists groups in the US (and so do I btw.). But you are as dumb as they are since you seem to be as bigot and willing to generalize.
On the one end of the stupidity spectrum we have the bible nuts calling all scientists the work of the devil.
On the other side, it is you calling all religious groups as anti-science. Congratulations, here is your bigot medal.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not take advantage of a more advanced and mature UI widget set, such as that provided by Java
Java is 20 years old, Javascript is 15 years old, and Java is mature while Javascript is not? Does that extra 5 years really make that much of a difference? Was Java considered not mature in 2005? There are plenty of mature Javascript UI libraries around that developers can take advantage of (ExtJS/Sencha, jQuery, Mootools, etc). There are several use cases where Java is a pain in the ass and an offline application is not an option. A rich internet application implemented in Javascript is perfectly fine for many situations. There's no shoehorn involved when it's the best tool for the job.
Uh, newsflash. It's not about JavaScript, but about the medium JavaScript operates: HTML. The only viable version of it for RIA with consistent behavior *might be* HTML5... and newsflash again, that's not a mature technology.
"I'm not sure what's "offline" about Java" Not that I disagree with you, but there are plenty of offline applications written in Java, using Swing. Java is not limited to applets and application servers, there is a mature library for standalone/offline application development. As I remember things, the reason we do not see more desktop applications written in Java is the bad reputation Java had in the 90s for taking a long time to loa, and to some degree the fact that Swing does not integrate with the desktop look and feel (or at least it did not the last time I checked, which was admittedly years ago).
The problem is that most Java green horns have never seen anything other than webbie Java applications. Actually, most Java developers (be it junior or uber-senior) have never seen anything other than that (or back-end/workhorse systems not directly connected to web back ends).
So, it is not surprise people have no clue as of Java desktop application. Even now it is still of a bitch to write them, even with designers like Matisse, JBuilder's GUI designer or the Eclipse Rich Client Framework.
I would not be surprised if the percentage of non-thin-client Java development (including but not limited to Swing thick clients) is less than 0.01% - there are literally thousands of Java shops where I live, but I'm only aware of three/four (mine being one) that are not web-client-related.
Java's dead because people can never stop bringing up Applets.
Say what???
What the hell are you going to do with gold when the zombie apocalypse comes? Eat it?
No, your currency needs to be backed by canned beans.
Screw canned beans. Back in my countries we back that shit up with chickens and hogs!!!
> Unless our paychecks (and the money we get when we cash them in) are > a figment of our collective imagination,
Well, actually... unless you get hard gold-backed cash in your hand then yes, your pay is imaginary.
I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the concept of Money Creation
Well, I guess everything I possessed that I've paid out of my salary and that I own in full (as opposed to what I own in credit) is also imaginary. Enter the Matrix!!!
we pretend to work; they pretend to pay us
Unless our paychecks (and the money we get when we cash them in) are a figment of our collective imagination, there is strong physical evidence that suggest they indeed do pay us. Maybe not in imaginary worlds, but certainly in the real one.
Since this was the first post asking the question on how to inject sql when paramters are used. When the statment that parameters do not protect the person who is making the statement wants to beable to pass table names into the select statement, in the FROM portion, and you cannot paramaterize table names. Yes they are missing the point. The other example I have been given is they want to pass generate a complete where string pass that through a parameter and expect that the parameter will provide protection.
Except for the very extreme edge cases that need them, what sort of a deviant, over-engineering architectural astronaut code monkey designs a system with pass table names in the general type of web-facing systems?
Assuming one really needs to pass table names, I doubt they would be passed directly as parameters (but instead be computed from them through internal means not derived from their string representations.) And if we really want to push the envelop and indeed want to somehow expose table names that way, just wrap the hole thing in a stored procedure that constructs the SQL statement internally after successful validation and sanitation of parameters (which should be happening no matter what).
All that complexity to protect against attacks to a feature (passing a table name as a parameter) that no sane developer would ever expose in a web-facing system. Oh boy.
One thing for certain is that even when using prepared statements, one still has to validate and sanitize all parameters. More importantly, one has to structure code so as to be able to spot security issues during code inspections (which should also occur no matter what.) Joel Spolsky wrote something to that effect a while ago. People should read that and learn how to code properly rather than trying to find silver clutches : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
Parameterized SQL, or prepared statements, completely prevent SQL injection attacks. They might also speed things up in some circumstances. Why not simply use them exclusively?
I question the need for SQL. Can't we have a simple OO query system? We don't need to write strings of TCL to interact with GUI components.
Are you that naive to think everything can/should be modeled according to the OO paradigm?
Furthermore, what happen when you have terabytes of relational data? Are you going to rewrite it all into a OODB just so that we can execute OO-based queries on them?
When people consider the kids ready for religion at kindergarten age, I don't see why they shouldn't be ready for science.
False analogy. Maybe you are trying to make a point, but geez, what a failx0r. Either you are trying to portrait religious people as dogmatic with an equally dogmatic (and erroneous) conclusion, or you are trying to prove the former to be an absurd by assuming the implication of the former with the later to be an absurd. Logic doesn't work that way. I'm amazed that people in /. actually voted that post as interesting. They pretty much become the mirror image of creationists when doing so.
We are doomed!
I bet you think you have a giant penis too.
Seriously, that is one of the most egotistical posts I've ever seen on here. Which is saying something.
Sheesh.
And why is that? To be honest, this matches what has been reported as a general observation of how things are. It certainly matches what I've seen in the real world. There is evidence to suggest that you need to collect a certain amount of hours taking things apart and programming to make your CS degree worthwhile. And you don't get that just by cruising through the CS curriculum.
Anecdotal as it might be, my observation has been that decent developers spent a large amount of time programming and taking things apart, time that was *outside* what they did for their courses. Either in the form of internships, working at a computer lab, or simply programming, programming and more programming for fun (sometimes to the detriment of their own homework), that's what makes good developers.
There is no reason for me to see a CS graduate who doesn't understand pointers (I've seen this), even if it is for a Java programming shop. There is a strong relation between knowing the intricacies of pointers and explicit resource management and writing memory-efficient, scalable Java systems. This is just a general observation, one of many. I've also met people who were darned good at development and never actually took a CS course... but they have been playing with hardware since they were teens.
I don't find that post egotistical at all; it reflects reality as we have seen it in the trenches. And I actually found it to be quite objective. If you find it egotistical, that has more to do with *you* than with anything else.
Not everyone is cut out for engineering in general, and software in particular. Testament of this is the mass of crappy, high-schoolish work done by people with 4-year degrees, people who would have never made it past their junior year 15-20 years ago, and who would have been better served at a different type of profession.
you dont need calculus for normal everyday business programming. if you feel you need to be elite, go join the guys in the pride parade.
That depends on what you mean by "everyday business programming". To be honest, if you narrow down "business programming" to writing forms and putting a webbie face to a database table, well, you don't even need a CS degree.
And you don't need do perform integration or differentiation in what we could refer as 'hard-core' business programming, you do need to understand limits and rate of change for discrete mathematics, theory of computation and algorithm analysis. You can' t understand the concepts behind fault tolerance, scalability and high performance (which you need if you work with high volume transaction systems, the heart of biznesses) if you don't understand these.
The very concept of rate of change is crucial in many aspects of life. You can't analyze business trends or write complex systems without knowing that. And you can't get a firm grasp of that without calculus.
Agreed. But corporations dont want you. They want dirt cheap mediocre labor.
It's why instead of hiring a seasoned developer they outsource it for 1/5th your cost to another place and then live with the sub-par result.
They might not want to but they end up having to concede and hire a seasoned developer to clean up the mess... or be stuck with a poorly written system with operational costs running high up (eating up any savings they were expected from off-shoring.)
Doesn't matter what they want, when the rubber hits the road, they have no choice but to hire/re-hire skilled developers back. I've seen this happening in 15 years work. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. It doesn't mean that right now there is no job shortage, but that's a function of the economy as a whole, and not of off-shoring.
In the last 10 years I've worked with 5 different companies were off-shoring played a big rule. There was a lot of job shuffling, but not the catastrophic layoffs people attribute to off-shoring. And every off-shored project going south is simply another opportunity to step up to the plate and clean it up (hopefully as a consultant with paid O/T.). If you are dumb and can't take advantage of it, then yeah, you are at risk of getting the pink slip, but that's on you, not off-shoring or IT as a whole.
The idea that companies can just get rid of skilled labor in favor off-shoring and getting away with it (and that such a thing becomes the status quo of the IT industry) is a fallacy.
Companies think they can save a buck by firing their skilled staff in favor of off-shoring for a 1/5th of a price? Let them. Let them do it and burn as they almost inevitably do. In the meantime, you re-invent yourself in some other slice of the IT sector, cleaning up the mess left by a previous badly managed off-shore effort (and make a good, steady and technically-rewarding living out of it.)
"Agreed. But corporations dont want you." Two three month spells out of work in 20yrs says that regardless of what they want, they need skilled people.
Exactly. My experience has been that most efforts to offshoring go south real bad, real fast. In fact all this offshoring to mediocre developers have proven a good opportunity for skilled developers (at least for those that have the acumen to play it well).
They end up being hired (or re-hired) as consultants and specialists to clean up the mess. One thing for certain is that not all IT development requires highly skilled labor (in particular if all they do is maintaining dynamic web pages.)
So what we are seeing is a consolidation of work into two categories: one that requires specialized skills, and one that does not. Neither category is going to decrease or increase. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary in all these years of off-shoring hoopla.
The US is savagely anti-intellectual.
Right, that's why we don't reward professions that require a lot of education with money and prestige...oh wait we do.
No, we don't.
Well, that's why most kids say they want to be ditch diggers or work at Wal-Mart or at a slaughterhouse. Oh wait, they don't.
In what industrialized society do you see the majority of kids saying that? How does this contrived statement becomes a statement of fact?
Well, I guess it's like how we don't have a system of higher education that people come from all over the world to learn from...Oops, we do again.
And here is where your line of logic breaks down. I have to break the news to you but academia is not representative of the population at large (and to be honest that is true in any country.) A large sector of the US population is actually "ZOMG MY TAXES!!!@###" hostile of having Chinese and Indian students coming to the US to get their Ph.Ds and become a substantial force in our engineering workforce.
I'm sure that here on /. you have seen plenty apparently college educated people posting "Indian Invasion is ruining IT for everyone, Goobacks Dey tuk er jerbs!" dumb shit.
What was your point again? I'm guessing unlike a lot of the anti-US ranters here, you are actually from the US based on your criticism of US politicians and US TV shows, as if the rest of the world is any better on either of those fronts.
His point is very exaggerated, but it does contain some degree of truth. Yours is equally exaggerated dotted with flat-out fallacies (about how our country rewards people with a lot of education.) For example, what is a lot of education? A Ph.D. in Bio Chemistry, then hell yeah, it pays well. A college degree (which to me passes the minimum threshold of a substantial education)? You should check the salaries of H/S teachers then. A Masters? How much do you think a professor holding a Masters in Mathematics, Physics or Sociology make? Or even a Ph.D holding professor (assuming he's not leading well-funded research center)?
Sorry to break the news: Substantial remuneration for people holding very advanced degrees does not prove your point. There is a substantial number of people having 4-year and master degrees who make decent salaries to get buy, but sometimes not enough to even buy a house. It does not prove either that the general culture of our country is somewhat antagonistic to intellectualism and academia.
His point is extremely exaggerated, and your argument is full of holes. Perfect pair for the penny arcade.
Please tell me how they're any different?
Think about it, instead of assuming I'm trolling, because I'm 100% not at all.
Indian kids do well in the highest levels of spelling competitions. Latin American kids do well in the highest levels of baseball. African American kids do well in the highest levels of basketball and football. Why is that any different from the headline?
You don't get to politically "correctify" you original post. You said this:
Different? Not at all. The strawman is the fact that "we are not supposed to talk about it".
... among some other dumb stuff implying some racial bias in a very blatant way. One thing I agree with you is that you are not trolling. You genuinely believe/care/fear this "ZOMG I can't talk about it" backlash... and that makes it all the dumber.
Why are African Americans so good at Sports? Why are Latin American kids so good at baseball?
Oh wait, those are politically incorrect, isn't it?
No, it is not. Besides, "politically incorrect" means shit. There is "appropriate" or "inappropriate", "right" or "wrong", "logical" or "illogical" (each depending on the context and intention). There is nothing inherently wrong in saying X groups excels or sucks at doing Y (when done analytically). Only dumbfuck people think it is.
We're not allowed to talk about that.
Is that a personal opinion, or a fact in the general case?
How is the article ANY different?
It might appear different... to you! Here, I have two tidbits for you to mentally munch over:
No. Science can disprove things.
Only those things that are probable. No real scientist would make the claim you are making here now. It's the one thing it's actually good it. It's basically a process whereby you guess, figure out what the consequences are of that guess, and then see if those consequences exist within reality. And, most importantly, if it doesn't mesh properly with reality it is wrong, absolutely false, no matter how much you love it.
Religion says there was a global flood some 4,000 years ago.
You need to learn a thing or two about commanding the English language before you engage in this kind of crap. First, which religion to begin with? You can't say "Religion says X" when we know for a fact that multiple religions do not abide by X. So you have be specific about which religion you are talking about.
So perhaps I can help you be more precise in creating your strawman. You are referring to a passage in the old testament, namely the Genesis. And this happens to a passage shared by many people in the Levant and Middle East, all the way back to the Sumerians.
Now, and if had an understanding of religion, ancient literature and social anthropology (which you should if you ever want to engage in this type of discussions without talking out of your ass), you'll know that most major Christian religions teach that this passage should never be taking literally. This is actually written as foot notes in the passages of many bibles.
It is also known the possibility that this ancient event found across Levantine, Akkadian and Sumerian literature might reflect an ancient event (flooding of the Black Sea, lowering and raising of the sea shores and many other similar events during the Younger Dryas.) Given the existing evidence, science would suggest that such ancient myths were a way for ancient people to explain that phenomena.
Science knows this. Most religions do teach that. Only fringe creationist retards think otherwise. And only retarded pseudo-scientist wannabes like to claim they represent religion as a whole.
Science is pretty much the goto-source for calling "bullshit". The fact that you could make up ad hoc and ex post facto reasons to wishy-washy the issue means your theory is crap to begin with. You don't special plead truth into existence.
I have no clue what you are referring to here. Give specifics when building an argument, otherwise, stop pretending to be discussing the merits of science. You are not.
Seems to me that US employers have shown a strong preference for foreign workers. Less than 25% of people who work at IBM were born in the USA, and Bill Gates testifies before the US congress, all the time, saying the US needs to raise H1B caps.
Yeah, and most of those work in the US. I'm sorry but seeing an engineer from India working in the US is not offshoring. We see a lot of foreign-born engineers working here because there is a demand for them. We do not produce sufficient engineers here, and whether people like it or not, many of those produced here suck. To be fair the same is true with an overwhelming number of engineers in India (as many companies have badly found out when trying to offshore.)
Why bother with any kind of tech degree, when you will just have your job offshored anyway. Either that or you will be training your H1B replacement.
Only inexperienced fools believe that. We offshore call centers, we offshore *some* development and IT support so that we work around the clock. I've worked with plenty of offshore teams (good and bad) and with companies that offshore (good and bad). There is nothing, nothing, but nothing that suggest, even remotely suggest the entire engineering disciplines will be replaced by offshoring.
Seriously, rub a pair of neurons together and tell me, how the hell are hospitals, insurance companies, or the military going to offshore their IT and software development efforts and assets? And what about the small company that has its IT group of say, 10 people. This is the typical small setup which constitutes a big chunk of IT work. Do you think they can offshore? Are you capable of grasping the impossibility of it?
Yeah, there are companies that offshore entire projects unsupervised... and they get bitten in the ass. Common offshoring that works to the benefit of US and foreign companies is when 1) you have qualified team leads offshore guiding efforts locally, or 2) qualified leads that are LOCAL leading the effort offshore, or 3) a combination thereof.
If you are so afraid of offshoring, shit, specialize, get an advanced degree, prove your worth, constantly improve your skills, be versatile and adaptable.
Been hearing this shit about offshore replacing since, what, 95? Didn't happen. It ain't happening. It just doesn't work that way. This reminded me of the clueless morons who used to tell me that studying computer science was a bad idea because computers were going to write their own programs and crap... and that got that info from watching Tron or something.
Let me know if you believe in unicorns too!
None of those I would call IT.
Then you have a very unusual idea of what IT is. It is work relating to technology used for information. Even a librarian in a library that doesn't have any computers counts.
Uh, no. Those would be users interfacing with an IT system.
Those are mostly management and data entry.
The management of an IT company has nothing to do with IT? Data entry has nothing to do with IT? How do you use IT if you don't get the data in?
Again, those are users of IT systems. You can argue they are the reason for an IT organization to exist, but that doesn't make them part of IT. They are part of the business organization that has IT as the backbone. IT people are those that make IT happen, the ones that keeps the backbone running for users to put data in and pull data out. You are confusing a business organization with IT organization (with the later being a component of the former.)
It'd be very rare to find an IT position that does not require any active programming. Maybe with tier I support... and even then it happens that tier I support people have a background in IT/MIS/CS or a 2-year technical degree. And that is why there is so much attrition in tier I support. Barring a moron or a student trying to make ends meet, no one with that type of background and an ounce of ambition can work helping people plug their mice over the phone for more than a year or two.
In general, you'll find people doing all type of programming at different levels for their tasks. Scripts for pushing updates, scripts for automating, oh I dunno, printer monitoring, scripts for testing, scripts for calling tethereal or snoop for troubleshooting network shit, MS office automation, etc. Programming is ancillary to their support functions, and could in theory do their work without it. But anyone competent in any IT function would look for some form of programmatic automation of some of their tasks.
The only exception is the hardware assembly/repair and that is just a factory job, not IT.
People who make house calls to repair someone's PC is somehow a "factory job"? You're not making a lot of sense.
Here, I agree with you. PC repair is not manufacturing. It's assembling, diagnosis and troubleshooting and analysis, core things in IT functions.
So, I could take a usb thumb drive, get it infected with, say, Win32/AutoRun.UG Worm, shove it up my ass, eat a burrito, poop it out and without washing it, plug it into a computer, and yell "Eureka!" when I start getting pr0n-filled popup adds as the worm takes over? The path to science is a weird one.
So you mean they chose MBA students to test the applicability of a device for students' use? They should have considered using real graduate students instead. As a grad student myself, I can say that the only way I would consider a kindle or ipad for my own use is if someone gave it to me for free...
It doesn't matter if it were MBA students or MS/Ph.d EE students since they were testing for usability in the classroom. Probably the study originally focused on MBAs hoping that a positive mark would lead to adoption as a (future) corporate tool.
I sadly reached the same conclusion after buying my Kindle 2 last year. It is excellent for pleasure reading, but horrible for studying. When studying you need to fast-flip through the book, and when doing research, you need to scan dozens of pages at a time to get a sense of structure before zooming in into key areas. None of that is possible with the Kindle.
Let's just say that, given I do very little pleasure reading, but a lot of technical reading, studying and researching (combined with its sub-par support for PDF documents), my Kindle 2 has been the worst investment I've ever made in electronics. I don't think I've ever bought anything that proved to be so useless for the task I intended to use (partly my fault for not doing enough research on this thing.)
In fact, based on my experience with the Kindle ergonomics, it cannot be done with a keypad. You need to go full touch screen with the ability to flip pages as fast as possible... AND (unlike the kindle) with the ability to see really large chunks of text (as close as possible with the original printed versions.)
The iPad (or something similar to it) would pave the way to electronic readers with the ergonomics necessary for studying and researching. The Kindle is really good for pleasure reading, it is really nice. But that's it. And I cannot imagine anyone wanting to pay $489 for it considering that for a few more bucks you can get an iPad (which with its touch screen could prove more suitable for the type of text reading and scanning required for studying and researching.)
I mean, really, I could understand in 2009, but now, who would in his/her right mind pay that much for a Kindle? Amazon is pretty much stuck with spoiled goods on this one.
Is posting bad jokes on Facebook a justifiable reason to give someone the boot?"
All things being equal, the answer is no.
Once you consider the context, it depends. If my jokes involve insulting the company I work for, my managers or co-workers, then yes. Obviously, that was not the case with this person, but it's important to answer this question, given slashdotters' penchant for asking what-would-jeebuz-do open ended questions without context.
In this particular case, look at it like this: One has to be a real idiot to post jokes like that when on that of job... specially after having multiple warnings and write-offs at work. The dispatch department shouldn't have the power to fire her off like that, but it can,and this woman put herself in that situation... after multiple warnings and write-offs, unrelated nonetheless, but she should have known the department was looking for a way to get rid of her.
It's as if I were to work for the Secret Service or the NSA, with multiple warnings and write-offs all the while making jokes or half-assed statements about flying a plane on a building. We don't need to be computer/privacy-savy to exercise rudimentary common sense.
Companies and orgs should not have the power to fire people for stupid jokes plastered on their facebooks... but it happens. If you are that stupid to fall for that, shame on the company for abusing its power, and shame on you for being a moron without an ounce of common sense. I know, I know, freedom of speech and all that, but do you really want to exercise your right to be a clueless moron on a job like that, after multiple warnings and write-offs, without giving it any thought, just because?
Common sense and prudence. They can be useful.
Not all religious groups, just those that follow ancient holy texts, and don't think people should do anything at all, because their survival should be solely up to 'god'.
And this qualifies the Catholic church, which is the one you were lambasting, and which is the one that is the focus of this article?
To be honest, I never said ALL,
Yes you did. I can quote every single sentence in your previous posts where you used the word "religious" quite liberally in a very negative connotation, without qualifying who exactly you were referring to. And given that this article was wrt to the specific religious group mentioned in the article (the Catholics), that's the group you were quite liberally painting with the generalization brush.
Whether you did that out of ignorance, stupidity or plain bigotry (or all of the above), only you know.
I am just talking about a typical case.
That's the typical case for you, either based on your own experiences with what you think are typical religious groups, or out of ignorance-fueled bigotry.
The worst thing to do when not knowing a subject is to make blatant generalizations about it.
I made no mention of exclusivity.
And that was your mistake. You should have been exclusive and specific in your negative criticisms. But you were not, you generalized with accusations that pretty much unfounded.
There was no "all christians" just "the religious" which consists of many religions,
You are pulling a generalized definition of "religious" out of your ass for the sake of argument.
and there is a measured tendency to oppose science.
Only for those religious groups that you *think* you know.
How the hell you get a bigoted statement out of that is beyond me.
When you generalize on the negative, that makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word.
If I said fat people had a tendency to be obese, it would be no more bigoted than that.
Nice red herring. Unfortunately you did not in any way said "tendency" anywhere. You did not qualify or quantify your criticisms. The sum of your bullshit is summarized here (bold is mine):
The religious still put science down
That is a generalizing negative statement; that qualifies it as a bigot statement. You didn't say who these religious groups were. If we use the English language the way it is supposed to be used, "the religious" encompasses anyone that practices a religion.
Considering that even now there is a shitload of scientists and academics that are actually religious and practicing, your statement is wrong. Not only wrong, but offensive and negative, hurtful, and most important of all, a generalization.
Here, more for you:
Bigotry (def):A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion.
The term is also used to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
The only reason now you are saying "I didn't say all christians" was because I called you on your blatant generalization. And even with all that, you have not explained how the hell all of your accusations apply to such a diverse group as the Catholics, much less to the specific individuals who endeavored to find the remains of Copernicus (who until then was in an unmarked grave) so that he would be given a proper burial with his name on it.
You didn't even read the fucking article. You simply saw the title, read a few sentences in the /. article, and from there you let you deep seated, negative and anecdotal-based opinions on a group of people run rampant.
Do you still wonder why your statements were bigoted?
Many scientists are responsible for modern theories. The term 'big bang' was actually just bullshit made up by the religious to insult the concept.
Really, I always thought that Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a established scientist and mathematician, given that he was a not only a researcher but a professor of mathematics, astronomy and physics.
But I guess it's cool to be a bigot and ignore the man's credentials just because he was in the clergy.
Back then there weren't the same social issues with hanging or burning someone, at least not to the modern extent.
Back then when? What the hell are you talking about. We are talking about modern scientists and about how, according to you, the church puts modern scientists down.
The religious still put science down to the lowest possible level, even saying it has no logical backing because it is not based on the bible.
Which religious, which religion? Are you that dumb that the only religious movement you know is the fundamentalist, creationist one? The Vatican funds and supports observatories and research centers. I'm not saying it is a perfect organization (shit look at the scandal of pedophilia). But if you can't coherently build your arguments, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
The religious still fight every scientific advancement that does not pertain to their interests.
Which religious groups? Which religions? See, change religious with say, "black", "jew", "homo", "socialist" or whatever aggregation, distinction or nationality, and what you get? A bigot statement. You are just spewing drivel without being able to back it up despite the hard evidence that not just the Catholic church, but many other religious organizations do promote science.
Get your head out of you ass. You seem to have a beef with the established creationist fundamentalists groups in the US (and so do I btw.). But you are as dumb as they are since you seem to be as bigot and willing to generalize.
On the one end of the stupidity spectrum we have the bible nuts calling all scientists the work of the devil.
On the other side, it is you calling all religious groups as anti-science. Congratulations, here is your bigot medal.