If he's stolen someone else's work that's one thing. However, if your only complaints are that you disagree with his ideas and he created some prewritten essay -- so what.
I cut and paste comments all the time. I've pulled my own essays from letters and posted it on slashdot for karmic profit. The key is that my posts are based entirely on my own writings. However, I'll admit I haven't submitted a meaningful post to Slashdot for a while.
Whatever the case, it's a very well written response.
Don't you think the extremists in Iraq get to know their hostages before they behead them? Look, I'm all for humanitarian aid, but we aren't we being a bit naive? We're not fighting the 98% of peaceful Iraqis. We're fighting that 2% of extremist hostility. Plus, aren't we rebuilding part of Iraq already?
Of course, if you were standing next to a Leibnitz or Boole and showed them your big logic engine, they might understand. They might not be able to re-engineer the device, but they might be able to program it. We understand the pieces; we just don't understand the sum of the parts. That's the real problem. We can't predict complex phenomena. We can break down biology in quantum mechanical phenomena (ask any physical chemist); we just don't know how to do anything useful.
You computer analogy is dead on, but I think if you look at it from the perspective of a logician (i.e. Turing, Godel, or Church) instead of an engineer it my change a few things.
Actually about 10% of all gov't "military" personnel in Iraq are private contractors. You can read that as "mercenaries" if you'd like. Yes, Halliburton (or Kellogg, Brown, and Root) is one of the major players in this market. Just thought you'd like to know.
In the first Gulf War, I believe the number was closer to 1%. I'm not sure about that.
The world doesn't need a golf channel, but it thrives due to a limited number of golf enthusiasts. Advertising can be very focused.
Broadband and Satellite TV are making niche programming possible. In fact, niche content is flourishing. You (and I) may hate Howard Stern. However, he's found a new home in satellite radio.
Secondly, I like boring science. Of course, I studied Math so I suppose that explains a lot. I'd pay to have access to quality lectures (i.e. Feynman on video...). In fact, I've been slowly anticipating the release of ALL of his lectures (from the Feynman lectures) on CD.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that weakened-IP (yes, I'm not a lawyer) is going to kill the music industry needs to look no further than talk radio. Talk radio's only commodity is advertising, yet Stern, Limbaugh, and the like are loaded. Brittney Spears wishes see was worth as much as some of these guys.
I'd pay for content (even if it was internet-based) of quality upper-division lectures from top-notch professors. However, you'd have to be good. No snoozers allowed.
Secondly, I like boring science. Of course, I studied Math so I suppose that explains a lot. I'd pay to have access to quality lectures (i.e. Feynman on video...). In fact, I've been slowly anticipating the release of ALL of his lectures (from the Feynman lectures) on CD.
Inicidentally, anyone who thinks that weakened-IP (yes, I'm not a lawyer) is going to kill the music industry needs to look no further than talk radio. Talk radio's only commodity is advertising, yet Stern, Limbaugh, and the like are loaded. Brittney Spears wishes see was worth as much as some of these guys.
I'd pay for content (even if it was internet-based) of quality upper-divison lectures from top-notch professors. However, you'd have to be good. No snoozers allowed.
Of course, this is only further blurred by the fact that many IT departments write their own code... However, I know what you mean.
I've worked as an independent contractor writing a lot of business applications. I can tell you how hard it is to be a true Network Engineer. I've had to play sys admin quite a bit. It's one thing to make a few lights blink. Try being responsible for the company email or network connectivity (yes they were small companies and no I shouldn't have had to do that).
Any query language is going to be ugly...
on
An Alternative to SQL?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I looked at the articles, which are too broad by the way, and I didn't see enough of an explaination to make out real detail.
However, it seems as if Tutorial D is nothing more that a purely mathematical improvement of SQL. In other words, it's like comparing Lisp to Prolog or ZF Set Theory to HBG. (Okay, I'm not a logician..., so you math wizards can hold off on the flames.) I'm all for improving SQL. It just seems like Tutorial D addresses the usual complaints about the hazy concept of a NULL in a database.
SQL or any derivative thereof will be inherently complex. This is because SQL is merely an implementation of Relational Algebra. That's the key. Real RDBMS's are inherently mathematical in nature. Complex SQL queries are tough. Too often the average database programmer couldn't even tell you what the definition of a set, function (i.e. the mathematcial definition), or a cross-product is. Yet, they'll write code (or not) that incorporates complex joins. Incidentally, they'll do the same thing with regexs too. Programming still has it's deeply mathematical roots. Not as much as I'd like, but still...
In short, if you're looking for some cool new English Query tool to save the day, you won't find it here. Still, if you're a SQL wonk looking for a new toy or an improved SQL, this may be of interest to you.
Oh, by the way, I used to have a copy of Date's database book. I sold it along with my copy of Foley and Van Dam, Sipser's Theory of Computation, and Aho and Ullman's compiler design book [the "dragon" book] because I needed to pay the rent. Interestingly enough, the books retained a pretty high resale value even after all these years.
Social interaction is one of the things that makes play fun.
One of the games I liked to play with friends was Hidden and Dangerous. This was partly because the atmosphere of the game definitely had an authentic WWII feel. Also, the added twist of the main characters being British soliders didn't hurt either (you played members of an elite SAS sqaud). However, the real gem was it's cooperative multiplayer game. The missions were in-depth (for it's day). It supported up to 4 players at once. Also, the game embraced the fun of Rainbow Six without the wonkish strategy. The game was fun. I enjoyed teaming up with other actual human beings.
Cooperative games bring human interaction into gaming. Gaming is no longer a solo activity. I know ubergeeky computer nerds (being a programmer, I probably qualify as well...) tend not to design socially enhancing games. However, that's what makes Monopoly or paper RPGs so popular. You get to "play" with friends. I don't particularly enjoy virtually killing some kid from Germany in Wolfenstein 3d. Alas, the hunt-and-kill FPS is so easy to design...
Suprisingly, I lack the necessary drive to wantonly kill my friends, even in digital form.
Coincidentally, I've been looking for a book on mechanics to read.
Why you ask?
Well, I've got a pretty good math background and I've read some (not all) of the Feynman lectures. So while the math of advanced physics doesn't scare me (okay, it scares me a little), I lack any physical intuition.
I wasn't quite prepared to plow through a dry 500 page book on mechanics. However, I was looking for an entertaining read.
The reason is that mechanics is the intuition of physics. Most mathematicians can run mathematical circles around their physicist counterparts. Ever ask a physicist to "prove" something? However, ask a mathematican to "calculate" anything complicated in physics and you'll usually stop them cold (with a few notable exceptions [Von Nuemann, Kolmogorov, etc]).
Mechanics is the practice of doing physics calculations. If axioms and proofs are the tools of mathematicians, then fundamental laws and calculations are the tools of physicists. All introductory physics books (including Feynman) dance around the calculations of physics. Sure, when you've finished reading the Feynman lectures, you can pontificate on basic E&M, QM, etc. You'll be able to describe all kinds of interesting phenonmena. You just can't calcuate anything.
I've haven't read this book, but I think I will. If it is as entertaining as the reviewer says it is, then I could imagine it might become quite the classic.
Of course, this is just the opinion of a stupid math major....
Why do we teach calculus first? Why do we water down the details of QM in introductory chemistry? Why don't we start out teaching logic and the method of proof? Why does the average high school teach biology, then chemistry, then physics?
The answer is necessity. The average student isn't prepared to spend several years progressing from
logic->algebra->analysis->mechanics->QM->physic al chemistry->...
The average student wants the basic tools to do a job, not become the next Enrico Fermi. Sad, but true.
What!?! Your boss' email was important! But it was Sunday, and my rule set says to avoid all work related email on any Sunday afternoon during the football season.
I don't disagree that this is a big future area of AI (take a look at some of the work in the AI lab at MIT). I just don't think people are ready for computational reasoning (logical or statistical) to replace human judgement (as poor as it may be...)
[using a simple infinite series|exercise left to reader]...then only an infinitesimal of non-crap can ever exist.
However the infinitesimal will be rendered so small as to be unreadable. Which is to say it will be indistinguishable from the crap. Thus, by Occam's Razor, we shall say all of the papers are crap. Incidentally, this infinitesimal may or may not exist.
On DB2, a stored procedure (written in SQL-PL|stored procedure builder) is nothing more than a package (compiled SQL with a generated query plan) created with Embedded SQL and C. I imagine Oracle is the same. Technically, a well written piece of software using SQL-J (or the C equivalent) or a well designed app (in some cases) using prepared statements would generate the same performance.
C is faster than PHP|Cold Fusion|ASP|Perl
In a world of slow, interpreted scripting languages, C code is fast. Which would you rather run, prepared statements with PHP|Cold Fusion|ASP or thin layer of front end code calling massive middle-tier business logic.
Stored procedures should be the number one tool of web developers. However in a world of large scale, n-tier business apps, I'm not so sure. Of course, I believe a lot of enterprise software ends up being architectual overkill, but that's just my opinion. However, EJB/COM/Corba/XML-RPC pays better so.....
My advice is to get a fast, beefy db server and simplify your app.
Stored procedures can hide database structure (normalization)
Stored procedures help protect the end code from being affected by changes in DB design. Sure, you may be able to write a complex query as a workaround, but stored procedures offer you more flexibility.
ANAM (I am not an MBA), but I've been reading some finance and business textbooks|magazines out of curiosity. [While this would normally invalidate my opinion, in Slashdot-land...]
IMHO, "seed money" has killed the American work ethic. People no longer have to put up their own money in a business. Corporate pirates are king. If someone were to put forward a business plan like Acacia Research Corporation 40 years ago, they would have got laughed out the door. Edison whored science; he didn't rape it. People no longer have to invest time into developing a company. Some other poor smuck will do it for them. As a result, long-term gain is not only ignored but also often avoided. How can you justify a 20-year investment of shareholder money? The system is rigged for abuse. Small businesses think (or should) long term. They have to develop close relations with clientele.
Frankly, I wish business schools would do a better job of teaching true entrepreneurship. If it did, I might actually attend one.
Sorry if this sounds snobby and pithy. However, like most Slashdotters, I'm sick of corporate America.
Maybe this is a dumb question (I'm sure you'll let me know)...
Are the calculations for this cloak similar to the calculations for a ray-tracer like POV-RAY? In other words, wouldn't any calculation for a realistic projection (unless it's analog) be notriously (NP hard?) difficult. Add the fact that you have to create a realistic image for multiple angles, and this could get tricky.
So in reality, you'd need a Beowulf cluster of... OH FORGET IT!
Didn't Cringely work for Apple? IIRC, Cringely mentioned, in his first documentary, that he was one of the first employees for Apple. Certainly he's no Steve Wozniak, but he's a better talking head that most of these glorified armchair pundits.
Of course, I hope "smart" vehicles don't just learn to identify obstacles merely by their risk to vehicular progress. If these robotic cars ever plan to be useful, they're going to have to learn not to run over things just because they can and it is computationally more efficient.
This does remind me of that "made for TV" Knight-Rider reunion where Michael's new car ran over a deer because it was calculated to be more efficient that slowing down. We all know that David Hasselhoff is a great actor.... Actually, I can't even write that in sarcasm. Wow!
Perhaps a quick lesson about syllogisms and philosophical arguments might get her in the right mindset. This may be a bit much. Frankly, some sort of non-MS (in other words, like the old-fashioned) BASIC or Javascript would be good. She might get a kick out of making her own web page. Later, if she's interested, you could always go on to things like PHP or Java.
Your comparing Monty Python to Friends? Will and Grace? Even here in the US we think that's crap. Sheesh, that's like comparing Mr. Bean to Tom Green.
Of course, I probably should provide my own suggestions. How about 'The Jerk' and 'What About Bob?'? I'm sure some people hate those movies, but I thought they were funny.
What about "Hardcore Visual Basic"?
on
Hardcore Java
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A counterexample
Mock me if you will, but there was once a book called Hardcore Visual Basic. It was one of the few intelligent books written on the subject. I'm not a big VB fan, but I can appreciate how it once was a great RAD tool. I wished all of Microsoft's VB-like documentation looked like this. It was rigorous and concise.
I remember all of the laughs I got when I went around the office asking if anyone had ever heard of a VB book written for C++ programmers. Of course, my smart-ass smirk probably didn't help. Ironically, I found out that a good dose of the Win32 API in C++ and a 20-minute tutorial from a fellow colleague would have probably been the best route. Still, half of VB's problem is Microsoft's overall tendency to suck the brain out of the developer's head. While this might be okay for an end-user, I can't recommend doing this to developers.
"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."
Like everything else in life, there's nothing wrong with bragging if you can do it. Sure, we mock such cliché verbiage, like the line above. Dickens' can pull off such an overdramatic line. I can't. I can't make a 1000 page tome interesting. Tolstoy could. So, if a book is hardcore, let it be. If it isn't, it will make a mockery of itself.
The cruel irony
Apparently the author got so sick of Microsoft ruining a perfectly good thing, he decided to stop coding VB altogether. You can see a copy of his vented frustrations here. His fellow VB coders mocked him for trying to get a language to do more than it was supposed to. If that ain't hardcore, I don't know what is. I think he's writing Java code now.
Slashdot Mirror
If he's stolen someone else's work that's one thing. However, if your only complaints are that you disagree with his ideas and he created some prewritten essay -- so what.
I cut and paste comments all the time. I've pulled my own essays from letters and posted it on slashdot for karmic profit. The key is that my posts are based entirely on my own writings. However, I'll admit I haven't submitted a meaningful post to Slashdot for a while.
Whatever the case, it's a very well written response.
Don't you think the extremists in Iraq get to know their hostages before they behead them? Look, I'm all for humanitarian aid, but we aren't we being a bit naive? We're not fighting the 98% of peaceful Iraqis. We're fighting that 2% of extremist hostility. Plus, aren't we rebuilding part of Iraq already?
Of course, if you were standing next to a Leibnitz or Boole and showed them your big logic engine, they might understand. They might not be able to re-engineer the device, but they might be able to program it. We understand the pieces; we just don't understand the sum of the parts. That's the real problem. We can't predict complex phenomena. We can break down biology in quantum mechanical phenomena (ask any physical chemist); we just don't know how to do anything useful.
You computer analogy is dead on, but I think if you look at it from the perspective of a logician (i.e. Turing, Godel, or Church) instead of an engineer it my change a few things.
Actually about 10% of all gov't "military" personnel in Iraq are private contractors. You can read that as "mercenaries" if you'd like. Yes, Halliburton (or Kellogg, Brown, and Root) is one of the major players in this market. Just thought you'd like to know.
In the first Gulf War, I believe the number was closer to 1%. I'm not sure about that.
The world doesn't need a golf channel, but it thrives due to a limited number of golf enthusiasts. Advertising can be very focused.
Broadband and Satellite TV are making niche programming possible. In fact, niche content is flourishing. You (and I) may hate Howard Stern. However, he's found a new home in satellite radio.
Secondly, I like boring science. Of course, I studied Math so I suppose that explains a lot. I'd pay to have access to quality lectures (i.e. Feynman on video...). In fact, I've been slowly anticipating the release of ALL of his lectures (from the Feynman lectures) on CD.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that weakened-IP (yes, I'm not a lawyer) is going to kill the music industry needs to look no further than talk radio. Talk radio's only commodity is advertising, yet Stern, Limbaugh, and the like are loaded. Brittney Spears wishes see was worth as much as some of these guys.
I'd pay for content (even if it was internet-based) of quality upper-division lectures from top-notch professors. However, you'd have to be good. No snoozers allowed.
Secondly, I like boring science. Of course, I studied Math so I suppose that explains a lot. I'd pay to have access to quality lectures (i.e. Feynman on video...). In fact, I've been slowly anticipating the release of ALL of his lectures (from the Feynman lectures) on CD.
Inicidentally, anyone who thinks that weakened-IP (yes, I'm not a lawyer) is going to kill the music industry needs to look no further than talk radio. Talk radio's only commodity is advertising, yet Stern, Limbaugh, and the like are loaded. Brittney Spears wishes see was worth as much as some of these guys.
I'd pay for content (even if it was internet-based) of quality upper-divison lectures from top-notch professors. However, you'd have to be good. No snoozers allowed.
Of course, this is only further blurred by the fact that many IT departments write their own code... However, I know what you mean.
I've worked as an independent contractor writing a lot of business applications. I can tell you how hard it is to be a true Network Engineer. I've had to play sys admin quite a bit. It's one thing to make a few lights blink. Try being responsible for the company email or network connectivity (yes they were small companies and no I shouldn't have had to do that).
I looked at the articles, which are too broad by the way, and I didn't see enough of an explaination to make out real detail.
However, it seems as if Tutorial D is nothing more that a purely mathematical improvement of SQL. In other words, it's like comparing Lisp to Prolog or ZF Set Theory to HBG. (Okay, I'm not a logician..., so you math wizards can hold off on the flames.) I'm all for improving SQL. It just seems like Tutorial D addresses the usual complaints about the hazy concept of a NULL in a database.
SQL or any derivative thereof will be inherently complex. This is because SQL is merely an implementation of Relational Algebra. That's the key. Real RDBMS's are inherently mathematical in nature. Complex SQL queries are tough. Too often the average database programmer couldn't even tell you what the definition of a set, function (i.e. the mathematcial definition), or a cross-product is. Yet, they'll write code (or not) that incorporates complex joins. Incidentally, they'll do the same thing with regexs too. Programming still has it's deeply mathematical roots. Not as much as I'd like, but still...
In short, if you're looking for some cool new English Query tool to save the day, you won't find it here. Still, if you're a SQL wonk looking for a new toy or an improved SQL, this may be of interest to you.
Oh, by the way, I used to have a copy of Date's database book. I sold it along with my copy of Foley and Van Dam, Sipser's Theory of Computation, and Aho and Ullman's compiler design book [the "dragon" book] because I needed to pay the rent. Interestingly enough, the books retained a pretty high resale value even after all these years.
Social interaction is one of the things that makes play fun.
One of the games I liked to play with friends was Hidden and Dangerous. This was partly because the atmosphere of the game definitely had an authentic WWII feel. Also, the added twist of the main characters being British soliders didn't hurt either (you played members of an elite SAS sqaud). However, the real gem was it's cooperative multiplayer game. The missions were in-depth (for it's day). It supported up to 4 players at once. Also, the game embraced the fun of Rainbow Six without the wonkish strategy. The game was fun. I enjoyed teaming up with other actual human beings.
Cooperative games bring human interaction into gaming. Gaming is no longer a solo activity. I know ubergeeky computer nerds (being a programmer, I probably qualify as well...) tend not to design socially enhancing games. However, that's what makes Monopoly or paper RPGs so popular. You get to "play" with friends. I don't particularly enjoy virtually killing some kid from Germany in Wolfenstein 3d. Alas, the hunt-and-kill FPS is so easy to design...
Suprisingly, I lack the necessary drive to wantonly kill my friends, even in digital form.
Coincidentally, I've been looking for a book on mechanics to read.
Why you ask?
Well, I've got a pretty good math background and I've read some (not all) of the Feynman lectures. So while the math of advanced physics doesn't scare me (okay, it scares me a little), I lack any physical intuition.
I wasn't quite prepared to plow through a dry 500 page book on mechanics. However, I was looking for an entertaining read.
The reason is that mechanics is the intuition of physics. Most mathematicians can run mathematical circles around their physicist counterparts. Ever ask a physicist to "prove" something? However, ask a mathematican to "calculate" anything complicated in physics and you'll usually stop them cold (with a few notable exceptions [Von Nuemann, Kolmogorov, etc]).
Mechanics is the practice of doing physics calculations. If axioms and proofs are the tools of mathematicians, then fundamental laws and calculations are the tools of physicists. All introductory physics books (including Feynman) dance around the calculations of physics. Sure, when you've finished reading the Feynman lectures, you can pontificate on basic E&M, QM, etc. You'll be able to describe all kinds of interesting phenonmena. You just can't calcuate anything.
I've haven't read this book, but I think I will. If it is as entertaining as the reviewer says it is, then I could imagine it might become quite the classic.
Of course, this is just the opinion of a stupid math major....
Mathematics is the method of formal reason quantified.
So, you're right. Physical interpretation must be placed upon the mechanics of reason in order to extract some sort of predictability.
Why do we teach calculus first? Why do we water down the details of QM in introductory chemistry? Why don't we start out teaching logic and the method of proof? Why does the average high school teach biology, then chemistry, then physics?
The answer is necessity. The average student isn't prepared to spend several years progressing from
logic->algebra->analysis->mechanics->QM->physic al chemistry->...
The average student wants the basic tools to do a job, not become the next Enrico Fermi. Sad, but true.
Are people ready to accept mistakes from an AI?
What!?! Your boss' email was important! But it was Sunday, and my rule set says to avoid all work related email on any Sunday afternoon during the football season.
I don't disagree that this is a big future area of AI (take a look at some of the work in the AI lab at MIT). I just don't think people are ready for computational reasoning (logical or statistical) to replace human judgement (as poor as it may be...)
Perhaps this could be Chess' corollary
...then only an infinitesimal of non-crap can ever exist.
If 90% of everything is crap...
[using a simple infinite series|exercise left to reader]
However the infinitesimal will be rendered so small as to be unreadable. Which is to say it will be indistinguishable from the crap. Thus, by Occam's Razor, we shall say all of the papers are crap. Incidentally, this infinitesimal may or may not exist.
s/Stored procedures/embedded-SQL/
On DB2, a stored procedure (written in SQL-PL|stored procedure builder) is nothing more than a package (compiled SQL with a generated query plan) created with Embedded SQL and C. I imagine Oracle is the same. Technically, a well written piece of software using SQL-J (or the C equivalent) or a well designed app (in some cases) using prepared statements would generate the same performance.
C is faster than PHP|Cold Fusion|ASP|Perl
In a world of slow, interpreted scripting languages, C code is fast. Which would you rather run, prepared statements with PHP|Cold Fusion|ASP or thin layer of front end code calling massive middle-tier business logic.
Stored procedures should be the number one tool of web developers. However in a world of large scale, n-tier business apps, I'm not so sure. Of course, I believe a lot of enterprise software ends up being architectual overkill, but that's just my opinion. However, EJB/COM/Corba/XML-RPC pays better so.....
My advice is to get a fast, beefy db server and simplify your app.
Stored procedures can hide database structure (normalization)
Stored procedures help protect the end code from being affected by changes in DB design. Sure, you may be able to write a complex query as a workaround, but stored procedures offer you more flexibility.
To be honest, if it was my job to catalog this junk, I'd get a big box marked "CRAP" and dump it all in.
I don't think anyone would complain.
Orrin Hatch's Christmas Eve
It's a nifty CD that's popular among lobbyists and soft money aficionados everywhere.
ANAM (I am not an MBA), but I've been reading some finance and business textbooks|magazines out of curiosity. [While this would normally invalidate my opinion, in Slashdot-land...]
IMHO, "seed money" has killed the American work ethic. People no longer have to put up their own money in a business. Corporate pirates are king. If someone were to put forward a business plan like Acacia Research Corporation 40 years ago, they would have got laughed out the door. Edison whored science; he didn't rape it. People no longer have to invest time into developing a company. Some other poor smuck will do it for them. As a result, long-term gain is not only ignored but also often avoided. How can you justify a 20-year investment of shareholder money? The system is rigged for abuse. Small businesses think (or should) long term. They have to develop close relations with clientele.
Frankly, I wish business schools would do a better job of teaching true entrepreneurship. If it did, I might actually attend one.
Sorry if this sounds snobby and pithy. However, like most Slashdotters, I'm sick of corporate America.
Don't blame the scientists; blame those apathetic engineers!
Blast those ChemE's.
Maybe this is a dumb question (I'm sure you'll let me know)...
Are the calculations for this cloak similar to the calculations for a ray-tracer like POV-RAY? In other words, wouldn't any calculation for a realistic projection (unless it's analog) be notriously (NP hard?) difficult. Add the fact that you have to create a realistic image for multiple angles, and this could get tricky.
So in reality, you'd need a Beowulf cluster of...
OH FORGET IT!
Didn't Cringely work for Apple? IIRC, Cringely mentioned, in his first documentary, that he was one of the first employees for Apple. Certainly he's no Steve Wozniak, but he's a better talking head that most of these glorified armchair pundits.
Of course, I hope "smart" vehicles don't just learn to identify obstacles merely by their risk to vehicular progress. If these robotic cars ever plan to be useful, they're going to have to learn not to run over things just because they can and it is computationally more efficient.
This does remind me of that "made for TV" Knight-Rider reunion where Michael's new car ran over a deer because it was calculated to be more efficient that slowing down. We all know that David Hasselhoff is a great actor.... Actually, I can't even write that in sarcasm. Wow!
Perhaps a quick lesson about syllogisms and philosophical arguments might get her in the right mindset. This may be a bit much. Frankly, some sort of non-MS (in other words, like the old-fashioned) BASIC or Javascript would be good. She might get a kick out of making her own web page. Later, if she's interested, you could always go on to things like PHP or Java.
I thought I'd give a quick plug for the screenwriter. I saw Chicken Run and I thought it was a good movie.
I've also included the obligatory imdb link.
You could atleast give us Yanks a far chance....
Your comparing Monty Python to Friends? Will and Grace? Even here in the US we think that's crap. Sheesh, that's like comparing Mr. Bean to Tom Green.
Of course, I probably should provide my own suggestions. How about 'The Jerk' and 'What About Bob?'? I'm sure some people hate those movies, but I thought they were funny.
A counterexample
Mock me if you will, but there was once a book called Hardcore Visual Basic. It was one of the few intelligent books written on the subject. I'm not a big VB fan, but I can appreciate how it once was a great RAD tool. I wished all of Microsoft's VB-like documentation looked like this. It was rigorous and concise.
I remember all of the laughs I got when I went around the office asking if anyone had ever heard of a VB book written for C++ programmers. Of course, my smart-ass smirk probably didn't help. Ironically, I found out that a good dose of the Win32 API in C++ and a 20-minute tutorial from a fellow colleague would have probably been the best route. Still, half of VB's problem is Microsoft's overall tendency to suck the brain out of the developer's head. While this might be okay for an end-user, I can't recommend doing this to developers.
"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."
Like everything else in life, there's nothing wrong with bragging if you can do it. Sure, we mock such cliché verbiage, like the line above. Dickens' can pull off such an overdramatic line. I can't. I can't make a 1000 page tome interesting. Tolstoy could. So, if a book is hardcore, let it be. If it isn't, it will make a mockery of itself.
The cruel irony
Apparently the author got so sick of Microsoft ruining a perfectly good thing, he decided to stop coding VB altogether. You can see a copy of his vented frustrations here. His fellow VB coders mocked him for trying to get a language to do more than it was supposed to. If that ain't hardcore, I don't know what is. I think he's writing Java code now.