In some debates, one side is RIGHT, and one side is WRONG.
In this debate, both sides are wrong. The core problem isn't what's being forcibly taught to children, but the fact that children are being forcibly taught to begin with. People who use the power of government to get their own beliefs/theories taught to the children of other people are being political and are tyrants.
If we allow politicians the right to decide what is true in science, we are well and truly screwed.
What do you think this whole thing is about? BOTH SIDES want political control over your kids. The Federal Government telling Kansas what they can or cannot teach is political. The State of Kansas telling its school boards what they can or cannot teach is political. Local school boards comprised of elected politicians deciding what children shall be taught is political. As long as peoples' lives and the lives of their children are being run by governments, the issue is *political*.
What's wrong with shilling for money? It's a great skill to learn. Eventually you'll get out of college, and you will have to start shilling something. Even if it's just shilling yourself to an employer during an interview, it's still shilling.
I think it's great. It teaches kids salesmanship and entepreneurship. Much better than sitting in Socialism 101 and hearing about how horrible the world is.
You don't like the product they're selling? Don't buy it!
Give them time. Right now they're in fantasyland with no cares at all. They're still in government-indoctrination mode, which started at age six.
Wait until they get out into the real world. Four days having to pay their own rent instead of leeching of mom/dad/gov will install more sense into their heads than four whole years of you yelling at them.
My other post was sarcastic. I am sorry. What I meant to say is that oil will not run out because we will switch to alternatives before that happens. The switch may be painful, but it will happen.
We're not running out of oil because it's economically impossible. Yet even people who have studied economics can be found who believe it.
Here's why we won't run out: as oil becomes scarcer, its price increases. As the price increases, people will use less of it as their either conserve or find alternatives. As the price continues to rise, more and more alternatives become feasible. You also get previously prohibitive oil sources put into production as well, such as oil shales.
At some point oil will cease being an economic product. That will be some time BEFORE the oil runs out completely. It may be very scarce, but it will still exist. We will not use it all up.
Only if you think that the impossible will happen, that our consumption patterns will not change in the face of increasing scarcity, would we ever run out of oil.
Better yet, go ask your average citizen if recycling will "save the planet". Heck, ask an intelligent university trained scientist if we're running out of oil, and he'll probably give you the wrong answer of "yes".
I don't use Linux, but FreeBSD instead. There are several reasons for this, but mainly it's the nostalgia factor. I started out using BSD UNIX twenty years ago. A secondary reason is that it's reasonably free from the socio-political coloration that Linux has. I'm using an OS to do stuff, not to change the world or fight injustice or make people like me. Most people in the Linux community are NOT this way, but enough are that it's a steady low level irritant.
Every time I hear the phrase "Linux needs to do [whatever] in order to beat Microsoft", I'm glad I'm using an OS that doesn't have a monopolistic "world domination" as its goal.
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"
But isn't that exactly what is happening here? The rest of your post is interesting, but just because a particular argument doesn't fit its examples precisely and exactly doesn't mean that it is not an ad hominem argument.
When a person's ideas are rejected specifically because of who the person is, then an ad hominem argument is being made. An untrustworthy/biased/politically-incorrect man's should always be double checked, but to simply reject an *idea* because of who its proponent is, is wrong.
The OP post was correct, in that we SHOULD consider the author. But not as an argument to reject the premise (OO.org is bloated), but as a warning to get a second opinion or to investigate for yourself.
Bloat and speed are problems, but are they the huge problems everyone here is making them out to be? Startup time is abysmal, but once it's started, opening a document never takes more than two or three seconds for me. Responsiveness is never a problem.
Yes, it falls behind MSOffice in this regard, but it makes up for it in spades. It's major advantage is that it's EASIER to use! Those weaned and raised on Word may not see it, because to them there is only One True way to write a document, but OO.org does styles and templates right. It lets you edit your content without having to spend half an hour twiddling with the layout. It doesn't get in your way!
I want my bookkeeper to know how to do long division. He may use Quicken instead of paper and pencil to crunch my numbers, but damnit, if he can't do long division, I don't want him near my money!
It's the same thing with professional web developers. I don't care what tools they use, as long as they *know* HTML, CSS, scripting, etc. But I've actually met "professional" web developers that didn't know HTML.
The fact that this is written by Petzold carries a lot of weight. When the world's leading how-to-progam-Windows person says VS rots the brain, maybe, just maybe, management will listen.
Slashdot Mirror
In some debates, one side is RIGHT, and one side is WRONG.
In this debate, both sides are wrong. The core problem isn't what's being forcibly taught to children, but the fact that children are being forcibly taught to begin with. People who use the power of government to get their own beliefs/theories taught to the children of other people are being political and are tyrants.
It's time for a separation of School and State.
If we allow politicians the right to decide what is true in science, we are well and truly screwed.
What do you think this whole thing is about? BOTH SIDES want political control over your kids. The Federal Government telling Kansas what they can or cannot teach is political. The State of Kansas telling its school boards what they can or cannot teach is political. Local school boards comprised of elected politicians deciding what children shall be taught is political. As long as peoples' lives and the lives of their children are being run by governments, the issue is *political*.
Wow. Clinton was a Republican. I never knew that.
What's wrong with shilling for money? It's a great skill to learn. Eventually you'll get out of college, and you will have to start shilling something. Even if it's just shilling yourself to an employer during an interview, it's still shilling.
I think it's great. It teaches kids salesmanship and entepreneurship. Much better than sitting in Socialism 101 and hearing about how horrible the world is.
You don't like the product they're selling? Don't buy it!
Give them time. Right now they're in fantasyland with no cares at all. They're still in government-indoctrination mode, which started at age six.
Wait until they get out into the real world. Four days having to pay their own rent instead of leeching of mom/dad/gov will install more sense into their heads than four whole years of you yelling at them.
My other post was sarcastic. I am sorry. What I meant to say is that oil will not run out because we will switch to alternatives before that happens. The switch may be painful, but it will happen.
My apologies. You are absolutely correct. We will keep using oil at the same rate as today until it's suddenly all gone. What was I thinking.
Yet somehow when I mentioned elitist intellectuals the topic of small town provincialism came up.
We're not running out of oil because it's economically impossible. Yet even people who have studied economics can be found who believe it.
Here's why we won't run out: as oil becomes scarcer, its price increases. As the price increases, people will use less of it as their either conserve or find alternatives. As the price continues to rise, more and more alternatives become feasible. You also get previously prohibitive oil sources put into production as well, such as oil shales.
At some point oil will cease being an economic product. That will be some time BEFORE the oil runs out completely. It may be very scarce, but it will still exist. We will not use it all up.
Only if you think that the impossible will happen, that our consumption patterns will not change in the face of increasing scarcity, would we ever run out of oil.
See what I mean?
The Pope is from Germany, not the Deep South of the US.
Better yet, go ask your average citizen if recycling will "save the planet". Heck, ask an intelligent university trained scientist if we're running out of oil, and he'll probably give you the wrong answer of "yes".
I would guess that the cause of that are the "intellectuals" and their elitist attitudes.
I don't use Linux, but FreeBSD instead. There are several reasons for this, but mainly it's the nostalgia factor. I started out using BSD UNIX twenty years ago. A secondary reason is that it's reasonably free from the socio-political coloration that Linux has. I'm using an OS to do stuff, not to change the world or fight injustice or make people like me. Most people in the Linux community are NOT this way, but enough are that it's a steady low level irritant.
Every time I hear the phrase "Linux needs to do [whatever] in order to beat Microsoft", I'm glad I'm using an OS that doesn't have a monopolistic "world domination" as its goal.
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"
But isn't that exactly what is happening here? The rest of your post is interesting, but just because a particular argument doesn't fit its examples precisely and exactly doesn't mean that it is not an ad hominem argument.
When a person's ideas are rejected specifically because of who the person is, then an ad hominem argument is being made. An untrustworthy/biased/politically-incorrect man's should always be double checked, but to simply reject an *idea* because of who its proponent is, is wrong.
The OP post was correct, in that we SHOULD consider the author. But not as an argument to reject the premise (OO.org is bloated), but as a warning to get a second opinion or to investigate for yourself.
When you make an argument based on WHO THE PROPONENT IS, then you are making an ad hominem argument.
Bloat and speed are problems, but are they the huge problems everyone here is making them out to be? Startup time is abysmal, but once it's started, opening a document never takes more than two or three seconds for me. Responsiveness is never a problem.
Yes, it falls behind MSOffice in this regard, but it makes up for it in spades. It's major advantage is that it's EASIER to use! Those weaned and raised on Word may not see it, because to them there is only One True way to write a document, but OO.org does styles and templates right. It lets you edit your content without having to spend half an hour twiddling with the layout. It doesn't get in your way!
I want my bookkeeper to know how to do long division. He may use Quicken instead of paper and pencil to crunch my numbers, but damnit, if he can't do long division, I don't want him near my money!
It's the same thing with professional web developers. I don't care what tools they use, as long as they *know* HTML, CSS, scripting, etc. But I've actually met "professional" web developers that didn't know HTML.
If you think Google was written with Dreamweaver, please share whatever you've been smoking.
Actually, Kate plus Designer does that slower, less efficiently, and its delivery is less aesthetically pleasing.
I can launch Kate, edit a function, connect it to a signal via Designer, and start compiling, all in the time it takes VS.NET to slide out a sidebar.
Whoo! Slack forever now baby! It's not my fault. If they fire me I'll sue under the ADA!
The preceeding post has been an attempt at humour. The poster takes no responsibility for your livelihood should you enact preceeding suggestion.
Code/syntax highlighting
Structure/layout
Designing graphical aspects (forms, window layouts, etc.)
And others
Actually, Kate plus Designer does that.
You had 0s? You wuz lucky! We were too poor to afford base-1, and had to make do by typing "zerozerozerozerozero...". I'm the better man now for it!
The fact that this is written by Petzold carries a lot of weight. When the world's leading how-to-progam-Windows person says VS rots the brain, maybe, just maybe, management will listen.