I have the same Logitech mouse and I have to say that it is a very good mouse. Perhaps it's not quite as "elegant" as the Apple one (for some), but it's still good looking and fits your hand well. To the others that are saying "omfgz wtf do you need 11 buttons for lol!!1", it's not as many as you might think. Left click, right click, 3 for scroll wheel (up, down, click), 3 right above the thumb groove, a button forward of the scroll wheel that by default scrolls up rapidly when pushed/held, one rear of the scroll wheel that does the same, and one just rear of that that switches programs. Thats a total of 11, all programmable, system wide or application specific (in Windows although I'm guessing you could do the same in Linux with imwheel or xmodmap or something). By the same standards, the new Apple mouse has 8: Left click, right click, left side button, right side button, and 4 for the ball (at least).
So maybe you don't need all those buttons but it's not like they are in the way. They are still very useful to have to map things to (just like Apple is touting).
OH I get it, you're just Mac/Apple fanatics. When Logitech does it, it's a big monstrosity. When Apple does it, it's sleak, elegant, and advanced.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. I only have one Windows partition left (and that's on a dual-boot system) that I use for games. And that may soon disappear as well - I tried the latest version of Cedega last night and the few games I tried all worked (nearly) perfectly.
My point was that while Linux is a completely viable OS and better than Windows in almost every way, it's not true competition for Windows. For desktop systems, Linux has an even smaller market share than Apple (I think). What's worse is that very few people, at least that I know, even realize that there is an OS called Linux (of the people that even know what an OS is). Until that changes, I don't think Linux can be said to be true competition for Windows.
Tracking people not possible, its just unfeasible since its a short range
Just because it's not currently feasible doesn't mean it won't be in the future (even the relatively near future). All you would need is enough sensors and a network capable of handling the data. Not long ago it wasn't feasible to have red light traffic cameras, but now they are spreading like wildfire. Not long ago it wasn't feasible to have 'security' cameras on public streets to watch for 'criminal activity', but now they too are appearing in cities. How long will it be before it is feasible to track anyone at the whim of a government official?
Actually, I thought the problem was that they were not hesitating enough. It's called panic fire. Soldiers with fully automatic weapons would often just try to spray an area with bullets which often caused decreased accuracy and therefore fewer enemy casualties (bad during a firefight) and less focus by the soldier on his training which means a less effective soldier and an increased risk to the entire unit due to lack of cohesion. The solution was to use a burst mode on the weapons in which the weapon fires a maximum of three (usually) bullets on one pull of the trigger, providing a good balance between avoiding panic fire and offering minimal restriction to the soldier. All that aside, I fail to see how a soldier with enemy bullets whizzing all around him would be afraid to fire because he is worried he might kill an enemy.
You seem to be implying that video games cause an increase in violent behavior and turn our troops into cold-blooded killers. Killing an enemy who is trying to kill you just as hard in war is vastly different from criminal violence of any kind, regardless of influence in either case. Even if what you say about the military is true, all the does is show that the inclusion of video games in the training strategy makes soldiers more effective - possibly reducing wartime and casualties on all sides. That still has no bearing on the article which states that there has been a decrease in violent activity by our country's youth, possibly because of violent video games. That is the article was not saying that there is a complete separation between the virtual and real worlds. Instead it was saying that games give people a place where they can act out their desires that would otherwise be unacceptable, without real consequences.
I was raised by two college educated parents who at least tried to make me understand the value of a good education. I do understand that not every parent is fit to evaluate their children's education, but those are the same people that probably are not fit to be parents in the first place. Modeling an education system to cater to these people just ruins it for everyone else. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of middle class parents, as well as a fair percentage of lower class parents who want better for their children, push their kids to want a good education. Those that do should be able to choose a school that they think would be best for their offspring. How could it be any worse than the system we have now in which no decisions are made by the parents (except those few that send their children to private school)?
I am sorry that you seem to have had such a negative experience with parents, but just because that is your experience does not mean it is the same for others. Just because there are some among us that are criminals, should we live in a police state where all of our actions are closely monitored and regulated? No. Just because there are some who would use the knowledge to create bombs, should we ban the teaching of chemistry? No. Just because some parents make bad decisions for their children, should we force an inept education system on them? In a word, no.
Right, because no parent would choose the school with the best performance for their money. The way I see it, something like this would force parents to view school as something more than free (in direct terms) daycare for their children. Even if some kids did end up at the cheap "Pepsi McSchool of Jesus," would that really be worse than what we have now where it seems most leave the system without even a basic understanding of their rights and how their government works?
Besides, I'd bet that the "Pepsi McSchool of Jesus" would have some humorously bizarre (and tasty) elective classes:)
... first read that as U.S. High Level Anti-Privacy Post Created?
But seriously, is this really going to help anyone (besides big business)? Besides, it's not like the Chinese government is just going to let the US dictate laws in China. All I see is more of my tax dollars being wasted.
I agree with you 100%. I was mostly just trying to be mildly informative with a touch of humor.
Still, until people wake up and are willing to fight and/or die for their rights, little things like this are decent tools for the rest of us in the interim.
How sad. I find it baffling that the citizens of the United States of America have no idea what the Constitution is, stands for, or says. You really should read it sometime. I'll help you out though, heres a little excerpt from a section of the Constitution called The Bill of Rights.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the Founders were smart enough to know that assholes would try to use the fact that not every single possible right someone can think of is explicitly given or denied. Hence, Amendment IX. In Amendment X, all rights not explicitly declared in the Constitution are reservered for states and the people. They put two goddamned amendments into the Constitution so it would be hard to miss this relatively simple concept... but you and millions of other people did anyways.
You're right, Jose Padilla is an American citizen so he should have his rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Apparently, he has not been given this and this is an extremely bad thing. The Constitution supercedes ALL other laws, so it wouldn't really matter if the PATRIOT Act said all citizens can be detained without question - it is unconstitutional.
You are right about the PATRIOT Act applying to aliens. It modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by inserting a large body of text that describes the things I was talking about. Section 236A (a)(3): CERTIFICATION.--The Attorney General may certify an
alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable
grounds to believe that the alien--
(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i),
212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i),
237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers
the national security of the United States.
The sections described in Section 236A(a)(3)(A) of the PATRIOT Act are section in the Immigration and Nationality Act that describe aliens as pertains to security matters. Those sections basically describe aliens that engage in actions against the United States. Coupled with Section 236A(a)(3)(B) of the PATRIOT Act, any 'alien' is subject to the policies of the act if the Attorney General decides they are a threat, evidence or not.
For one example of removal of judicial review see Section 236A(b) of the PATRIOT ACT:
(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Judicial review of any action or decision
relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits
of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is
available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent
H. R. 3162--81
with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence,
no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas
corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
The PATRIOT Act gives the Attorney General a rediculous amount of power over the fate of 'aliens' that 'threaten' the US. Now that they've laid this framework, is it really so hard to imagine that some time in the future they'll slip in a modification that changes alien to person? Or, even more shadowy, changes the definition of an alien in the Immigration and Nationality Act to mean any person that threatens the US (afterall only someone alien to this country could ever disagree with it)?
That authority comes from the war powers invoked in Public Law 107-40 [gpo.gov]. Individual cases are subject to oversight both by the Supreme Court and by Congress.
Did you even read the document that you linked to? No where does that document even mention enemy combatants. What it does do is give the President war powers within the scope of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Not the US, not Congress, not the Courts, the President. See "SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES." (My emphasis added)
a) NOTE: President. In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
If you'll read that, you should notice that it gives the President complete authority to use any action he deems appropriate even for individual 'persons' so there is no oversight provided by Congress - besides, they're the ones that passed Public Law 107-40! Not to mention the fact that the PATRIOT Act removes judicial review in many cases.
Of course it doesn't actually say "enemy." What it DOES do is make radical changes to The Immigration and Nationality Act. See "SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS;
HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW":
''(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION.--An alien
detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed
under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in
the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional
periods of up to six months only if the release of the
alien will threaten the national security of the United States
or the safety of the community or any person.
Or, in other words, "we can hold you as long as we feel you are a threat." Then of course there is this little gem: "Except as provided in the preceding sentence,
no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas
corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision." That is to say 'except under the most narrow of terms that we control, there is no judicial review to our actions.'
And last but certainly not least, "There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings
to any other circuit court of appeals." This applies to anything beyond the rules for appeal defined earlier in the document.
So, to sum up, they can hold you as long as they want, there is limited review, and they take away most of your right to appealing your detainment (I think you can appeal directly to the Attorney General every 6 months - but of course he has absolute authority to deny it).
Oh but I forgot, our government never tries to deceive us so of course a simple search for "enemy" is sufficient review of their actions.
If you can show me in the Constitution of the United States of America where it says anonymity in your own country is NOT a right, then absolutely. Otherwise, you're just a moron and it's morons like you that don't care about our rights (those rights not specifically given to the government by the Constitution belong to the people) that will be the downfall of the freedoms we enjoy that have made us the country we are.
Here's what I don't understand. If God created everything wouldn't that mean He is responsible for creating skepticism in people? Why would God (especially the infinitely loving and forgiving God that described by Christians) sentence one of his children to an eternity in Hell just for behaving the way he was created to behave? Note that I'm not rejecting the idea of God but rather the notion that I must believe with absolute blind faith in what some organized religion tells me.
This is probably vastly off-topic but oh well... Maybe I'll get an informative reply (not expecting one).
When we're bombarded with messages that we need a secret, fancy-named product that we won't tell you what for
I'm guessing that if they told you what it was for, they would also have to spend 30 seconds of commercial time to explain that it may cause headaches, diarrhea, runny nose, bloody nose, nausea, hair loss, explosive colon syndrome (ECS), impotency, kidney failure, dizziness, necrosis of the penis, stomach ulcers, bad breath, cancer, death and in rare cases, spontaneous human combustion.
While Jack Thomson is an attention starved media jackass, he has never said (that I have seen) that he wants to take away the rights of adults.
He definetly is a jackass and I don't know much about him but: Doug Lowenstein embarrasses each and every one of you when he holds forth about what the 'Founders' intended when they drafted the Bill of Rights [the first 10 amendments to the Constitution].
Sounds to me like he is interested in taking away people's rights. Assuming that quote was not taken out of context by gamespot, he seems to be implying that the Founders did not intend gaming or free speech in gaming to be a right... a scary and mind-numbingly wrong statement to be sure.
The pioneers who built the first computers were engineers, so admittedly generally smart people. But remember they were potential users, long before they became programmers.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here but you display a bias yourself by implying that engineers are smarter than average people.
History is featured with people now famous in topics in which they had little training or education. They aren't progidy children they just had the right mind for the job (and the right opportunities).
True, however those people are few and far between and are therefore not a representative sample of the population. You are also correct about the mind: not everyone thinks the same way (not everyone has a mind to be a programmer).
In my humble opinion, a high % of people could, if they wanted, learn a decent programming language and put together reasonable, or contribute toward almost any, software in a short time. In all probability though I suspect people choose not to because they:
I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'decent' programming language since they all have their respective strengths and weaknesses. That aside, you are probably correct: anyone capable of graduating from high school could probably learn a programming language and write a program. That doesn't mean it will be good software though. Take your three subpoints:
Find it easier to tolerate what's available.
Probably true and this touches on an important point: this probably means they don't really like programming. I could go learn how to play rugby but I have no interest in it and therefore, it is easier for me to not.
Like most people follow the belief that programming is difficult and out of their reach (even to perform small contributions or mods).
This is also partly true, although if you passed point #1 of liking the activity you would see it as a challenge to be overcome. There is such a thing as different levels of ability and so programming will be harder for some than others. If this wasn't true, why would we have athletes that stand out as better than the rest? Or why do we have intellectual powerhouses that have stood out from the rest throughout history?
Existing programmers despite claiming to embrace 'open' source and free (GNU def.) software actually tend to have a fairly large ego
This is probably true, but in what field is it not? Almost everyone starting in a field is going to be treated as a lesser by the more senior members of that environment (perhaps rightfully so in many cases).
Most people could probably go on become a decent programmer given the offset little Arfa has been.
Given enough time and practice, it is probably true that most people can perform with at least moderate ability in almost any activity. However, willingness to put that kind of effort in is important. Just as I'm not willing to put much effort into learning how to play rugby, others are not willing to put much effort into learning how to be a good programmer.
The equivalent analogy in cars of programming a computer wouldn't be designing a totally new and/or better car, it would be making the existing car do new things, more fun, more economical, or more useful. A fair number of people tinker, mod, tweak and customization as well as maintain their vehicles themselves.
I think this analogy would better cover maintaining exisisting software. Designing a completely new program, especially one of significant complexity, requires a great deal of thought and planning which can at times require knowledge of the intricacies of the system or language you are working with. Thus, I think creating an entirely new software system would be (or at least could be) like designing a completely new car.
From what I hear on the grapevine there has been a fairly substantial increase in people taking up programming and computer s
Or, even better, this new 'feature' may end up being dropped from Longhorn like many of the other new whizbang features originally planned for Longhorn.
I'm not holding my breath though because this is the kind of feature that's good for everybody (except the consumer).
Actually the article he linked to does relate to his post. From the article: "Despite an infusion of approximately $2.4 billion in capital into the downtown since 1989 and remarkable population growth in the greater Phoenix region, the area experienced a population decline over the 1990s. Now another $2 to $3 billion is in the works for downtown projects. The lack of success for similar projects in the 1990s should prompt policymakers to question the assumptions of central city boosters." Since the GP was saying heavy central planning is a bad idea, and since the article also questions such a practice, I would say it has quite a bit of bearing.
So, either you didn't read the article he linked to, or you like big government and the statements in the article were ignored by your brain.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the same Logitech mouse and I have to say that it is a very good mouse. Perhaps it's not quite as "elegant" as the Apple one (for some), but it's still good looking and fits your hand well. To the others that are saying "omfgz wtf do you need 11 buttons for lol!!1", it's not as many as you might think. Left click, right click, 3 for scroll wheel (up, down, click), 3 right above the thumb groove, a button forward of the scroll wheel that by default scrolls up rapidly when pushed/held, one rear of the scroll wheel that does the same, and one just rear of that that switches programs. Thats a total of 11, all programmable, system wide or application specific (in Windows although I'm guessing you could do the same in Linux with imwheel or xmodmap or something). By the same standards, the new Apple mouse has 8: Left click, right click, left side button, right side button, and 4 for the ball (at least).
So maybe you don't need all those buttons but it's not like they are in the way. They are still very useful to have to map things to (just like Apple is touting).
OH I get it, you're just Mac/Apple fanatics. When Logitech does it, it's a big monstrosity. When Apple does it, it's sleak, elegant, and advanced.
I think you'll be singing a different tune when Galactica and the rest of the fleet shows up with the Cylons on their asses!
Slashdot dupe checking (now with comments!)
/* ...hahahahaha... */
/* hahaha... */
bool IsDuplicate()
{
return false;
}
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. I only have one Windows partition left (and that's on a dual-boot system) that I use for games. And that may soon disappear as well - I tried the latest version of Cedega last night and the few games I tried all worked (nearly) perfectly.
My point was that while Linux is a completely viable OS and better than Windows in almost every way, it's not true competition for Windows. For desktop systems, Linux has an even smaller market share than Apple (I think). What's worse is that very few people, at least that I know, even realize that there is an OS called Linux (of the people that even know what an OS is). Until that changes, I don't think Linux can be said to be true competition for Windows.
Tracking people not possible, its just unfeasible since its a short range
Just because it's not currently feasible doesn't mean it won't be in the future (even the relatively near future). All you would need is enough sensors and a network capable of handling the data. Not long ago it wasn't feasible to have red light traffic cameras, but now they are spreading like wildfire. Not long ago it wasn't feasible to have 'security' cameras on public streets to watch for 'criminal activity', but now they too are appearing in cities. How long will it be before it is feasible to track anyone at the whim of a government official?
Please tell me you are going for a "Score:5, Funny (dripping with sarcasm)" mod. *shudders*
There is a difference between Linux being a viable desktop OS and it being true competition for Microsoft Windows.
Actually, I thought the problem was that they were not hesitating enough. It's called panic fire. Soldiers with fully automatic weapons would often just try to spray an area with bullets which often caused decreased accuracy and therefore fewer enemy casualties (bad during a firefight) and less focus by the soldier on his training which means a less effective soldier and an increased risk to the entire unit due to lack of cohesion. The solution was to use a burst mode on the weapons in which the weapon fires a maximum of three (usually) bullets on one pull of the trigger, providing a good balance between avoiding panic fire and offering minimal restriction to the soldier. All that aside, I fail to see how a soldier with enemy bullets whizzing all around him would be afraid to fire because he is worried he might kill an enemy.
You seem to be implying that video games cause an increase in violent behavior and turn our troops into cold-blooded killers. Killing an enemy who is trying to kill you just as hard in war is vastly different from criminal violence of any kind, regardless of influence in either case. Even if what you say about the military is true, all the does is show that the inclusion of video games in the training strategy makes soldiers more effective - possibly reducing wartime and casualties on all sides. That still has no bearing on the article which states that there has been a decrease in violent activity by our country's youth, possibly because of violent video games. That is the article was not saying that there is a complete separation between the virtual and real worlds. Instead it was saying that games give people a place where they can act out their desires that would otherwise be unacceptable, without real consequences.
I was raised by two college educated parents who at least tried to make me understand the value of a good education. I do understand that not every parent is fit to evaluate their children's education, but those are the same people that probably are not fit to be parents in the first place. Modeling an education system to cater to these people just ruins it for everyone else. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of middle class parents, as well as a fair percentage of lower class parents who want better for their children, push their kids to want a good education. Those that do should be able to choose a school that they think would be best for their offspring. How could it be any worse than the system we have now in which no decisions are made by the parents (except those few that send their children to private school)?
I am sorry that you seem to have had such a negative experience with parents, but just because that is your experience does not mean it is the same for others. Just because there are some among us that are criminals, should we live in a police state where all of our actions are closely monitored and regulated? No. Just because there are some who would use the knowledge to create bombs, should we ban the teaching of chemistry? No. Just because some parents make bad decisions for their children, should we force an inept education system on them? In a word, no.
Right, because no parent would choose the school with the best performance for their money. The way I see it, something like this would force parents to view school as something more than free (in direct terms) daycare for their children. Even if some kids did end up at the cheap "Pepsi McSchool of Jesus," would that really be worse than what we have now where it seems most leave the system without even a basic understanding of their rights and how their government works?
:)
Besides, I'd bet that the "Pepsi McSchool of Jesus" would have some humorously bizarre (and tasty) elective classes
... first read that as U.S. High Level Anti-Privacy Post Created?
But seriously, is this really going to help anyone (besides big business)? Besides, it's not like the Chinese government is just going to let the US dictate laws in China. All I see is more of my tax dollars being wasted.
I agree with you 100%. I was mostly just trying to be mildly informative with a touch of humor.
Still, until people wake up and are willing to fight and/or die for their rights, little things like this are decent tools for the rest of us in the interim.
Fortunately we have things like StegFS. But I really shouldn't be disclosing such information, some people in the govA*$%#)D$@#$NO CARRIER
You are right about the PATRIOT Act applying to aliens. It modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by inserting a large body of text that describes the things I was talking about. Section 236A (a)(3): CERTIFICATION.--The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
- (A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i),
212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i),
237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
- (B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers
the national security of the United States.
The sections described in Section 236A(a)(3)(A) of the PATRIOT Act are section in the Immigration and Nationality Act that describe aliens as pertains to security matters. Those sections basically describe aliens that engage in actions against the United States. Coupled with Section 236A(a)(3)(B) of the PATRIOT Act, any 'alien' is subject to the policies of the act if the Attorney General decides they are a threat, evidence or not.For one example of removal of judicial review see Section 236A(b) of the PATRIOT ACT: (b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent H. R. 3162--81 with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
The PATRIOT Act gives the Attorney General a rediculous amount of power over the fate of 'aliens' that 'threaten' the US. Now that they've laid this framework, is it really so hard to imagine that some time in the future they'll slip in a modification that changes alien to person? Or, even more shadowy, changes the definition of an alien in the Immigration and Nationality Act to mean any person that threatens the US (afterall only someone alien to this country could ever disagree with it)?
Did you even read the document that you linked to? No where does that document even mention enemy combatants. What it does do is give the President war powers within the scope of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Not the US, not Congress, not the Courts, the President. See "SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES." (My emphasis added) If you'll read that, you should notice that it gives the President complete authority to use any action he deems appropriate even for individual 'persons' so there is no oversight provided by Congress - besides, they're the ones that passed Public Law 107-40! Not to mention the fact that the PATRIOT Act removes judicial review in many cases.
Oh, and the PATRIOT Act does in fact have provisions for detaining people see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156665&ci
Or, in other words, "we can hold you as long as we feel you are a threat." Then of course there is this little gem: "Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision." That is to say 'except under the most narrow of terms that we control, there is no judicial review to our actions.'
And last but certainly not least, "There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals." This applies to anything beyond the rules for appeal defined earlier in the document.
So, to sum up, they can hold you as long as they want, there is limited review, and they take away most of your right to appealing your detainment (I think you can appeal directly to the Attorney General every 6 months - but of course he has absolute authority to deny it).
Oh but I forgot, our government never tries to deceive us so of course a simple search for "enemy" is sufficient review of their actions.
Assuming those are true, it's pretty scary that the numero uno terrorist-man understands our freedoms better than our own governemnt.
If you can show me in the Constitution of the United States of America where it says anonymity in your own country is NOT a right, then absolutely. Otherwise, you're just a moron and it's morons like you that don't care about our rights (those rights not specifically given to the government by the Constitution belong to the people) that will be the downfall of the freedoms we enjoy that have made us the country we are.
Here's what I don't understand. If God created everything wouldn't that mean He is responsible for creating skepticism in people? Why would God (especially the infinitely loving and forgiving God that described by Christians) sentence one of his children to an eternity in Hell just for behaving the way he was created to behave? Note that I'm not rejecting the idea of God but rather the notion that I must believe with absolute blind faith in what some organized religion tells me.
This is probably vastly off-topic but oh well... Maybe I'll get an informative reply (not expecting one).
When we're bombarded with messages that we need a secret, fancy-named product that we won't tell you what for
I'm guessing that if they told you what it was for, they would also have to spend 30 seconds of commercial time to explain that it may cause headaches, diarrhea, runny nose, bloody nose, nausea, hair loss, explosive colon syndrome (ECS), impotency, kidney failure, dizziness, necrosis of the penis, stomach ulcers, bad breath, cancer, death and in rare cases, spontaneous human combustion.
While Jack Thomson is an attention starved media jackass, he has never said (that I have seen) that he wants to take away the rights of adults.
He definetly is a jackass and I don't know much about him but: Doug Lowenstein embarrasses each and every one of you when he holds forth about what the 'Founders' intended when they drafted the Bill of Rights [the first 10 amendments to the Constitution].
Sounds to me like he is interested in taking away people's rights. Assuming that quote was not taken out of context by gamespot, he seems to be implying that the Founders did not intend gaming or free speech in gaming to be a right... a scary and mind-numbingly wrong statement to be sure.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here but you display a bias yourself by implying that engineers are smarter than average people.
History is featured with people now famous in topics in which they had little training or education. They aren't progidy children they just had the right mind for the job (and the right opportunities).
True, however those people are few and far between and are therefore not a representative sample of the population. You are also correct about the mind: not everyone thinks the same way (not everyone has a mind to be a programmer).
In my humble opinion, a high % of people could, if they wanted, learn a decent programming language and put together reasonable, or contribute toward almost any, software in a short time. In all probability though I suspect people choose not to because they:
I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'decent' programming language since they all have their respective strengths and weaknesses. That aside, you are probably correct: anyone capable of graduating from high school could probably learn a programming language and write a program. That doesn't mean it will be good software though. Take your three subpoints:
Probably true and this touches on an important point: this probably means they don't really like programming. I could go learn how to play rugby but I have no interest in it and therefore, it is easier for me to not.
This is also partly true, although if you passed point #1 of liking the activity you would see it as a challenge to be overcome. There is such a thing as different levels of ability and so programming will be harder for some than others. If this wasn't true, why would we have athletes that stand out as better than the rest? Or why do we have intellectual powerhouses that have stood out from the rest throughout history?
This is probably true, but in what field is it not? Almost everyone starting in a field is going to be treated as a lesser by the more senior members of that environment (perhaps rightfully so in many cases).
Most people could probably go on become a decent programmer given the offset little Arfa has been.
Given enough time and practice, it is probably true that most people can perform with at least moderate ability in almost any activity. However, willingness to put that kind of effort in is important. Just as I'm not willing to put much effort into learning how to play rugby, others are not willing to put much effort into learning how to be a good programmer.
The equivalent analogy in cars of programming a computer wouldn't be designing a totally new and/or better car, it would be making the existing car do new things, more fun, more economical, or more useful. A fair number of people tinker, mod, tweak and customization as well as maintain their vehicles themselves.
I think this analogy would better cover maintaining exisisting software. Designing a completely new program, especially one of significant complexity, requires a great deal of thought and planning which can at times require knowledge of the intricacies of the system or language you are working with. Thus, I think creating an entirely new software system would be (or at least could be) like designing a completely new car.
From what I hear on the grapevine there has been a fairly substantial increase in people taking up programming and computer s
Or, even better, this new 'feature' may end up being dropped from Longhorn like many of the other new whizbang features originally planned for Longhorn.
I'm not holding my breath though because this is the kind of feature that's good for everybody (except the consumer).
Actually the article he linked to does relate to his post. From the article: "Despite an infusion of approximately $2.4 billion in capital into the downtown since 1989 and remarkable population growth in the greater Phoenix region, the area experienced a population decline over the 1990s. Now another $2 to $3 billion is in the works for downtown projects. The lack of success for similar projects in the 1990s should prompt policymakers to question the assumptions of central city boosters." Since the GP was saying heavy central planning is a bad idea, and since the article also questions such a practice, I would say it has quite a bit of bearing.
So, either you didn't read the article he linked to, or you like big government and the statements in the article were ignored by your brain.