That's foolish. Not all, or even a majority of, religious beliefs based on sacred texts. Of those that are, there is rarely broad agreement. Further still, individuals vary rarely understand the tenets of their own professes faith. Very often, they fold other beliefs, from cultural sources or their own misunderstandings, in to their understanding of their faith.
Rather than uniform agreement, as you imply, it would be astonishing to find two individuals who held identical religious beliefs. How, then, can those be anything but personal?
Alternately, how would you suggest Barbie respond to the religious inquiries of a 6-year-old? Would that cause more or less conflict than the current reply?
In my experience, I've never had a student who just "didn't get" programming. I've had a few lose interest, but every last one mastered the basics, with little difficulty.
The literature seems to support my experience as well. This absurd belief that some people just can't code is not.
The spreadsheet was empowering. It's what drove the microcomputer in to the business world. It's still an irreplaceable tool today. For every overgrown nightmare workbook, there are millions of others empowering users and driving the companies forward.
Access is what allowed many small businesses to succeed well enough to outgrow all those "awful" Access databases you hear horror stories about. I've replaced quite a few over the years. Some far worse than others. Still, without those ugly kludges, the companies that depended on them would have gone belly-up long before I came along.
Computing for the masses was the rallying cry for computer hobbyists back in the 70's. It's the reason that you have a home computer. Tools like the spreadsheet and simple languages like BASIC took the power away from the computing priesthood (with their over-priced time-sharing services) and put it in the hands of everyday users. That's a very positive thing.
Would you really rather cede control back to an elite few? Have all your computing needs handled by some third-party for hire? Why would you deny others the ability to become empowered and take control of their computers?
I'd blame the instructor. A lot of people don't realize that teaching is a skill. Just because you understand something doesn't mean you're capable of teaching someone else.
I disagree. Lots of people want to do things that would require them to write code, but they don't know how.
What you want, unsurprisingly, is to keep competition out of the market. If you're afraid that you can't compete, perhaps you should develop other skills?
Programming is incredibly simple, after all. Anyone can learn. Few do, unfortunately, because people like you spread the myth that it's incredibly difficult.
You've elevated programming to a laughable level. It's more in line with basic literacy than it is to higher math or physics.
Programming is ridiculously simple. So simple, in fact, that young children can (and often do) teach themselves. I'd say that would put it below basic literacy if that weren't a necessary prerequisite.
Reading and writing are skills we teach everyone. Anyone, unless severely disabled, can learn to read an write. Yet very few go on to be professional writers. Fewer still are writers worth your time. Yet they're still valuable and, in this modern age, essential skills.
The problem with developers is that every hack out their wants to believe that they're Hemingway. They're not, of course. They're more like a newspaper reporter in charge of covering community events. I suspect every developer, save the hopelessly deluded, understands this. That's why we see so many posts insisting that programming requires a "special mind" or that most students will "just forget" after the class is over. They're modern scribes, lobbying to keep literacy out of the hands of the general public. They have no other skills, and they're terrified that they'll find themselves unemployed.
That's ridiculous, of course. Like writing, programming is a skill. Like all skills, it improves practice. Just as we don't hand out writing jobs to anyone who can hold a pencil, we won't hand out programming jobs to anyone who can bang on a keyboard. Though everyone who can program can benefit from that skill, just as anyone who can read and write can benefit. Just as any literate person can tell a story, leave a note, make a list, etc, so can someone with basic programming skills solve a problem, make a game, or whatever it is that's important to them.
Unless they discover Python. Then they're a lost cause.
So... It wouldn't affect you in any way. That's the point, isn't it?
Though I'll note that all of the professions in your list require higher-education, where they'd learn about evolution anyway, assuming it's relevant. (Many scientists, teachers, nurses, and doctors can practice without giving a thought to evolution as it's just not that important to those professions. Before you say something irrelevant about antibiotics, you're very obviously missing the point.)
As for "make it out of high school", I'll bet a nickle that you could completely fail the evolution portion of a H.S. biology class and still manage a passing grade.
Placing so much importance on evolution, as the OP has, just seems silly. Like I said before, the war was over a long time ago. By continuing to fight like we're still in the middle of battle only enriches people making a buck on the "debate". Michael Shermer and Ken Ham are in the same business -- and profiting handsomely on misplaced outrage.
As I think you might be a bit confused, I'm not saying that it's okay to ignore the subject. It should be taught. But all you're doing when you "fight" these imaginary "battles" is fuel demand for debates and media that make you (and you're equally misguided opponents) feel important because you're on the right side. By perpetuating this nonsense, you're actually creating demand for creationist museaums, videos, books, etc.
You're actively working against your own interests. If that's not foolish, I don't know what is.
I seriously doubt it'll make a significant impact on their children's lives. Consider this: If you denied evolution, would that impact your life in any tangible way?
Given the state of AI research, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
"The only way to keep drones out of no-fly zones is to solve the hardest problem ever." Well, that will certainly motivate them! Surely, now we'll finally see something resembling progress...
A lot of people believe all sorts of wacky things. With few exceptions, it causes absolutely no harm. If Billy and Susie Coalminer don't believe in evolution, the world will get along just fine. We've got more biologists than jobs for them to fill, after all. If we miss gaining a few from some backwater state, so much the better.
The "fight" was over in Dover. All the silly battles and debates afterward only served to put a lot of money into the hands of media skeptics and professional creationists by fueling demand for the conflict. It's not a stretch to say that you played a part in the building of the creation museum or that you helped fund Ray Comforts latest video.
Yes, the reason creationism is a multi-million dollar industry is because of your misplaced priorities.
That's fair. If you're in law enforcement or close to someone who is, I have little doubt that you'd react that way.
Though it does nothing to help bridge the gap between the public and the police. A gap, I should point out, was created by the police through countless instances of harassment, abuse, false testimony, and out-right murder. (Worse, it's become cliche that departments protect, and even reward, these 'bad apples'.) A sizable portion of the law-abiding public live in fear of the police. They're justifiably terrified of the the people that are supposed to protect them!
If you want people like me to see the police the same way you do, things need to change dramatically. If departments across the country continue to act like well-funded street gangs, you'll find that viewpoints like my own will continue to dominate the public consciousness.
If you're an officer, do what you can to clean up your department. If you have friends or family in law enforcement, encourage them to do the same. The status quo isn't beneficial to anyone.
I couldn't care less about the risk to the police. They knew the risks well-ahead of time. (Even though, apparently, it's not nearly as dangerous professions.)
They also pose a surprisingly large threat against the people they've been charged to protect. They've lost any sympathy I may have held for them in the past.
Let me propose an alternative to taking guns away from everyone that helps protect both the police and the general public: give the police nothing but rubber bullets. They'll still manage to kill a few, as they have in the past with their "non-lethal" toys, but it should at least reduce the number of unnecessary deaths at the hands of that publicly-funded street gang.
There was a story a while back about a girl who wrote a novel on an old flip-phone. It made the news because it's absurd. While she managed to write a novel, her instrument of choice was clearly not well-suited to the task.
The same applies to your story.
A cellphone is not a viable substitute for a movie camera, just as a flip phone is not a viable substitute for a word processor. They're completely inadequate.
I've said this before: Just because a task can be done a particular way does not mean that it's a good way, the best way, or equivalent to other methods. This is not complicated.
Anyhow, the fact remains: The iPhone is no substitute for a professional movie camera, for all the reasons you've seen in this thread already as well those that you already understand, but stubbornly refuse to accept.
I should probably let you know that Apple is in no danger of going-out-of-business once the truth of it's inadequacy as a professional movie camera comes to light. You can accept reality here without fear. The iPhone will survive without being the best tool for every imaginable task. It is not that, has never been that, and will never be that. To believe otherwise is simply delusional.
Which is completely unrelated to your initial claims, which you'll quickly discover if you follow my advice here: Consider first what you've proposed, then ask what evidence exists that supports the specific model to which you've alluded.
Then do some reading. A lot of reading, I suspect. You'll discover that what you believe is nothing more than idle speculation, with no evidence to support the claim you made in your earlier post. A lot of work has been done along those lines, none have yet proven fruitful (as it relates to your assertion).
Just because you're beliefs seem "scientific" does not mean that those beliefs are grounded in science. It's better if you learn that now, accept reality and the cold-hard fact that we don't everything there is to know about the universe. To do anything else is to embrace pseudoscience.
All-too-often I see pseudoscience, dressed up in the trappings of science, sold to "science fans" on the singular basis that no supernatural elements are present in their explanation. It's disgusting, but selling nonsense to under-educated skeptics is surprisingly lucrative. Don't be part of the problem you think you're solving.
Yeah, I'd say using a cellphone to film a movie is a pretty stupid idea.
It's not only a matter of quality and infrastructure, as others have pointed out. Can you think of any other reasons that a cellphone is a laughably bad tool? I'll bet a nickel that you can. Why not just accept reality?
But the iPhone is a better camera than professional digital cameras of only a few years ago
What's amazing is that you believe this. I can only speculate as to why. But it's that absurd belief that drives you to make such ridiculous statements like " it's not a bad choice at all for making indie movies." I wouldn't use a cellphone to shoot a kids birthday party, let alone anything professional, for reasons that should be perfectly obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
That's foolish. Not all, or even a majority of, religious beliefs based on sacred texts. Of those that are, there is rarely broad agreement. Further still, individuals vary rarely understand the tenets of their own professes faith. Very often, they fold other beliefs, from cultural sources or their own misunderstandings, in to their understanding of their faith.
Rather than uniform agreement, as you imply, it would be astonishing to find two individuals who held identical religious beliefs. How, then, can those be anything but personal?
Alternately, how would you suggest Barbie respond to the religious inquiries of a 6-year-old? Would that cause more or less conflict than the current reply?
I have a different prediction: This "hack" will continue to function unabated as it won't generate enough interest to warrant action.
In my experience, I've never had a student who just "didn't get" programming. I've had a few lose interest, but every last one mastered the basics, with little difficulty.
The literature seems to support my experience as well. This absurd belief that some people just can't code is not.
Perhaps you're just not a very good instructor?
The spreadsheet was empowering. It's what drove the microcomputer in to the business world. It's still an irreplaceable tool today. For every overgrown nightmare workbook, there are millions of others empowering users and driving the companies forward.
Access is what allowed many small businesses to succeed well enough to outgrow all those "awful" Access databases you hear horror stories about. I've replaced quite a few over the years. Some far worse than others. Still, without those ugly kludges, the companies that depended on them would have gone belly-up long before I came along.
Computing for the masses was the rallying cry for computer hobbyists back in the 70's. It's the reason that you have a home computer. Tools like the spreadsheet and simple languages like BASIC took the power away from the computing priesthood (with their over-priced time-sharing services) and put it in the hands of everyday users. That's a very positive thing.
Would you really rather cede control back to an elite few? Have all your computing needs handled by some third-party for hire? Why would you deny others the ability to become empowered and take control of their computers?
Because programming is far simpler than even basic algebra.
We teach reading, writing, and arithmetic as well. An absurd majority of students manage to graduate both literate and numerate.
I'd blame the instructor. A lot of people don't realize that teaching is a skill. Just because you understand something doesn't mean you're capable of teaching someone else.
What makes you think we're any closer to Kuzweil's delusional fantasy than were 60 years ago?
Relatively few people -want- to code.
I disagree. Lots of people want to do things that would require them to write code, but they don't know how.
What you want, unsurprisingly, is to keep competition out of the market. If you're afraid that you can't compete, perhaps you should develop other skills?
Programming is incredibly simple, after all. Anyone can learn. Few do, unfortunately, because people like you spread the myth that it's incredibly difficult.
You've elevated programming to a laughable level. It's more in line with basic literacy than it is to higher math or physics.
Programming is ridiculously simple. So simple, in fact, that young children can (and often do) teach themselves. I'd say that would put it below basic literacy if that weren't a necessary prerequisite.
Reading and writing are skills we teach everyone. Anyone, unless severely disabled, can learn to read an write. Yet very few go on to be professional writers. Fewer still are writers worth your time. Yet they're still valuable and, in this modern age, essential skills.
The problem with developers is that every hack out their wants to believe that they're Hemingway. They're not, of course. They're more like a newspaper reporter in charge of covering community events. I suspect every developer, save the hopelessly deluded, understands this. That's why we see so many posts insisting that programming requires a "special mind" or that most students will "just forget" after the class is over. They're modern scribes, lobbying to keep literacy out of the hands of the general public. They have no other skills, and they're terrified that they'll find themselves unemployed.
That's ridiculous, of course. Like writing, programming is a skill. Like all skills, it improves practice. Just as we don't hand out writing jobs to anyone who can hold a pencil, we won't hand out programming jobs to anyone who can bang on a keyboard. Though everyone who can program can benefit from that skill, just as anyone who can read and write can benefit. Just as any literate person can tell a story, leave a note, make a list, etc, so can someone with basic programming skills solve a problem, make a game, or whatever it is that's important to them.
Unless they discover Python. Then they're a lost cause.
If only they understood something other than an obscure local language...
Yeah. It wasn't difficult.
So... It wouldn't affect you in any way. That's the point, isn't it?
Though I'll note that all of the professions in your list require higher-education, where they'd learn about evolution anyway, assuming it's relevant. (Many scientists, teachers, nurses, and doctors can practice without giving a thought to evolution as it's just not that important to those professions. Before you say something irrelevant about antibiotics, you're very obviously missing the point.)
As for "make it out of high school", I'll bet a nickle that you could completely fail the evolution portion of a H.S. biology class and still manage a passing grade.
Placing so much importance on evolution, as the OP has, just seems silly. Like I said before, the war was over a long time ago. By continuing to fight like we're still in the middle of battle only enriches people making a buck on the "debate". Michael Shermer and Ken Ham are in the same business -- and profiting handsomely on misplaced outrage.
As I think you might be a bit confused, I'm not saying that it's okay to ignore the subject. It should be taught. But all you're doing when you "fight" these imaginary "battles" is fuel demand for debates and media that make you (and you're equally misguided opponents) feel important because you're on the right side. By perpetuating this nonsense, you're actually creating demand for creationist museaums, videos, books, etc.
You're actively working against your own interests. If that's not foolish, I don't know what is.
Don't be silly. I watched like, a zillion videos, so surely I'm well-qualified for whatever.
Pass the scalpel, I got this brain surgery thing down.
I seriously doubt it'll make a significant impact on their children's lives. Consider this: If you denied evolution, would that impact your life in any tangible way?
Here comes the stretch...
Given the state of AI research, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
"The only way to keep drones out of no-fly zones is to solve the hardest problem ever." Well, that will certainly motivate them! Surely, now we'll finally see something resembling progress...
Hope for what?
A lot of people believe all sorts of wacky things. With few exceptions, it causes absolutely no harm. If Billy and Susie Coalminer don't believe in evolution, the world will get along just fine. We've got more biologists than jobs for them to fill, after all. If we miss gaining a few from some backwater state, so much the better.
The "fight" was over in Dover. All the silly battles and debates afterward only served to put a lot of money into the hands of media skeptics and professional creationists by fueling demand for the conflict. It's not a stretch to say that you played a part in the building of the creation museum or that you helped fund Ray Comforts latest video.
Yes, the reason creationism is a multi-million dollar industry is because of your misplaced priorities.
That's fair. If you're in law enforcement or close to someone who is, I have little doubt that you'd react that way.
Though it does nothing to help bridge the gap between the public and the police. A gap, I should point out, was created by the police through countless instances of harassment, abuse, false testimony, and out-right murder. (Worse, it's become cliche that departments protect, and even reward, these 'bad apples'.) A sizable portion of the law-abiding public live in fear of the police. They're justifiably terrified of the the people that are supposed to protect them!
If you want people like me to see the police the same way you do, things need to change dramatically. If departments across the country continue to act like well-funded street gangs, you'll find that viewpoints like my own will continue to dominate the public consciousness.
If you're an officer, do what you can to clean up your department. If you have friends or family in law enforcement, encourage them to do the same. The status quo isn't beneficial to anyone.
I couldn't care less about the risk to the police. They knew the risks well-ahead of time. (Even though, apparently, it's not nearly as dangerous professions.)
They also pose a surprisingly large threat against the people they've been charged to protect. They've lost any sympathy I may have held for them in the past.
Let me propose an alternative to taking guns away from everyone that helps protect both the police and the general public: give the police nothing but rubber bullets. They'll still manage to kill a few, as they have in the past with their "non-lethal" toys, but it should at least reduce the number of unnecessary deaths at the hands of that publicly-funded street gang.
So... people with firearms knowledge came to it by means of ... divine revelation?
I know that you can't educate the willfully ignorant, but I'm not getting that impression from the OP.
Check to see if he's white?
Isn't that standard police procedure for identifying law-abiding citizens amidst criminals?
I never made that claim.
Of course, you'll deny that as well. Reality doesn't seem to suit you.
There was a story a while back about a girl who wrote a novel on an old flip-phone. It made the news because it's absurd. While she managed to write a novel, her instrument of choice was clearly not well-suited to the task.
The same applies to your story.
A cellphone is not a viable substitute for a movie camera, just as a flip phone is not a viable substitute for a word processor. They're completely inadequate.
I've said this before: Just because a task can be done a particular way does not mean that it's a good way, the best way, or equivalent to other methods. This is not complicated.
Anyhow, the fact remains: The iPhone is no substitute for a professional movie camera, for all the reasons you've seen in this thread already as well those that you already understand, but stubbornly refuse to accept.
I should probably let you know that Apple is in no danger of going-out-of-business once the truth of it's inadequacy as a professional movie camera comes to light. You can accept reality here without fear. The iPhone will survive without being the best tool for every imaginable task. It is not that, has never been that, and will never be that. To believe otherwise is simply delusional.
Which is completely unrelated to your initial claims, which you'll quickly discover if you follow my advice here: Consider first what you've proposed, then ask what evidence exists that supports the specific model to which you've alluded.
Then do some reading. A lot of reading, I suspect. You'll discover that what you believe is nothing more than idle speculation, with no evidence to support the claim you made in your earlier post. A lot of work has been done along those lines, none have yet proven fruitful (as it relates to your assertion).
Just because you're beliefs seem "scientific" does not mean that those beliefs are grounded in science. It's better if you learn that now, accept reality and the cold-hard fact that we don't everything there is to know about the universe. To do anything else is to embrace pseudoscience.
All-too-often I see pseudoscience, dressed up in the trappings of science, sold to "science fans" on the singular basis that no supernatural elements are present in their explanation. It's disgusting, but selling nonsense to under-educated skeptics is surprisingly lucrative. Don't be part of the problem you think you're solving.
Yeah, I'd say using a cellphone to film a movie is a pretty stupid idea.
It's not only a matter of quality and infrastructure, as others have pointed out. Can you think of any other reasons that a cellphone is a laughably bad tool? I'll bet a nickel that you can. Why not just accept reality?
But the iPhone is a better camera than professional digital cameras of only a few years ago
What's amazing is that you believe this. I can only speculate as to why. But it's that absurd belief that drives you to make such ridiculous statements like " it's not a bad choice at all for making indie movies." I wouldn't use a cellphone to shoot a kids birthday party, let alone anything professional, for reasons that should be perfectly obvious.
It's still just idle speculation. Beliefs without evidence, are still beliefs without evidence; no matter how reasonable you believe them to be.