What you say has a couple of issues, that need to be clarified, I think. I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, but in the interest of honesty, I think it is important to highlight them.
Firstly, the idea of money as a measure of value relies on trust: a coin or a banknote is an IOU, basically, and it is only of value if you know it will be honoured. How does one know that bitcoins will be honoured - that they have value? And is that guarantee as solid as, say, the USD or the RMB, which are backed by large, strong governments? I don't know, but I suspect not.
Secondly, a currency that flies under the radar can and will be used for criminal activities; such as tax evasion. It may be that you think tax evasion isn't a crime, at least morally, but remember that tax is what pays for government funded projects. In most countries that includes infrastructure - like roads, water supply networks, etc. Less tax means less money for everything that benefits the public. And of course, there are crimes more serious than that: drugs, people trafficking, and so on, not to mention white collar crime. You know, the sort that means that honest, hard working Americans hove lost everything, while the criminals themselves can hardly move for bonuses.
Thirdly, you seem to think that the state should be dismantled; that the state is only ever a bad thing. Well, take a look around at the places where the state has broken down and tell me which part of it you like: no roads, no doctors, no education, no electricity, no water, no jobs, serious crime everywhere. Personally, it's not for my taste.
The Chinese government tried pushing Linux in the past, research âoeRed Flagâ Linux. It was a failure.
Red Flag, as far as I remember, is a clone of Redhat; and while Redhat has many good qualities, it is more of a server OS and less of a desktop one. Ubuntu is not a favourite of mine either, but it is certainly bleeding edge, if anything, and wouldn't be at all surprised if this could actually take off with the Chinese. Put on top of that the fact that Linux's multiligual support is in fact superior to Windows'. No, I am quite optimistic about this.
Further, it lacks the games that the Chinese want (also free).
I don't know - when I watch my children's use of computer games, I can see that they clearly prefer the ones that are free, online and browser based. They seem to work on both Windows, MacOS and Linux.
I thnik most people's way of playing tends to be more something they do in between, like when waiting for the bus or whatever, and they like something that is more light entertainment rather than mind-blowing, all-absorbing, ultra-realistic etc.
Free as in speech has no ring to the Chinese ear. The issue is broken down to choosing between two flavours of free beer.
Yeah right, and they all look the same to you anyway, am I right? You just lost my respect.
Well, of course. Even if the president of a nation was as powerful as people in America seem to think, he is still only the captain of the mega-supertanker powering ahead at 20 knots. Even if he slams the rudder all the way to one side, nothing is going to happen for a long, long time; and even then, there is no guarantee that what happens is what the captain intended.
As anybody who has tried steering a boat will know, the best way is to look far ahead and start turning slowly long before you hit the lighthouse. The problem in the US, of course, is that you change the captain every five minutes, relatively speaking, and each one want to turn the opposite way of the previous one.
The real problem comes in when less honest entities confuse "lobbying" and "bribing", and when (on purpose or by design) they confuse the lobbyist's interest with the public interest.
I disagree - the real problem is about separation of powers. Just like the Police should not be aloowed to write the laws they enforce, the people who exert power in the market should not be allowed to write the laws that regulate their acitivities, and for the very same reasons: such a mixing together of interests can and will be abused. As we see on an ongoing basis. I am well aware that any legislature has a legitimate need to consult the business community, but corporate lobbying goes far beyond consultation.
Google lobbying for "a free and open internet" is BS, to be honest. "Freedom" has become such a malleable word that it has next to no real meaning. In most cases it means no more than "I don't want to be held accountable for my actions"; it means "my freedom, and screw you". It is parsecs removed from the "freedom" in "Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood". Just because a big corporation has occasionally done things that are good, it doesn't mean that they are good in any meanful sense of the word. As they say, Hitler was very kind to his dogs.
I for one think the government needs to be OUT of the marriage racket.
On the contrary - marriage only has significance as a legal construction governing the practicalities of living in an ongoing relationship; hence it has to be set in legislation and legislation must come from the state in the proper way. Marriage should be something that is completely removed from religion - that is how it used to be, until the Christian church decided to invent the "sacrament of marriage" some time around the Renaissance or thereabouts, if my memory serves me.
Religious institutions can choose to bless a marriage if they so choose, but they don't own the bloody thing, in my opinion.
How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?
For my part, not a lot. I think modern computer games (modern movies) are far too focused on "amazing effects" and too little on content; as it is, I still find the old COLOSSAL CAVES (it that old, so it requires all caps) game better than things like WoW. A good game should challenge you, it should stretch your imagination, it should be witty, intelligent, engaging and imaginative.
Here is what I would like to see in a game:
The game universe should be physically plausible - ie, things thrown should follow a path determined by plausible, physical forces like gravity etc. Just imagine the possibilities in simulating a radically different physical reality - relitivistic or quantum effects, or possibly one where gravity is not of the standard, Newtonian shape, or a non-istropic universe.
The environment should be plausible - I find it quite off-putting when biology, characters or cultures are nothing more than objects to smash or navigate around/over/through.
It would be good if the game universe is one you would like to explore, even without actually playing the game. And it would be good if there wasn't just one game plan, but a number of different, possible games that would function on their own, but all happen in a setting where they occasionally brush against each other.
A good exampe of something that has many of the features is Crossfire (see http://crossfire.real-time.com/) - it also illustrates that graphics don't have to be very good to make a game enjoyable. It isn't a physically plausible universe, but it scores on many of the other points I mentioned.
Whoever it was, is a complete moron, I suspect. This kind of attack can - and will - be used against everybody else in turn. And if you can interfere with the functioning of valves and other HW, then you can also find a way to cause leakage of hazardous materials.
How about a major leak in a bio-warfare lab in the States? Would we like that?
My biggest worry in life is that I don't manage to live enough. When we die, we just cease to exists, I think, so it is important to live while you are here. It may be nice for you descendants to have some memory, but IMO the best gift one can give one's children is a good set of skills for life - not just a formal education, but how to handle all the other things life throws at you.
Personally, I'm not much in favour of leaving a cold headstone behind - I'd hate to think of the waste of money on something like that. It would be a nice thought if my ashes were buried under a nice tree somewhere in a place not too near a city development, so it could grow on and be beautiful or useful for a long time.
That name sounds a bit like IBM's 'Deep Blue', the chess computer. But I think it is too reminiscent of the BSOD - can I suggest they change the name to something like 'Deep Brown'? It somehow feel more right, all things considered.
I wouls like to believe that you had actually made the effort to read and understood what I wrote, but that clearly isn't the case.
Sadly, I see your kind of arguments all too often - you argue like an American fringe politician: you take whatever an opponent says and deliberately misinterpret it in the way that seems to cast the opponent in the worst light.
In this case you didn't even notice that I was arguing for the same side as you seem to favour, with the modification that I am willing to consider sound evidence. And that is the sound, scientific approach - you have to be open to the possibility that your opinion may be wrong. With your words you have demonstrated that your mind is closed, so what can you actually tell us about being scientific?
The millions murdered in World War 1 & 2 never played video games.
What has that to do with anything? That's a bit like saying "my granddad smoked like a chimey and lived 'til he was 95, so smoking isn't unhealthy".
It is very difficult to prove that violent video games cause an increase in violence; as a point of interest, it is in fact even harder to disprove. It is not impossible, however, and we are slowly beginning to see something emerge, which looks a bit like proof.
A civilized person doesn't want to beat the living crap out of another person
And yet, one can not deny that the Nazi elite were in many respects very civilized. That apart, I don't think anger is the main driver of violence; lack of self-control is, and if you don't care about the wellbeing of others, you lack the motivation to even try. IMO, the biggest worry is that when you are more or less constantly immersed in violence as entertainment, you learn to be indifferent to suffering, and perhaps you then don't see the need to restrain yourself in a critical situation.
The media often try to link the big, spectacular massacres with eg vioelnt games; I don't think that is valid. A more likely explanation which I have heard recently, is that these persons suffer from narcissistic personality disorder: to a narcissist, other people are of no consequence - they alone are the centre of the universe, and they can get extremely upset and frustrated because nobody can see the truth in this. And a dramatic show of extreme violence is just their style, or so one could imagine.
Which is of course the answer to any question about when will the web have X? When the porn industry wants to make more money.
Nonsense. Just for one thing, the porn industry is struggling desperately, so they must by necessity be looking for more money.
The reason the internet exists, and the reason it is successful now, is that it makes it easy to exchange information; whether it is mindless tripe or useful is another matter, of course. Information is either written - which is 1 dimensional - or visual, which is 2 dimensional because that is what our eyes are made for. 3 dimensional vision is only an illusion, something of an afterthought in evolutionary terms, and it doesn't really add much extra to our perception and understanding of information.
They've tried 3D cinema for decades already, and as the most recent attempts have shown - again - it arouses a bit of interest for a short while, then fades away. The necessary technology is expensive and cumbersome, and the benefits are modest - so why do it, really?
Could we please try to stop using words like "conservative" (and "communist", etc etc etc) so frivolously? You are not conservative if you try to hide from reality; "deluded" or simply "stupid" is closer to reality - that, and massively selfish in the case of trying to stop others from learning the facts. These people don't care about things like responsibility or decency, they just care about their own, short term profits - that is after all how you get rich in this world. They don't deserve to be honoured with the word "conservative".
I have a lot of time for the viewpoints of a genuine conservative; I am not conservative myself, but I recognise that other viewpoints may be valid, and it really makes me quite angry when I meet this sort of underhanded and dishonest crap. In the long run it only serves to discredit even those who are genuinely skeptical about climate change, and to a scientist that is worrying, even if you are convinced about the reality of the thing and about who is to blame. You see, none of us knows it all, and we have to strive to learn from each other; but it can't happen unless both sides are trustworthy.
I don't know - a space is a set with some structure: vector space, topological space,... What makes it stupid is that people stat imagining it being like the real world around us.
Well, it is even more wide ranging than that, isn't it? It is not as if Christian fundamentalism is the only belief that disagrees with evolution. The Bible tale is only a tiny part of that thing.
However, if this is about teaching science, then it must start with exactly that: science - scientific method, evidence based research, falsification of theory. If one wants to call science "faith", then one has to specify what that faith is: the belief that the truth must follow from logical conclusions and that all evidence must be independently verifiable. Would ID fit into that? My bet is that the students would look right through it and make jokes about it.
Re:If a technology is outdated, outsource it.
on
COBOL Will Outlive Us All
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
So, you didn't like to work on a mainframe, then?
But don't slag off the mainframe just because it is 'old' technology - the PC architecture isn't all that young either, and the mainframe, believe it or not, is in fact very VERY much on the technological forefront, hardware wise. Mainframes had fiber attached disks before most modern developers had heard of networking.
Big to huge institutions don't use mainframes because they are too backwards thinking, but because of reliability. In an industry where downtime costs millions to tens of millions per minute, that counts a lot. On a mainfram you can hot-swap just about everything - not just disks, but everything. And if you wish, you can run Linux on it as well; but it is amazing how often the choice is MVS and COBOL; that is because they are just what you need - not multitools like UNIX and C, just a plain old knife meant for cutting only.
Ever heard about Big Data? That's where companies use software to identify people from their postings on popular forums - LinkedIn, Twitter,... I work in a company that produces this kind of SW. We are doing well.
I suspect I never started using flash - I have used Linux exclusively for at least 10 years, and I have always removed all plugins from the browser. It's only 2 years ago the I started having even a Java plugin. I have recently installed flash, but I keep it deactivated with NoScript and only use it for the very few occasions when it is essential, and that number seems to be falling.
I have no animations, no flash, no JavaScript for most of the time, and it is great. I can only recommend it, although it does require you to think a tiny bit more when you find websites that don't work.
Yes: As China grows in importance, Chinese holidays do become more important - when the Chinese are taking time off, we can't trade with them. Also, there is a growing interest in Chinese culture, and with interest comes a desire to take part, so why not? It's good fun, after all.
No: Religious holidays are a thing of the past, and state and religion should be completely separate any way, since we are no longer religious monocultures. So, rather than introducing more, we should get rid of Christmas, Easter etc as public holidays and instead give people a flexible quota of holidays on top of their current allowance which they can use as the see fit.
Is it any surprise that the Federal govt. has knee-jerked and not thought through the repercussions, or the real-world applicability of their solutions?
I can't see why you call it a knee-jerk reaction. When you start on anything new, you have to set out the goals before you can address the problems that will have to be resolved before you can get to the solution.
On the other hand, your unthinking attack on the government simply because it is the government - that looks a lot like knee-jerk reaction to me.
Isn't WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch, famous spy-master? They certainly know how to recognise hacking if anyone does.
...possibly connected to China's military...
I call FUD on this one. To me it seems just as valid to suggest that they were "possibly connected to [Israel|Iraq|North Korea|...]'s military". Spoofing IP addresses or using a hacked computer in another country are some of the oldest tricks in the book; even I can do that. And so is lying in newpaper articles; of course, the Murdochs would never do that.
True, but like it's a waste of time to teach science before the kids have learned mathematics, it's also the optimal order in IT to teach the theory first.
First of all, maths is a good tool for science, but only a minor part of science depends on it, and only a small part of maths is directly useful for the hard sciences; the field of mathematics is many orders of magnitude larger than the few disciplines employes inphysics, statistics etc. Furthermore, science is a way of thinking and working - "The Scientific Method" - and it is perfectly possible to do without any maths at all. You observe, you make a guess at an explanation, you refine your explanation by falsifying predictions based on your explanation, this is science, and even toddlers can begin to understand it.
The same applies in IT. You make your experiences with computers without understanding much of it at first, etc etc. Learning the theory is useful, certainly, but if it was the best way, then we wouldn't have all these 10-year olds who are so bloody clever with their computers, would we? The point of letting young children experience computers is not that they whould all become super programmers, but simply that they should be familiar with technology and comfortable about using it.
This whole discussion is rather on the silly side, I feel. I think in many ways the great era of hardcore programming is behind us. There will probably always be a need for people with a good understanding of computers at all levels, but all the big fundamentals have been covered already and we are just filling in the gaps now. I don't think there is going to be a huge need in the future.
For all that time, free university, free medical expenses...
F*ck socialism, it killed my country.
I don't mind who or what you want to have intercourse with, but this has little to do with socialism and everything to do with capitalism. You see, education may be free for domestic students, at least in France, but it is something the universities sell to overseas students. Go ahead, look into it, why don't you? Go to any university's web pages, look under 'International Students' and then find the fees page; it certainly isn't free. In fact, it is a significant income for any university, which is why they are all keen on having overseas students.
And France is still one of the loveliest, most vibrantly alive countries in the world. Where is your self confidence? Is your culture really so feeble that it can't survive contact with the surrounding world? I don't believe that.
Slashdot Mirror
What you say has a couple of issues, that need to be clarified, I think. I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, but in the interest of honesty, I think it is important to highlight them.
Firstly, the idea of money as a measure of value relies on trust: a coin or a banknote is an IOU, basically, and it is only of value if you know it will be honoured. How does one know that bitcoins will be honoured - that they have value? And is that guarantee as solid as, say, the USD or the RMB, which are backed by large, strong governments? I don't know, but I suspect not.
Secondly, a currency that flies under the radar can and will be used for criminal activities; such as tax evasion. It may be that you think tax evasion isn't a crime, at least morally, but remember that tax is what pays for government funded projects. In most countries that includes infrastructure - like roads, water supply networks, etc. Less tax means less money for everything that benefits the public. And of course, there are crimes more serious than that: drugs, people trafficking, and so on, not to mention white collar crime. You know, the sort that means that honest, hard working Americans hove lost everything, while the criminals themselves can hardly move for bonuses.
Thirdly, you seem to think that the state should be dismantled; that the state is only ever a bad thing. Well, take a look around at the places where the state has broken down and tell me which part of it you like: no roads, no doctors, no education, no electricity, no water, no jobs, serious crime everywhere. Personally, it's not for my taste.
What doesn't Google make these days?
Testicular implants.
The Chinese government tried pushing Linux in the past, research âoeRed Flagâ Linux. It was a failure.
Red Flag, as far as I remember, is a clone of Redhat; and while Redhat has many good qualities, it is more of a server OS and less of a desktop one. Ubuntu is not a favourite of mine either, but it is certainly bleeding edge, if anything, and wouldn't be at all surprised if this could actually take off with the Chinese. Put on top of that the fact that Linux's multiligual support is in fact superior to Windows'. No, I am quite optimistic about this.
Further, it lacks the games that the Chinese want (also free).
I don't know - when I watch my children's use of computer games, I can see that they clearly prefer the ones that are free, online and browser based. They seem to work on both Windows, MacOS and Linux.
I thnik most people's way of playing tends to be more something they do in between, like when waiting for the bus or whatever, and they like something that is more light entertainment rather than mind-blowing, all-absorbing, ultra-realistic etc.
Free as in speech has no ring to the Chinese ear. The issue is broken down to choosing between two flavours of free beer.
Yeah right, and they all look the same to you anyway, am I right? You just lost my respect.
It seems like this always happens
Well, of course. Even if the president of a nation was as powerful as people in America seem to think, he is still only the captain of the mega-supertanker powering ahead at 20 knots. Even if he slams the rudder all the way to one side, nothing is going to happen for a long, long time; and even then, there is no guarantee that what happens is what the captain intended.
As anybody who has tried steering a boat will know, the best way is to look far ahead and start turning slowly long before you hit the lighthouse. The problem in the US, of course, is that you change the captain every five minutes, relatively speaking, and each one want to turn the opposite way of the previous one.
The real problem comes in when less honest entities confuse "lobbying" and "bribing", and when (on purpose or by design) they confuse the lobbyist's interest with the public interest.
I disagree - the real problem is about separation of powers. Just like the Police should not be aloowed to write the laws they enforce, the people who exert power in the market should not be allowed to write the laws that regulate their acitivities, and for the very same reasons: such a mixing together of interests can and will be abused. As we see on an ongoing basis. I am well aware that any legislature has a legitimate need to consult the business community, but corporate lobbying goes far beyond consultation.
Google lobbying for "a free and open internet" is BS, to be honest. "Freedom" has become such a malleable word that it has next to no real meaning. In most cases it means no more than "I don't want to be held accountable for my actions"; it means "my freedom, and screw you". It is parsecs removed from the "freedom" in "Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood". Just because a big corporation has occasionally done things that are good, it doesn't mean that they are good in any meanful sense of the word. As they say, Hitler was very kind to his dogs.
I for one think the government needs to be OUT of the marriage racket.
On the contrary - marriage only has significance as a legal construction governing the practicalities of living in an ongoing relationship; hence it has to be set in legislation and legislation must come from the state in the proper way. Marriage should be something that is completely removed from religion - that is how it used to be, until the Christian church decided to invent the "sacrament of marriage" some time around the Renaissance or thereabouts, if my memory serves me.
Religious institutions can choose to bless a marriage if they so choose, but they don't own the bloody thing, in my opinion.
How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?
For my part, not a lot. I think modern computer games (modern movies) are far too focused on "amazing effects" and too little on content; as it is, I still find the old COLOSSAL CAVES (it that old, so it requires all caps) game better than things like WoW. A good game should challenge you, it should stretch your imagination, it should be witty, intelligent, engaging and imaginative.
Here is what I would like to see in a game:
The game universe should be physically plausible - ie, things thrown should follow a path determined by plausible, physical forces like gravity etc. Just imagine the possibilities in simulating a radically different physical reality - relitivistic or quantum effects, or possibly one where gravity is not of the standard, Newtonian shape, or a non-istropic universe.
The environment should be plausible - I find it quite off-putting when biology, characters or cultures are nothing more than objects to smash or navigate around/over/through.
It would be good if the game universe is one you would like to explore, even without actually playing the game. And it would be good if there wasn't just one game plan, but a number of different, possible games that would function on their own, but all happen in a setting where they occasionally brush against each other.
A good exampe of something that has many of the features is Crossfire (see http://crossfire.real-time.com/) - it also illustrates that graphics don't have to be very good to make a game enjoyable. It isn't a physically plausible universe, but it scores on many of the other points I mentioned.
Whoever it was, is a complete moron, I suspect. This kind of attack can - and will - be used against everybody else in turn. And if you can interfere with the functioning of valves and other HW, then you can also find a way to cause leakage of hazardous materials.
How about a major leak in a bio-warfare lab in the States? Would we like that?
My biggest worry in life is that I don't manage to live enough. When we die, we just cease to exists, I think, so it is important to live while you are here. It may be nice for you descendants to have some memory, but IMO the best gift one can give one's children is a good set of skills for life - not just a formal education, but how to handle all the other things life throws at you.
Personally, I'm not much in favour of leaving a cold headstone behind - I'd hate to think of the waste of money on something like that. It would be a nice thought if my ashes were buried under a nice tree somewhere in a place not too near a city development, so it could grow on and be beautiful or useful for a long time.
That name sounds a bit like IBM's 'Deep Blue', the chess computer. But I think it is too reminiscent of the BSOD - can I suggest they change the name to something like 'Deep Brown'? It somehow feel more right, all things considered.
I wouls like to believe that you had actually made the effort to read and understood what I wrote, but that clearly isn't the case.
Sadly, I see your kind of arguments all too often - you argue like an American fringe politician: you take whatever an opponent says and deliberately misinterpret it in the way that seems to cast the opponent in the worst light.
In this case you didn't even notice that I was arguing for the same side as you seem to favour, with the modification that I am willing to consider sound evidence. And that is the sound, scientific approach - you have to be open to the possibility that your opinion may be wrong. With your words you have demonstrated that your mind is closed, so what can you actually tell us about being scientific?
The millions murdered in World War 1 & 2 never played video games.
What has that to do with anything? That's a bit like saying "my granddad smoked like a chimey and lived 'til he was 95, so smoking isn't unhealthy".
It is very difficult to prove that violent video games cause an increase in violence; as a point of interest, it is in fact even harder to disprove. It is not impossible, however, and we are slowly beginning to see something emerge, which looks a bit like proof.
A civilized person doesn't want to beat the living crap out of another person
And yet, one can not deny that the Nazi elite were in many respects very civilized. That apart, I don't think anger is the main driver of violence; lack of self-control is, and if you don't care about the wellbeing of others, you lack the motivation to even try. IMO, the biggest worry is that when you are more or less constantly immersed in violence as entertainment, you learn to be indifferent to suffering, and perhaps you then don't see the need to restrain yourself in a critical situation.
The media often try to link the big, spectacular massacres with eg vioelnt games; I don't think that is valid. A more likely explanation which I have heard recently, is that these persons suffer from narcissistic personality disorder: to a narcissist, other people are of no consequence - they alone are the centre of the universe, and they can get extremely upset and frustrated because nobody can see the truth in this. And a dramatic show of extreme violence is just their style, or so one could imagine.
Which is of course the answer to any question about when will the web have X? When the porn industry wants to make more money.
Nonsense. Just for one thing, the porn industry is struggling desperately, so they must by necessity be looking for more money.
The reason the internet exists, and the reason it is successful now, is that it makes it easy to exchange information; whether it is mindless tripe or useful is another matter, of course. Information is either written - which is 1 dimensional - or visual, which is 2 dimensional because that is what our eyes are made for. 3 dimensional vision is only an illusion, something of an afterthought in evolutionary terms, and it doesn't really add much extra to our perception and understanding of information.
They've tried 3D cinema for decades already, and as the most recent attempts have shown - again - it arouses a bit of interest for a short while, then fades away. The necessary technology is expensive and cumbersome, and the benefits are modest - so why do it, really?
Could we please try to stop using words like "conservative" (and "communist", etc etc etc) so frivolously? You are not conservative if you try to hide from reality; "deluded" or simply "stupid" is closer to reality - that, and massively selfish in the case of trying to stop others from learning the facts. These people don't care about things like responsibility or decency, they just care about their own, short term profits - that is after all how you get rich in this world. They don't deserve to be honoured with the word "conservative".
I have a lot of time for the viewpoints of a genuine conservative; I am not conservative myself, but I recognise that other viewpoints may be valid, and it really makes me quite angry when I meet this sort of underhanded and dishonest crap. In the long run it only serves to discredit even those who are genuinely skeptical about climate change, and to a scientist that is worrying, even if you are convinced about the reality of the thing and about who is to blame. You see, none of us knows it all, and we have to strive to learn from each other; but it can't happen unless both sides are trustworthy.
I don't know - a space is a set with some structure: vector space, topological space, ... What makes it stupid is that people stat imagining it being like the real world around us.
Well, it is even more wide ranging than that, isn't it? It is not as if Christian fundamentalism is the only belief that disagrees with evolution. The Bible tale is only a tiny part of that thing.
However, if this is about teaching science, then it must start with exactly that: science - scientific method, evidence based research, falsification of theory. If one wants to call science "faith", then one has to specify what that faith is: the belief that the truth must follow from logical conclusions and that all evidence must be independently verifiable. Would ID fit into that? My bet is that the students would look right through it and make jokes about it.
So, you didn't like to work on a mainframe, then?
But don't slag off the mainframe just because it is 'old' technology - the PC architecture isn't all that young either, and the mainframe, believe it or not, is in fact very VERY much on the technological forefront, hardware wise. Mainframes had fiber attached disks before most modern developers had heard of networking.
Big to huge institutions don't use mainframes because they are too backwards thinking, but because of reliability. In an industry where downtime costs millions to tens of millions per minute, that counts a lot. On a mainfram you can hot-swap just about everything - not just disks, but everything. And if you wish, you can run Linux on it as well; but it is amazing how often the choice is MVS and COBOL; that is because they are just what you need - not multitools like UNIX and C, just a plain old knife meant for cutting only.
Ever heard about Big Data? That's where companies use software to identify people from their postings on popular forums - LinkedIn, Twitter, ... I work in a company that produces this kind of SW. We are doing well.
I suspect I never started using flash - I have used Linux exclusively for at least 10 years, and I have always removed all plugins from the browser. It's only 2 years ago the I started having even a Java plugin. I have recently installed flash, but I keep it deactivated with NoScript and only use it for the very few occasions when it is essential, and that number seems to be falling.
I have no animations, no flash, no JavaScript for most of the time, and it is great. I can only recommend it, although it does require you to think a tiny bit more when you find websites that don't work.
Yes: As China grows in importance, Chinese holidays do become more important - when the Chinese are taking time off, we can't trade with them. Also, there is a growing interest in Chinese culture, and with interest comes a desire to take part, so why not? It's good fun, after all.
No: Religious holidays are a thing of the past, and state and religion should be completely separate any way, since we are no longer religious monocultures. So, rather than introducing more, we should get rid of Christmas, Easter etc as public holidays and instead give people a flexible quota of holidays on top of their current allowance which they can use as the see fit.
Is it any surprise that the Federal govt. has knee-jerked and not thought through the repercussions, or the real-world applicability of their solutions?
I can't see why you call it a knee-jerk reaction. When you start on anything new, you have to set out the goals before you can address the problems that will have to be resolved before you can get to the solution.
On the other hand, your unthinking attack on the government simply because it is the government - that looks a lot like knee-jerk reaction to me.
Isn't WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch, famous spy-master? They certainly know how to recognise hacking if anyone does.
...possibly connected to China's military...
I call FUD on this one. To me it seems just as valid to suggest that they were "possibly connected to [Israel|Iraq|North Korea|...]'s military". Spoofing IP addresses or using a hacked computer in another country are some of the oldest tricks in the book; even I can do that. And so is lying in newpaper articles; of course, the Murdochs would never do that.
True, but like it's a waste of time to teach science before the kids have learned mathematics, it's also the optimal order in IT to teach the theory first.
First of all, maths is a good tool for science, but only a minor part of science depends on it, and only a small part of maths is directly useful for the hard sciences; the field of mathematics is many orders of magnitude larger than the few disciplines employes inphysics, statistics etc. Furthermore, science is a way of thinking and working - "The Scientific Method" - and it is perfectly possible to do without any maths at all. You observe, you make a guess at an explanation, you refine your explanation by falsifying predictions based on your explanation, this is science, and even toddlers can begin to understand it.
The same applies in IT. You make your experiences with computers without understanding much of it at first, etc etc. Learning the theory is useful, certainly, but if it was the best way, then we wouldn't have all these 10-year olds who are so bloody clever with their computers, would we? The point of letting young children experience computers is not that they whould all become super programmers, but simply that they should be familiar with technology and comfortable about using it.
This whole discussion is rather on the silly side, I feel. I think in many ways the great era of hardcore programming is behind us. There will probably always be a need for people with a good understanding of computers at all levels, but all the big fundamentals have been covered already and we are just filling in the gaps now. I don't think there is going to be a huge need in the future.
For all that time, free university, free medical expenses...
F*ck socialism, it killed my country.
I don't mind who or what you want to have intercourse with, but this has little to do with socialism and everything to do with capitalism. You see, education may be free for domestic students, at least in France, but it is something the universities sell to overseas students. Go ahead, look into it, why don't you? Go to any university's web pages, look under 'International Students' and then find the fees page; it certainly isn't free. In fact, it is a significant income for any university, which is why they are all keen on having overseas students.
And France is still one of the loveliest, most vibrantly alive countries in the world. Where is your self confidence? Is your culture really so feeble that it can't survive contact with the surrounding world? I don't believe that.
My two bits are, after running the 8 betas and using a surface tablet is if you have a tablet with it or even a desktop with touch, it isn't too bad
But this is just the point - 'not too bad' rather than 'wow, this is brilliant'.