By the time these kids grow up, "programming skills" will be obsolete.
That's what they told me when I was at school. I'll be sixty this year. I don't see programming becoming obsolete any time soon.
Yes, but despite the ubiquity of computing devices compared with fifty years ago, most (non geeks) still struggle to set up their TV properly.
It has been said countless times before, but the relationship between being a computer user and programmer is analogous to that between being a car driver and a proper mechanic.
You can even still see that influence in modern science.
I would recommend you take some time to look in to the history and philosophy of science. It's quite enlightening. If you can't afford a proper education, I can make some reading recommendations for you.
People have been saying this for 60 years, and the reverse has happened. As programmable devices continue to propogate the need for programmers only grows. It's becoming standard for all medium to large sized businesses to have a software department, so they can get the software they need to run their business developed. I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon.
A business needs software the same way it needs trucks, desks and toilet rolls. That doesn't mean that every kid has to be a truck driver, furniture delivery guy and sanitary product salesman.
"If there is no drive (i.e. "I just want to learn how to 'program'") they will learn nothing."
One should not discount the motivations of others. "I want to learn how" can be just as effective as "I want to mod minecraft" (if not *more* so).
A.
Some people can only see education in terms of immediate utility. This is the reason you need a professional teaching profession - to stop the short termism. Too many people would like to reduce education to "can you read enough to understand these instructions".
I figured somebody, somewhere, had need for a passenger jet for something nefarious. Or for that matter, something legitimate, but that the authorities would find nefarious. Basically, a need for a large jet, that for some reason could not be obtained through normal channels.
I expect someone needed to move a bunch of henchmen in polo neck jumpers to their underground lair beneath a volcano. Or something.
It's just barely possible that airlines do actually have electronics experts on their payroll, and possibly even train their aircrew in how to react to various emergencies, rather than having to guess whether you use the water extinguisher on an electrical fire..
How do you justify the cost of a book, movie tickets, money spent on vacation travel or, going further, a degree that's not an engineering degree? Because if you run your numbers, there's no financial reason for any of those things.
Yes, there is absolutely no financial reason to be a doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect, dentist, vet, banker, real estate agent, marketer, economist, fashion designer, Army General, rock star, Hollywood actor, actuary, quantity surveyor...they're all just hobbies rather than jobs where you can earn any money.
Next time you need antibiotics - you won't get them.
Next time you're in a car accident - you airbag won't inflate, your seatbelts won't be there, your windshild will be made from ordinary glass, your car's chassis will be stiff.
Next time want to eat, you won't get anything, because there's not enough natural fertilizer, there's no way to combat crop pests, there'll be only horses and oxen to pull the plow and you better get fit for threshing the grain.
I could go on.
Just because Technologies A, B and C are entirely beneficial does not mean that unrelated Technology D is.
It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.
"Nuclear power - not as dangerous as being a crack addict."
Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since they lack the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximise what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.
No, you're wrong, because most people don't really care about economic competition or maximising their goods past a certain level.
For instance, if I was really desperate for a more expensive car or house than I have now, by your reasoning I would be working at another job in addition to my main one, as I could be buying twice the stuff.
Whereas, in reality, I would rather spend those eight hours a day enjoying myself by reading a book or having a drink, as my current job provides more than enough to live on. Now, I could decide that I want to drink only vintage wines at GBP 1,000 a bottle, or only read first editions at GBP
10,000. But in reality, I am happy drinking something for a fiver from Lidls and reading a couple of paperbacks or Kindle downloads a week.
What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US?
Nothing. And in that aspect the US was not practicing the system that Smith was describing.
Yes, but the point is that pure laissez faire capitalism in itself does not provide the mechanism to prevent this.
So you have to have government and laws, but then the extreme right wingers complain about paying taxes and not being able to beat their legally purchased slaves.
This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.
I read that bit about the plot for "The Wages of Humanity" and almost laughed out loud. Straight out of Mao's little red pulp mag. What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?
Although it doesn't sound that different from some of the line's Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity"
I guess it's possible, of course you would first have to commit genocide against everyone with normal human instincts. That pretty much sums up communism.
Your definition of "normal human instincts" is not the same as mine. I find "the acquisition of wealth" as an end in itself to be of interest only to fairly dull people.
You must really, really hate Iain M Banks's Culture novels.
If you graduate with an English or Political Science degree don't look for any sympathy when you find out you cannot get a good paying job after graduation.
Yes, because in the US and Europe, the only "good paying jobs" are as pure engineers, and people with non-engineering degrees are limited to working in areas like management and finance, which are minimum wage careers.
the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit
Wouldn't communist propaganda be that the individual's primary responsibility is to society as a whole, and that the family unit is simply a bourgeois socio-economic construct?
There is no necessary correlation between being a great writer and being a great translator. Really good writers tend to colour the works they are translating in their own image too much. For example, Ted Hughes's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses is a great Ted Hughes work, but not a very faithful translation.
From TFA, it seems that Liu has more of a leaning to the utopian Star Trek. Has he pushed that anywhere new? Or even how humanity will be different in the billion years of his story?
Not to mention, the idea that "capitalism" is the bane of humanity is so hilariously false it's difficult to even find words. If it weren't for capitalism intruding into China's once-red-totalitarian-socialist economy, he'd still be digging up beets for a living, not working in a power plant or writing science fiction.
Just because capitalism is better than totalitarianism doesn't mean that capitalism is good, and it certainly doesn't mean that capitalism is the high point of human evolution.
If you want socialism, maybe you should move to sweden. Have fun with that 75% tax.
Yes, it's not like you get a decent education or healthcare or welfare system for your money, the government just blows it all on ludicrously expensive foreign wars.
Slashdot Mirror
By the time these kids grow up, "programming skills" will be obsolete.
That's what they told me when I was at school. I'll be sixty this year. I don't see programming becoming obsolete any time soon.
Yes, but despite the ubiquity of computing devices compared with fifty years ago, most (non geeks) still struggle to set up their TV properly.
It has been said countless times before, but the relationship between being a computer user and programmer is analogous to that between being a car driver and a proper mechanic.
Since you missed it:
You can even still see that influence in modern science.
I would recommend you take some time to look in to the history and philosophy of science. It's quite enlightening. If you can't afford a proper education, I can make some reading recommendations for you.
Miaow!
People have been saying this for 60 years, and the reverse has happened. As programmable devices continue to propogate the need for programmers only grows. It's becoming standard for all medium to large sized businesses to have a software department, so they can get the software they need to run their business developed. I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon.
A business needs software the same way it needs trucks, desks and toilet rolls. That doesn't mean that every kid has to be a truck driver, furniture delivery guy and sanitary product salesman.
I started playing with BASIC on my dad's C64 at the age of 3 - primarily copying programs our of books etc
Well, I learned to code 6 months before I was even conceived.
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe you.
"If there is no drive (i.e. "I just want to learn how to 'program'") they will learn nothing."
One should not discount the motivations of others. "I want to learn how" can be just as effective as "I want to mod minecraft" (if not *more* so).
A.
Some people can only see education in terms of immediate utility. This is the reason you need a professional teaching profession - to stop the short termism. Too many people would like to reduce education to "can you read enough to understand these instructions".
Did you hear that Alanis?
It's still not as ironic as a song about irony where none of the fucking examples are ironic at all.
Or was she being ironic?
I figured somebody, somewhere, had need for a passenger jet for something nefarious. Or for that matter, something legitimate, but that the authorities would find nefarious. Basically, a need for a large jet, that for some reason could not be obtained through normal channels.
I expect someone needed to move a bunch of henchmen in polo neck jumpers to their underground lair beneath a volcano. Or something.
It's just barely possible that airlines do actually have electronics experts on their payroll, and possibly even train their aircrew in how to react to various emergencies, rather than having to guess whether you use the water extinguisher on an electrical fire..
There's no way to bruteforce P = NP isn'it ?
We just need a genius to work on it for 10 years.
I've been working on it for 10 minutes, and it's patently obvious that P=NP when N=1, since 1 x anything is anything.
Not quite sure what all the fuss is about.
"I'm so smart that I can't take my mind off porn and popcorn."
I'm glad I'm not as smart as you.
Well it's for sure you're not as funny.
How do you justify the cost of a book, movie tickets, money spent on vacation travel or, going further, a degree that's not an engineering degree? Because if you run your numbers, there's no financial reason for any of those things.
Yes, there is absolutely no financial reason to be a doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect, dentist, vet, banker, real estate agent, marketer, economist, fashion designer, Army General, rock star, Hollywood actor, actuary, quantity surveyor...they're all just hobbies rather than jobs where you can earn any money.
What was the financial incentive for Deep Blue and champion chess programs?
PR for IBM, plus they did actually play chess with it, not just calculate the potential number of games.
I mean we've had the least competent person in the history of the US in the White House for 6 years because his dad was black
I'm fairly sure George W Bush's father wasn't black, and it was 8 years.
Next time you need antibiotics - you won't get them. Next time you're in a car accident - you airbag won't inflate, your seatbelts won't be there, your windshild will be made from ordinary glass, your car's chassis will be stiff. Next time want to eat, you won't get anything, because there's not enough natural fertilizer, there's no way to combat crop pests, there'll be only horses and oxen to pull the plow and you better get fit for threshing the grain.
I could go on.
Just because Technologies A, B and C are entirely beneficial does not mean that unrelated Technology D is.
It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.
"Nuclear power - not as dangerous as being a crack addict."
Cool bumper sticker.
Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since they lack the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximise what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.
No, you're wrong, because most people don't really care about economic competition or maximising their goods past a certain level.
For instance, if I was really desperate for a more expensive car or house than I have now, by your reasoning I would be working at another job in addition to my main one, as I could be buying twice the stuff.
Whereas, in reality, I would rather spend those eight hours a day enjoying myself by reading a book or having a drink, as my current job provides more than enough to live on. Now, I could decide that I want to drink only vintage wines at GBP 1,000 a bottle, or only read first editions at GBP 10,000. But in reality, I am happy drinking something for a fiver from Lidls and reading a couple of paperbacks or Kindle downloads a week.
Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals.
You don't sound sure whether that is a good or bad thing.
Oh wait, no, someone has to make the coffee table and write the book
Yes, but not everyone is able to make a coffee table or write a book. Society as a whole needs coffee tables or books.
and if they don't feel like doing that, hey, looks like power does flow from the barrel of a gun after all.
Whereas in a purely capitalist society, you would be perfectly free to do nothing and starve.
What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US?
Nothing. And in that aspect the US was not practicing the system that Smith was describing.
Yes, but the point is that pure laissez faire capitalism in itself does not provide the mechanism to prevent this.
So you have to have government and laws, but then the extreme right wingers complain about paying taxes and not being able to beat their legally purchased slaves.
This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.
I read that bit about the plot for "The Wages of Humanity" and almost laughed out loud. Straight out of Mao's little red pulp mag. What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?
Although it doesn't sound that different from some of the line's Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity" I guess it's possible, of course you would first have to commit genocide against everyone with normal human instincts. That pretty much sums up communism.
Your definition of "normal human instincts" is not the same as mine. I find "the acquisition of wealth" as an end in itself to be of interest only to fairly dull people.
You must really, really hate Iain M Banks's Culture novels.
If you graduate with an English or Political Science degree don't look for any sympathy when you find out you cannot get a good paying job after graduation.
Yes, because in the US and Europe, the only "good paying jobs" are as pure engineers, and people with non-engineering degrees are limited to working in areas like management and finance, which are minimum wage careers.
the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit
Wouldn't communist propaganda be that the individual's primary responsibility is to society as a whole, and that the family unit is simply a bourgeois socio-economic construct?
From TFA:
It turns out Ken Liu (no relation) wrote "Paper Menagerie," the first work of fiction to win all three of SF's major awards (the Hugo, the Nebula and the World Fantasy Award) a few years ago.
So I expect the translation to be excellent.
There is no necessary correlation between being a great writer and being a great translator. Really good writers tend to colour the works they are translating in their own image too much. For example, Ted Hughes's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses is a great Ted Hughes work, but not a very faithful translation.
From TFA, it seems that Liu has more of a leaning to the utopian Star Trek. Has he pushed that anywhere new? Or even how humanity will be different in the billion years of his story?
Not to mention, the idea that "capitalism" is the bane of humanity is so hilariously false it's difficult to even find words. If it weren't for capitalism intruding into China's once-red-totalitarian-socialist economy, he'd still be digging up beets for a living, not working in a power plant or writing science fiction.
Just because capitalism is better than totalitarianism doesn't mean that capitalism is good, and it certainly doesn't mean that capitalism is the high point of human evolution.
Sometimes i wonder if he confused magic with religion when formulating that last one.
Clarke didn't confuse anything: magic and religion are the same thing.
If you want socialism, maybe you should move to sweden. Have fun with that 75% tax.
Yes, it's not like you get a decent education or healthcare or welfare system for your money, the government just blows it all on ludicrously expensive foreign wars.
Oh, wait...